CARBON DIOXIDEUTILIZATION (CO2U) -ICEF ROADMAP 1.0
NOVEMBER 2016
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

AUTHORSThis roadmap was written by the following team to facilitate discussion at the 2016 Innovation
for Cool Earth Forum and for release at COP-22:
CO2 Sciences	
  Issam Dairanieh, CEO (Lead Author)
Bernard David, Chairman
Fred Mason, Project Management
Gerry Stokes, Strategy
Steve de Brun, Communications
ICEF Innovation Roadmap Project	  David Sandalow, Chair, ICEF Innovation Roadmap Project and Inaugural Fellow, Centeron Global Energy Policy, Columbia University
Colin McCormick, Chief Technical Officer, Valence Strategic

Acknowledgements
We are deeply grateful to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and New Energy
and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Japan, for launching andsupporting the ICEF Innovation Roadmap Project of which this is a part. We acknowledge, withgreat appreciation, the support from The Lemelson Foundation and the RK Mellon Foundation
for this work.
The authors would like to thank all participants in the workshop on this topic held at the
Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy in July 2016. We are grateful for the presentations by
Prof. Alissa Park, Dr. Tohru Setoyama and Dr. Etsuko Fujita at the session on this topic at ICEF
2016 in Tokyo.

	
  

2	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary.............................................................................................................. 4
I. Background and goals of the study................................................................................... 9
II. Overview of findings ...................................................................................................... 13
III. Momentum within recommended markets .................................................................... 18• Building materials• Chemical intermediates• Fuels• Polymers
IV. CO2U market sub-category projections through 2030 .................................................. 26• Concrete• Carbonate aggregates• Methanol• Formic acid
• Syngas• Liquid fuels• Methane• Polymers (polyols and polycarbonates)
V. Life cycle Analysis……………………………………………………………………...…… 45
VI. Recommendations for strategic actions .................................................... …………….48
VII. Conclusion………………………..……………………………………………...…..……….57
Sources and References …………..……………………………………………...…..……….. 58

	
  

3	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background: Confronting an urgent challengeThis study presents a roadmap for commercialization potential of carbon dioxide utilization(CO2U) technologies through 2030.
A significant reduction of carbon emissions is crucial to avoiding enormous economic andenvironmental damages. Renewable power generation and other low- and zero-carbon
technologies are an important part of the solution. Carbon negative technologies (those that
reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations) are also needed to achieve the agreed global goal of
keep temperature increases well below a 2oC increase over pre-industrial level. CO2U
technologies can play an important role, but have not yet received much attention nor have theirpotential been explored in a comprehensive fashion.
A detailed market assessment study completed earlier in 2016 by the Global CO2 Initiative(GCI) found that CO2U has the potential to reduce carbon emissions over 10% by 2030. (GCI’s
websites provides more details.) One goal of this work is to create greater awarenessconcerning the potential for developing and deploying profitable, emissions-negative CO2U
technologies on a mass scale.
The study: Identifying and forecasting market opportunity
This study analyzes the current state of CO2U technology, assessing almost 180 global
technology developers on the basis of their technology feasibility, readiness, markets andmomentum.
Research revealed that significant progress in CO2U has been made in the past five years(2011-16), with many technologies shown to be scalable. Momentum is favorable for four major
markets – building materials, chemical intermediates, fuels and polymers.
Within those markets, the study further identifies eight product categories to pursue, based on
the maturity of their technology, market promise, and potential impact on the mitigation ofcarbon emissions. Those categories are:• Building materials
o Concreteo Carbonate aggregates• Chemical Intermediateso Methanolo Formic acido Syngas• Fuelso Liquid fuelso Methane and• Polymers (polyols and polycarbonates)
Funding and incentives are necessary for most of these products to accelerate development
and achieve full-scale commercial roll out capability. This study presents a commercialization
roadmap for each of the eight categories.
	
  

4	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

The roadmap is developed with three dimensions in mind: policy, technology and market.
Those three dimensions greatly impact the path and speed to commercialization. The results
are presented by considering the business as usual case (status quo) which is also the worst
case scenario. The best case represents likely outcomes if swift strategic actions are taken to
remove barriers and mitigate risks.
Strategic actions to accelerate CO2U commercialization
Best-case scenarios in the forecast would support and hasten commercialization of CO2Uderived products across the eight identified product categories. These optimal scenarios will be
driven by the implementation of strategic actions recommended in this study. They include:
Technology• Research to improve catalysis for CO2 reduction must be funded. The needed
substantial increase in funding should come from government, corporations and private
institutions.
• Research in improving electrolysis to produce hydrogen must be funded.
• Government funding is critical for exploring early stage technologies and creating future
options for CO2U technologies.
Market• Collaborations among research institutes, start-ups, governments and corporations forprocess integration of CO2 conversion, hydrogen generation, and carbon capture mustbe funded.
• A CO2 pipeline infrastructure is critical for the deployment of CO2U technologies at scale.
This opportunity creates new business options/models and creates a new value chain
critically needed to scale CO2U technologies.
Policy• Substantial increase in government R&D funding• Carbon pricing, either through emissions trading or tax mechanisms.
• Tax and other incentives• Mandates• Government procurement• Government support for testing, certification and life cycle assessments
CO2U’s potential: Profitable markets and mitigated CO2 emissions
At full scale, five CO2U products (see below) could create a market over US$800 billion by 2030.
CO2U has the potential of utilizing 7 billion metric tons of CO2 per year by 2030 – the equivalentof approximately 15 percent of current annual global CO2 emissions. (This is an upper boundestimate, assuming zero carbon energy is used in all production processes.) CO2U can create
new business opportunity and simultaneously contribute to CO2 reduction. Both conclusions arein line of an earlier market study that the GCI commissioned concluding that CO2U can remove
over 10% of the emitted CO2 and an annual market opportunity of $0.8-1.1 Trillion.	
  Roadmap to 2030: Market size and mitigation impact
The market size and CO2 reduction potential can be significantly impacted by taking action now.
We show below examples from five markets. For example, the market for CO2-based fuels canbe quadrupled by 2025 (from $50b to $200b), increasing the CO2 reduction by 15 fold (from 0.03
	
  

5	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

b tons to 0.5b tons). Similarly, decisive and timely action can have a major impact on both themarket size and potential to mitigate CO2 emissions for other CO2-based products.

2020

2025

2030

Potential Reduction
in CO2 Emissions (tons)

0.3B–3.6B

Strategic actions implemented
Without strategic actions

0.1B–0.7B
0.01B–0.1B

Aggregates

0.07B–2.1B
0.03B–0.5B
0.01B–0.03B

Fuels

0.2B–0.7B

0.6B–1.4B

0.04B–0.2B

Concrete

Methanol
Polymers

0.0001B–0.001B

0.0008B–0.02B

0.005B–0.05B

0.00002B–0.00005B

0.00004B–0.0002B

0.0001B–0.002B

Figure 0.1: Potential CO2 reduction due to implementing strategic actions
Key

	
  

6	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Figure 0.2: Potential increase in market size due to implementation of strategic actions
Key

	
  

7	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Life cycle analysis
The climate benefit of a CO2U product depends not just on how much CO2 the product contains.
The amount of CO2 emitted in making the product also matters. So does the amount of CO2
emitted in making any competitive products that may be displaced. To the extent that climate
benefits are a goal of those promoting CO2U products, life cycle analysis (LCA) is essential.
Considerable work is needed to standardize life cycle analysis methodologies for CO2U.

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
The Global CO2 Initiative (GCI) and CO2 Sciences, Inc.
The Global CO2 Initiative (GCI) was announced at the January 2016 World Economic Forum in
Davos. The Initiative is focused on funding the R&D and commercialization of CO2-based
products that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to ten percent annually.
The GCI established CO2 Sciences, Inc., a non-profit organization that funds innovative R&D in
CO2U to create CO2-based products. CO2 Sciences is structured to aggressively catalyze
innovative research funding in carbon capture and use by granting up to $400 million in the nextten years to qualified research applicants throughout the world.
By harnessing market demand for products that capture and reuse CO2 – and through “impact
investing” – GCI aims to catalyze substantial economically driven change in the form of markets
and products that reuse increased amounts of CO2.
Innovation for Cool Earth ForumThe Innovation for Cool Earth Forum (ICEF) is aimed at addressing climate change throughinnovation. ICEF investigates via discussion what innovative measures should be developed,
how innovation should be promoted and how cooperation should be enhanced among
stakeholders in fighting climate change.
ICEF is held every year in Tokyo. The ICEF Steering Committee helps make decisions
regarding the agenda and program to reflect the wide range of views of the international
community. Policymakers, businesspeople and researchers from around the globe participate.
The ICEF Innovation Roadmap Project helps to promote the development and deployment ofclean energy technologies with roadmaps released each year.

	
  

8	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

I.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS OF THE STUDYThe Challenge: reducing carbon emissions
Over 35 GT of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere every year, altering the Earth’s climate
system and threatening catastrophic damages in the years ahead. The implications of climatechange are massive:
•
•
•
•
•

Economic and political instability
Food and clean water scarcity
Health or survival risks for all animal species
More volatile and extreme weather
Loss of landmass

In December 2015 at the Paris COP21 conference, more than 190 nations, in both thedeveloped and developing world, agreed on a framework that committed each to taking action
against climate change. The signers of the Paris accord agreed to:•••Limit global temperatures to “well below” 2o C (3.6 F) above pre-industrial levels and“endeavor to limit” them even more, to 1.5o C, between 2015 and 2030.
Restrict the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the levels thattrees, soil and oceans can naturally absorb, beginning at some point between 2050 and
2100.
Review each country's contribution to cutting emissions every five years, enabling themto address the urgency of the challenge.

IPCC and IEA experts have addressed the critical need for carbon-negative technologies tomeet these goals. Figure 1.1 shows that continuing to deploy energy efficiency and renewable
power generation will limit the increase in temperature rise, but could yield a 4°C increase. CO2 absorbing solutions are also required. Of course, plants are nature’s great tool for absorbing ,CO2. However, we need solutions that can absorb CO2 in greater quantities and at a faster rate.
Figure 1.2 presents two other options: Carbon Capture and Sequestration(CCS) and Carbon
Capture and Utilization (CCU).

	
  

9	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Figure 1.1: The need for carbon-negative technologies to limit temperature increase
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
Figure 1.2: Examples of carbon-negative technologies	
  
	
  

	
  

10	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Carbon dioxide utilization (CO2U)
CO2U differs from prevalent carbon capture and storage (CCS) solutions in one basic way.
CCS captures CO2 emissions exclusively for storage, usually reinjecting them into geologicalformations; the goal of CO2U is to convert CO2 into end products that in turn are emissionsneutral or negative.
The development of CO2U technologies is being promoted for three key reasons:• It can be used for mitigation to meet internal or external standards for CO2 emissions forcarbon dioxide producers.
• It would allow for carbon dioxide to be used as an alternative to fossil-fuel-derived
feedstocks.
• It can contribute to achieving national or global aims for decreasing carbon emissions.
CO2U has been the focus of a myriad of research tracks investigating multiple conversion
processes and potential markets and end products in recent years. However, the Paris
agreement and recent private and public initiatives have added new urgency and momentum tofundamental R&D efforts that will lead to more rapid commercialization of products that use CO2
conversion to reduce carbon emissions. These initiatives include the Carbon XPRIZE, a US
$20 million global competition designed to “incentivize and accelerate” CO2U solutions
development and the SCOT (Smart CO2 Technology) project, a public-private-academic
collaboration community based in the European Union and the Global CO2 Initiative.

This study: Presenting a global CO2U commercialization roadmap through 2030
This is a roadmap of the global commercialization potential of carbon dioxide utilization
technologies through 2030. CO2U technologies use CO2 (pure or as emitted) either unchanged(e.g., enhanced oil recovery/EOR, carbonated drinks, supercritical CO2 solvents) or by
converting it into a value-added end product like a fuel or a chemical.
This study focuses on products derived by conversion of CO2. Identifying the most mature,
economically promising and impact-mitigating applications for CO2 conversion is critical todriving further investment and innovation in catalytic fashion. That investment will accelerate
time-to-market for solutions that capture and reduce global CO2 emissions, and offer sustainableclimatological benefits.
Conversion challenges have historically created a bottleneck in the rapid development,
production scaling, and commercialization of CO2U-based products. Fundamental challenges
have included:
•

•

•
•
	
  

CO2 has been more difficult and expensive to obtain than the petroleum, coal and natural
gas sources of raw material for most chemical manufacturing. This concern has been
amplified in 2015-16 by the fall in global petroleum prices.
Converting a stable CO2 molecule to a useful chemical has generally required lots ofenergy, typically generated from fossil-fuel sources – thus potentially causing a netincrease in CO2 emissions.
It has been costly to provide the hydrogen feedstock necessary to create the desired end
products.
It’s therefore been difficult to assess the true potential (and by when) of CO2 mitigation,
11	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

and tie that to policy and funding decisions.
However, greatly increased attention to CO2 conversion by both developers and policy-makers
has produced new research, initiatives and collaborations that have the potential to addressthese challenges. These advances include, but aren’t limited to:• The development of catalysts that enable new technology pathways and makeconversion processes more efficient.
• Consideration of renewable energy sources (solar or wind energy) to power CO2
conversion. The reduction in the cost of renewable power generation technologies
is a major parameter that is making CO2U more feasible than it was 5 years ago.
• Advances in mineralization technologies to produce building materials.
• Advances in photocatalytic reduction of CO2, which uses light directly in conversion.
This study identifies:• Product categories and sub-categories with the most realistic deployment prospects
based on policy considerations, analysis of technology and forecasts of market potential.
• Current barriers to development and potential means of overcoming them. Criteria
include an assessment of conversion technology pathways and their relative impact on
CO2 reduction, potential market demand and geographical/geopolitical impacts ondevelopment and commercialization.
• Centers of activity in CO2U research and development.
• Projected timelines for deployment.
This ten-to-fifteen-year roadmap will enable decision makers and key stakeholders to makeappropriate and informed funding/investment decisions regarding technology development andcommercialization of CO2U technologies. Its ultimate focus is on clearly prioritized market entry.
The study will also show how policy/market/technology levers can be used to accelerate market
penetration.

	
  

12	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

II.

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

Six major markets identified
We have identified and analyzed 180 global developers who are actively engaged in CO2U and,ultimately, the development of end products.
A database of CO2U developers was compiled from multiple sources: conference proceedings,
the SCOT Project and PitchBook databases, patent searches, consortium websites, and the inhouse knowledge. These entities include start-ups, mid-sized companies, corporations,consortia and research institutes.
The study defined six markets or product clusters by number of active developers, conversion
technology pathways, and targeted end products:• Algae (processed separately to create biofuels or food additives)• Building materials (for conversion to carbonates or infusion of CO2 into materials)• Chemical intermediates (such as methanol, syngas, formic acid and malic acid)• Fuels (mainly for methane and alcohol)• Novel materials (such as carbon fiber)• Polymers (e.g., polycarbonates, polyurethane and PHA)
Concentration of active developers
We found that the number of developers was especially concentrated in three of thesesegments:• Chemical intermediates• Fuels, and• Building materials.

Figure 2.1: Number of active developers by end-product market cluster.
	
  

13	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

The study also identified and analyzed a wide range of technology pathways. Catalytic
conversion, mineralization and electrochemical conversion are the most widely studied
pathways based on number of developers (see Figure 2.2). Time-to-commercialization depends
heavily on this concentration of research efforts.
Catalyst development is critical in the drive to make conversion processes more efficient;research in this field builds upon decades of work in catalysis in general. Other processes –photocatalytic, photosynthesis and algae production – focus directly on using sunlight as a lowcost energy source for conversion.
The study concurrently identified and analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of six technology
pathways that are being used, or are being considered for use, in the conversion of CO2 tocommercial
products:
catalytic,
electrochemical,
fermentation,mineralization,
photocatalytic and photosynthetic.
Mineralization, catalytic conversion, and electrochemical processes have the highest number ofdevelopers and researchers, which will help propel these technologies forward.

Figure 2.2: Number of developers by CO2U technology pathway. (Some developers serve
more than one market.)
Catalytic conversion and mineralization are the most well developed pathways. Mineralization of
CO2 is the only conversion technology pathway currently being used for building materials.
Catalytic conversion is widely used for production of chemical intermediates, fuels, andpolymers.

	
  

14	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Fermentation is less established as a process for CO2 conversion. Two companies at scale,
LanzaTech and Newlight Technologies, respectively, use carbon monoxide and methane as themain carbon sources for their processes, respectively. Photocatalytic and electrochemical
conversion technologies at this time require more development and evidence of scalability.
Consortia and collaborations have been founded, notably in Europe, to fully utilize the impact of
CO2U technology on CO2 mitigation. In addition, the study found a significant increase in thenumber of new publications on conversion of CO2 via catalytic reduction. More than 600 papers
on this topic were published by academic and government entities on this topic in 2015,
compared to about 350 two years earlier.
Maturity and momentum of each market
Armed with direct interviews with over a dozen developers as well as secondary research, thestudy applied a technology readiness level (TRL) scale of 1 (least) to 9 (most) to determine therelative stage of development and create a framework for expected time-to-market.
The TRL applied in this study ranges from basic and applied research, proof of concept andlaboratory testing (stages 1-5), to prototyping, piloting and final development (stages 6-8), fullscale deployment/market introduction (9).
We also applied standardized rubrics to better quantify the mitigation potential and technology fitof each market.
Four markets recommended for funding and investment

Figure 2.3. The study has identified four markets that offer the best opportunities forsupport and investment. The assessment is based on an analysis of active developers,
first-person interviews, in-house expertise and scientific momentum.

	
  

15	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Another important consideration that was factored in our analysis is “permanence”. Permanence
refers to the period during which CO2 is stored in a product. Products such as cement can fix
CO2 in solid form for centuries if not longer. Products such as polymers may decompose inyears or decades, returning CO2 to the atmosphere and minimizing the benefits of using theCO2 in those products.
A related concept is displacement. If CO2 is used as a feedstock for liquid fuels, that candisplace the extraction of petroleum that would otherwise be used to produce those liquid fuels.
(This will depend on market conditions, but in many circumstances today that is the most likely
result of using CO2 as a liquid fuel feedstock.) To the extent CO2 in product creation displaces
the extraction of petroleum, there is a very high CO2 benefit because that petroleum remains
underground and is not combusted.
This study recommends further investment in four clusters or markets – building materials,
chemical intermediates, fuels and polymers – based on the following summary of findings:

	
  

•

Building materialso It’s thermodynamically favorable to make carbonates and requires less energy
input to achieve. This makes this market attractive for developers because thetechnology is more readily scalable today.
o The two main CO2U technologies used in building materials are mineralization for
carbonate aggregates and the use of CO2 to cure concrete. Key innovators
include Carbon8, Solidia Technologies and CarbonCure. Aggregates are coarse
particles used in construction and can be gravel or crushed stones or othersimilar materials.

•

Chemical intermediateso There are many research projects underway to make conversions more efficient;
for example, by developing more effective catalysts which could offer
breakthroughs in conversion efficiencies.
o Niche markets have been commercialized; one example is the production in
Iceland of methanol using geothermal energy. Methanol, syngas and formic acidare the most widely developed. (Please note that some developers categorize
these chemicals under fuels.)	
  

•

Fuels
o Production of fuels from CO2 fits within the macro trend toward low carbon fuels.
CO2 competes with petroleum-derived feedstock, as well as bio-based
feedstocks such as sugar cane.
o Fuels represent one of the largest potential market for CO2U technology given
the many global mandates for greener alternatives.

•

Polymerso Several production routes, such as polyhydroxyalkanoates and polycarbonates,
have already been commercialized for high-value products in niche markets.
o Key developers include Covestro, Novomer and Asahi Kasei.

16	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Two markets eliminated from further consideration
The study also eliminated two markets, algae and novel materials, from further consideration.
•

Algae is not yet cost-effective due to high downstream processing costs. Although algae
biofuel projects received over US $1 billion in funding in 2009-2010, largely fordevelopment and pilot-scale testing, investment began to dry up in 2011. The category
has been hampered by intrinsic limitations in algae production and a weak (to date)business case for production at scale. Some projects remain active and some newentrants have been identified. However, a majority of players from 2011 have exited themarket through bankruptcies (such as Abengoa, Independence Bio Products and A2BE
Carbon Capture) or strategic pivots, while others are idle.

•

Novel materials have to this point received very limited developer focus. While westrongly believe that such products can have significant impact on CO2 reduction, there
is a great uncertainty in time to market and scale. The case for CO2 to carbon fiber is aprime example. The study identified one research effort (George Washington University)
for CO2 conversion to carbon fiber, and it is at a very early-stage of development. If the
new process can make fibers at lower cost, then, emissions reductions can occur inthree ways:ooo

Use of a low-carbon-footprint carbon fiber product (assumes no change in market
penetration).
Greater use of carbon fibers in additional markets (assumes increase in market
penetration rates).
Replacement of steel by carbon fiber. This will have a significant impact onoverall emissions since steel contributes 6.7% to global emissions; there would
be associated benefits from reducing fuel use in transportation and freightsectors due to light-weighting.

However, we recognize that there are a number of technological barriers that need to be
overcome to attain such potential and for the purpose of this study market estimates are notincluded. We strongly believe that funding of this area is critically important given the gamechanging nature of this technology option.

	
  

17	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

III.

MOMENTUM WITHIN RECOMMENDED MARKETS

Eight sub-categories identified
We further segmented each recommended market to identify sub-sectors: end-productcategories with the earliest and highest likelihood of commercialization and success.
Differentiation was based on three major considerations:•Concentration of developers: The study considered both the number of developers ina segment and how far along they were on the path to commercialization thosedevelopers were. Success of commercialization was linked to:• Relatively low energy requirements for conversion technology pathway.
• Simplicity of reaction mechanisms or processes.
• Size of potential markets.

•

Market Dynamics: The study also assessed the progress of individual developers
towards commercialization in the 2011 to 2016 timeframe.
• It considered how many development efforts were at an early stage in 2011 andthen progressed, stalled or were disbanded.
• It also considered the growth or decrease in the number of developers over thistime frame.

•

Outlook: It forecast how long it would take to bring technologies in each segment toscaled production, while being cost competitive with incumbent solutions.

Based on these criteria, the study identified eight promising product categories within the four
markets:
•

•

•

•

Building materials
1) Concrete
2) Carbonate aggregates
Chemical intermediates
3) Methanol
4) Formic acid
5) Syngas
Fuels6) Liquid fuels7) Methane
Polymers8) Polyols and polycarbonates

	
  

	
  

18	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Visualizing CO2U innovation momentum, 2011-16
To gain a greater understanding of the dynamic progress among CO2U development
organizations during the past five years, we plotted their progress in technology and commercial
innovation and CO2 mitigation potential using a standard weighting system.
•

The technology score (vertical or Y-axis) is weighted based on (in descending order)
technology value, competitive landscape, IP strength and regulatory factors.

•

The commercial development score (horizontal or X-axis) is weighted based on (indescending order) on TRL (technology readiness level), developer base and commercial
maturity.

•

The mitigation potential (bubbles) is weighted based on (in descending order) market
size, ease of set-up and extent to which CO2 is used as feedstock.

We then compared the status of developer organizations in 2011 vis-à-vis 2016. Those followedfrom 2011 were color-coded based on their 2016 status.
••••

Green = Active
Yellow = Strategic pivot
Red = Discontinued
Gray = Idle or unknown

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

19	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Building materials: Significant progress, immediate opportunity
The study found that the use of CO2U in concrete curing represents an immediate opportunity.
Moreover, with additional allocated resources, building materials can have a significant
mitigation impact on CO2 emissions. The study found:•

Concentration of developers: A relative high density of developers, with many nearcommercialization and a relatively low number in early stage. Two significant factors
drive the success of commercialization:• Relatively little energy is required for carbonation.
• Concrete made by curing with CO2 has better performance characteristics than
traditional curing methods.

•

Market Dynamics: Developers were able to move from pilot to commercialization inboth the concrete and carbonate aggregates segments. Overall:• Several early-stage entities disappeared because they were not able to develop
a product beyond pilot stage.
• Several new developers focusing on carbonation to produce aggregates haveentered the market in the last five years

Figure 3.1: A visualization of the CO2U building materials market, 2011 and 2016.

	
  

20	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Chemical intermediates: Long-term opportunities; those with fuel applications areclosest to commercialization
In general, the study found limited progress in the chemical intermediates market over the past
five years due to lack of incentives and concerns about economic feasibility. Those productsthat can also be used as fuels or in fuel production – methanol, formic acid and syngas – offer
the best opportunity. The study found:•

Concentration of developers: A low number are near commercialization, with many inearly stages. The most widely developed products are CO (syngas), methanol andformic acid, for three major reasons:• Their reduction reactions are less complicated than those for other potential end
products within the chemical intermediates market.
• They can be used as chemicals intermediates and as fuels or precursors to fuels.
• Governments have incentivized fuel production from CO2 to lower carbon emissions,but this policy has not been the case for the production of chemicals.

•Market Dynamics: Very few developers moved from pilot to commercialization stage forall market segments. The number of start-ups investigating solutions for energy-efficientconversion of CO2 has increased dramatically, with most start-ups tending to focus on
catalysis and conversions by reduction.

Figure 3.2: A visualization of the CO2U chemical intermediates market, 2011 and 2016.

	
  

21	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Drilling deeper, a further analysis of the methanol, formic acid and syngas product categories
reveals:	
  •Concentration of developers: There are currently very few methanol developers, but
two companies (Mitsui Chemical and Carbon Recycling International) have been
identified with commercialized technology; in syngas and formic acid, the study identified
multiple early-stage efforts focusing on conversion by catalysis.

•

Market Dynamics: Across all market segments, very few developers moved from pilot
to commercialization stage.
• Several startups have been formed for the three markets, indicating potential growth.
Many are developing technologies for chemical production.
• The focus of most developers of syngas from CO2 is on using excess energy (e.g.,
from chemical or steel plants) to produce syngas that can be converted to a different
product by another process.

22	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Fuels: Two sub-categories are at – or near – commercialization
Liquid fuels: Ready to produce at scaleSignificant progress within the liquid fuels sub-category during the last five years shows that thetechnology is primed for production at scale. The study found:•

Concentration of developers: Four developers are near commercialization or havealready commercialized CO2U; LanzaTech is able to produce in scale.
• LanzaTech converts carbon monoxide into ethanol, hence the low impact shown on
the CO2 mitigation score.
• Methanol from CO2 is closest to production in scale.

•Market Dynamics: Development has progressed relatively quickly for liquid fuels due toavailable government funding for projects and mandates for renewable fuels.
• Stage of development went from pilot testing in the lab in 2011 to pilot testing at
commercial scale in 2016.
• The focus of developments has been on integrating CO2 capture, renewable energy
supply, hydrogen generation and CO2 conversion in the case of methanol and on
efficient (multi-step) conversion of CO2 into fuels in the case of other liquid fuels.
• Europe is leading because it has set targets to create a low-carbon-emission mobility
economy.

Figure 3.3: A visualization of the CO2U liquid fuels market, 2011 and 2016.

	
  

23	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Methane: Significant technological progress
Progress has been especially pronounced in Europe because of funding support. However, thelow price of natural gas poses a significant competitive challenge. Additionally needing to add 4
Hydrogen molecules while eliminating 2 Oxygen molecules makes such development extremely
energy intensive.
•

Concentration of developers: Three CO2U methane developers were found to be nearcommercialization.
• Although the processes have been shown to be at scale, it remains to be seen if they
will be cost-effective without subsidized funds.

•

Market Dynamics: Development has been relatively fast for the methane sub-categorycompared to the others due to funding and collaborations in Europe.
• Stage of development went from pilot testing in the lab in 2011 to pilot testing at
commercial scale in 2016.
• Focus of collaborations is on integrating CO2 capture, renewable energy supply,hydrogen generation and CO2 conversion into gaseous or liquid fuels.
• Europe is leading because it has set targets to create a low carbon-emission mobility
economy.
• Projects often focus on the use of overcapacity of electricity or excess heat fromindustrial plants.

Figure 3.4: A visualization of the CO2U methane market, 2011 and 2016

	
  

24	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Polymers: A dearth of incentives, and startups
The creation of polymers through CO2U is possible, but not yet economical. A limited number ofdevelopers are investing in it, but lack of incentives is inhibiting the entry of startups. The study
found:• Concentration of developers: Several are near commercialization, but there are very
few early-stage developers.
• Several companies have shown that polymers from CO2 can be produced at scale.
• Most companies have focused on polycarbonates and polyols (used to produce
polyurethane). These companies were able to build on years of expertise in catalysis
to commercialize their CO2U technology. This allows developers to replacetechnology that uses dangerous phosgene gas.
• Some developers are corporations (e.g., Covestro and Asahi Kasei) that have usedtheir know-how in catalysis to develop commercial pilot plants for producing
polymers from CO2.
• Production capacity remains a fraction (less than one percent) of the current capacity
available to develop polymers from conventional feedstocks.
•

Market Dynamics: Developers have successfully moved from lab and pilot tocommercialization stage. However, the lack of new initiatives indicates that follow-up
projects from those developers and competing companies will be rare – most likely due
to the current relatively high cost of polymers made from CO2.

Figure 3.5: A visualization of the CO2U polymers market, 2011 and 2016.

	
  

25	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

IV.

CO2U MARKET SUB-CATEGORY PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2030

Market sizing
The study estimated the 2015 market size and estimated compounded annual growth rates(CAGR) of each of the eight categories within the four markets. The findings were based on
existing proprietary research and secondary information from annual reports, published market
studies and industry publications. The below diagram shows the methodology used in assessing
addressable markets.

We have used several references (see tables below) to estimate: market size, market growth,use of CO2, penetration rates and other factors.

	
  

26	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

The study then projected each cluster’s market penetration rate based on three scenarios:• Best case: Strategic actions are taken that remove barriers at earliest possible
opportunity.
• Optimistic: Strategic actions are taken to mitigate barriers.
• Pessimistic: Status quo is maintained.
Each category and scenario has different timelines for mitigating technology, policy andbusiness barriers and driving market penetration. The study then estimated addressable market
size by five-year milestones (2020, 2025 and 2030).
In order to go from market projections to corresponding levels of CO2 consumed by different
products, we used the following table:-- Note: In tables above, numbers in Sources column refer to the sources listed at p.58. --

	
  

27	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

BUILDING MATERIALS: CONCRETE AND CARBONATE AGGREGATESConcrete
Concrete curing using CO2 offers immediate investment opportunities, with a potential for high
ROI, while also delivering on CO2 abatement. We expect the market to grow under existing
conditions, but additional incentives could accelerate that growth by as much as five years.
•••

Estimated total market size in 2015: 20-30 billion metric tons. The study estimates thatthe total concrete market is expected to grow to approximately 40 billion metric tons by2030, with a CAGR between 3 and 4 percent.
Technology pathway: Curing of concrete by CO2 injection is an add-on to current
processes (heat and steam), driven by performance and cost.
CO2U forecast and considerations: By 2030, the CO2U concrete curing market isforecast to grow to between 6.5 billion (pessimistic), 10.5 billion (optimistic) and 16.5
billion (best case) metric tons.
• Concrete curing using CO2 is partially driven by the need to increase performanceand reduce cost.
• No changes in codes and standards are necessary.
• Concrete production is a source of high CO2 emissions. Incentives to reduce carbon
emissions are few.
• Funding was available for developers in the past, especially in the US and Canada.
Several companies are in the commercialization stage.
• Concrete offers a solution for permanent CO2 storage.
• CO2 curing would reduce water usage.

Figure 4.1: Estimated growth of CO2U concrete curing market through 2030.

	
  

28	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Concrete: Barriers and risks	  Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihood
successful
by 2030

Availability of CO2 forcuringCapture of CO2 during
production of cement;
development of a supply
infrastructure.

High. If demand isproven, a comprehensive
supply chain will follow.

Lack of incentive forconcrete manufacturers
to adopt process

Concrete manufacturers
could be incentivized toreduce carbon emissions
by governments.

High. Concerns about
global warming will drive
governments to seek
solutionswithanimmediate impact.

Lack of developers

Increasefunding“green” concrete.

High. Technology has
proven to be viable.

forofmitigation

29	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Carbonate aggregates
Carbonate aggregates from CO2U have high potential to abate CO2 emissions, but they need to
become cost-competitive. The category offers an attractive long-term opportunity, if investments
are made in CO2 infrastructure and the scaling up of technology.
Carbonate aggregates produced from CO2U can be used in concrete, asphalt, and construction
fill.
Conversion of CO2 into carbonates offers the potential to convert low-value materials (such as
solid wastes containing calcium oxide) into useful products. However, materials from municipal
waste sites or steel plants must be transported from their point of generation to the carbonate
production site, increasing the price of CO2-derived products.
•••

Estimated total market size 2015: 25-35 billion metric tons. The total aggregate market
is expected to grow to approximately 50 billion metric tons by 2030 with a CAGR
between 3 and 4 percent.
Technology pathways: Direct carbonation; indirect carbonation.
CO2U forecast and considerations: By 2030, the CO2U carbonate aggregates market
is forecast to grow to between 1 billion (pessimistic), 3.5 (optimistic) and 10.5 billion(best case) metric tons. Drivers:• Concrete production is a source of high CO2 emissions. Currently, concrete
production via CO2U is not incentivized. If enacted, incentives would accelerate
growth.
• As noted above, concrete production is a source of high CO2 emissions. Incentives
to reduce carbon emissions are low.
• Funding was available for developers in the past, especially in the US and Canada.
Several companies are in the commercialization stage.
• Concrete offers a solution for permanent CO2 storage.

Figure 4.2: Estimated growth of CO2U carbonate aggregates market through 2030.
	
  

30	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Carbonate aggregates: Barriers and risks
Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihoodofsuccess
mitigation by 2030

Demonstration at large scale
at low-cost

Process
integrationofconversion to carbonates
and local supply of solid
waste and CO2

High, infrastructures can be
set up to be cost competitive
with traditional aggregates.

Lackofincentives
foraggregate
producers;
Payback periods could be
too long

Subsidize early developers ofCO2
conversion
tocarbonates or tax carbon
emissionsatcementfactories

High,
programs
andregulations connected to
COP21 will take time to be
implemented. Europe is most
likely the early adopter.

Product will have to bequalifiedbyexisting
regulations

Expedite standardization andregulations to lower time toless than 5 years

High,
regulations
andstandards will have been
resolved by 2030.

Other barriers include access to CO2, lack of funding to move the technology past low capacity
production, and lack of cost competitiveness due to transportation costs involved with wastematerial to be used as feedstock.
Carbon8 is currently producing 180,000 metric tons of carbonate aggregates per year, butscalability of the technology remains to be determined.

	
  

31	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

CHEMICAL INTERMEDIATES: METHANOL, FORMIC ACID AND SYNGASMethanol
Today, methanol is largely used in chemical production as an intermediate in the production offormaldehyde, methyl tert-butyl ether, acetic acid and dimethyl ether; olefins is an emerging
sector.
However, its emerging application – as a fuel blend – is potentially highly significant. The market
for conversion of CO2 to methanol is driven by the demand for fuels from renewable sources.
CO2U-derived methanol offers great promise as this demand continues to grow, but investments
are necessary to drive this market to its full potential.
•

•
•

	
  

Estimated total market size in 2015: 60-70 million metric tons. The total methanol
market is expected to grow to approximately 190 million metric tons by 2030, with a
CAGR between 7 and 9 percent. The estimate assumes that the bio feed stock market
share for methanol used as a fuel is 50 percent by 2030, and the overall market share ofmethanol used a fuel increases from 12 percent in 2015 to 30 percent in 2030.
Technology pathways: Catalytic hydrogenation; photocatalytic; electrochemical.
CO2U forecast and considerations:• By 2030, the CO2U methanol market for fuels is forecast to grow to between 4
million (pessimistic), 23 million (optimistic) and 34 million (best case) metric tons.
• CO2U methanol for use as a chemical intermediate lacks clear incentives for CO2
mitigation; no projects targeting the chemical production market currently exist. By
2030, the CO2U methanol market for chemical intermediates is forecast to growto between 1.3 million (optimistic) and 9.3 million (best case) metric tons.
• Methanol from CO2 is currently only cost competitive in special scenarios.
• Funding for “renewable” methanol is tied to production of energy from renewablesources.
• Major hurdles for methanol via CO2U are current high production costs and low
production volumes.
• Methanol from CO2 conversion, usually produced by the electrolysis of water,
requires cheap hydrogen and demands inexpensive/renewable sources ofelectricity (e.g., hydrothermal in Iceland or wind in Germany).
• Policies and regulations for CO2 mitigation driven by the Paris COP21 agreement
could help reduce costs.

32	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Figure 4.3: Estimated growth of CO2U methanol (fuel) and CO2U methanol (chemicalintermediate) markets through 2030.

Methanol from CO2: Barriers and risks
Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihoodofsuccess
mitigation by 2030

Access to low-cost H2Development of electrolysis
and access to low-cost
renewableenergy,i.e.
process
integrationofrenewable energy or excessenergy, carbon capture andconversion to syngas

High, pilot programs are inplace

Reduction of compounds
besides CO2, especially H2O

Catalysts

High, catalyst improvements
are expected

promotingCO2

and catalyst efficiency

production and inhibitors ofside
reactions;
Further
catalyst R&D

Current mandates for fuelsfrom renewable sources canbe met by biofuels from biobased feedstocks

Increasemandates,
implement carbon tax orreplacebio-based
feedstocks

High: Mandates are likely to
become more strict by 2030

Other barriers include access to a clean energy supply, relatively low energy density ofmethanol as compared to gasoline, creation of a CO2 capture and/or methanol infrastructure,and uncertainty about funding. Some of these concerns are also valid for other markets forfuels, polymers or chemicals.

	
  

33	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Formic acid
Currently, formic acid is used as a chemical intermediate in adhesives, preservatives,
dimethylformamide (DMF), and other products. Because it’s more reactive than methanol,
formic acid is more suitable as a chemical intermediate. Research in the reduction of CO2 toformic acid (CH2OH) is still early-stage. Formic acid also has been proposed as a fuel source forfuel cells. This application is still in a proof-of-concept phase.
Funding and incentives drive formic acid; potential is small as compared to other market
segments. CO2 conversion to produce formic acid has high potential in theory because formic
acid is suitable as a chemical intermediate. However, demand will remain low unless specificapplications are more developed.
•••

Estimated total market size in 2015: 500,000 to 700,000 metric tons. The total formic
acid market is expected to grow to approximately 1.0 million metric tons by 2030 with a
CAGR between 3 and 4 percent.
Technology pathways: Catalytic hydrogenation; electrochemical.
CO2U forecast and considerations: By 2030, the CO2U formic acid market is forecast
to grow to between 10k (pessimistic), 50k (optimistic) and 475k (best case) metric tons
annually.
• Applications need to be developed; current demand is relatively low.
• The driver for using CO2 conversion to produce formic acid is weak, because
governments are not incentivizing creation of chemical intermediates from renewablesources.
• Use as a fuel for fuel cells would allow for carbon-neutral transportation, if formic acid
were made from renewable sources.

Figure 4.4: Estimated growth of CO2U formic acid market through 2030.

	
  

34	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Formic acid from CO2: Barriers and risks
Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihoodofsuccess
mitigation by 2030

More efficient conversion

Research
into
improving
catalyst
selectivity
andincreasing catalyst life. This
includes catalysts that would
allow for contaminated CO2.

High, development will take10-15 years

Lack of funding for programs
to focus on formic acid fromCO2

Set up government or private
programs,
especiallyin
APAC and the US.
Incentivize
collaboration
between renewable energy
suppliers and converters.

High, funding is available inEurope. US and APAC will
follow suit if programs are
successful

Lack of current demand forformic acid

Formic acid couldbedeveloped as an alternative`green’ chemical intermediateor a fuel to fuel cells

Low, demand in these fields
is unlikely to be high unlessthere is a breakthrough infuels cells

Formic acid from CO2 cannot compete for another 10 years, perhaps 15. CO2U formic acid ismore early stage than methanol and syngas.
Other barriers include access to a clean energy supply, creation of a CO2 capture infrastructure,
insufficient incentive for formic acid producers to reduce carbon emissions, and lack of accessto plants for scale-up projects. These concerns may also be valid for other markets for fuels,
polymers or chemicals.

	
  

35	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

SyngasSyngas (synthesis gas) is a versatile chemical intermediate; it is more reactive. Its uses include
making liquid fuels (by Fischer-Tropsch reaction) as well as methanol itself. Syngas is also usedin power generation, but this application is not considered a CO2U end product because othermethods are more efficient and lower in cost. Although it’s currently relatively small, the syngas
market derived from carbon monoxide and hydrogen is growing at a healthy CAGR (8 percent).
Syngas from CO2 has significant potential as it can be used as an intermediate in the productionof many chemicals and materials. Many developers are investigating CO2 conversion to syngas.
However, efforts must be incentivized to be able to compete with more conventional production
methods by 2030.
•••

Estimated total market size in 2015: The development of syngas for power generation
makes the total market size difficult to quantify because syngas is normally converted toother chemicals or used for power generation; this study estimates the current market tobe 130-150 gigawatts annually. The total syngas total market is forecast to grow toapproximately 500 gigawatts annually by 2030 with a CAGR of between 8 and 10
percent.
Technology pathways: Electrochemical; catalytic hydrocarbon reformation.
CO2U forecast and considerations: The CO2U syngas market is forecast to grow to
between 15 (pessimistic), 110 (optimistic) and 265 (best case) gigawatts by 2030.
• Syngas from CO2 conversion can be used to produce a range of chemicals andfuels.
• Because it enables developers to produce fuels or chemical intermediates
downstream, CO2U syngas production can be added on to an existing manufacturing
plant. For example, the technology can be added on by steel plants to decreasecarbon emissions and generate an additional revenue stream.
• There are currently no direct incentives for companies to use renewable sources to
produce syngas; renewable alternatives include generation of syngas from biomass.

Figure 4.5: Estimated growth of CO2U syngas market through 2030.
	
  

36	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Syngas from CO2: Barriers and risks
Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihoodofsuccess
mitigation by 2030

Access to low-cost hydrogenand access to a clean energy
supplyDevelopment of electrolysis
and access to low-cost
renewableenergy,i.e.
process
integrationofrenewable energy or excessenergy, carbon capture andconversion to syngas

High if excess energy ofplants or renewable sources
can be utilized

Lackoffacilities

demonstration

Increase funding for pilot
programs and for scaling up
production of syngas

High, Funding in Europe has
focused on pilot programs

Lack of incentives to reducecarbon emissions

Tax on carbon emissions or
mandate reduction of carbon
emissions

Low, although Europe could
be an early adopter

Other barriers include competition with syngas generated from biomass, creation of a CO2
capture and/or syngas infrastructure, and competition with alternatives to reduce carbon
emissions at plants. Some of these are also valid for other markets for fuels, polymers or
chemicals.

	
  

37	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

FUELS: LIQUID FUELS AND METHANE
Liquid fuels
Liquid fuels include gasoline, diesel and kerosene, and additives such as methanol and formic
acid. Biofuels from renewable sources such as sugar cane have been growing through funding
and incentives, but fuels from CO2 conversion have a negligible market share at present.
Yet liquid fuels from CO2U have the potential to replace polluting alternatives. CO2 conversion toliquid fuel production demands an integrated approach to developing the technology,
incentivizing renewable fuels by policy, and creating an infrastructure for low-cost CO2.
•••

Estimated total market size in 2015: 800 billion to one trillion US gallons annually. The
overall liquid fuels market is expected to exceed one trillion US gallons annually by 2030
with a CAGR of 1-2 percent.
Technology pathways: Photocatalytic; biocatalysis; catalytic hydrogenation.
CO2U forecast and considerations: By 2030, the CO2U liquid fuels market is expected
to grow to between 7 billion (pessimistic), 45 billion (optimistic) and 165 billion (bestcase) US gallons annually.
• Europe leads in funding to lower carbon emissions.
• Europe has a mandate to derive 10 percent of liquid fuels from renewable sources by
2021. Sources of energy for conversion must also be to be renewable.
• European consortia have been established comprising members of the value chain(universities, energy suppliers, CO2 suppliers, converters and users).
• Fuels from CO2 conversion target the same market as fuels from bio-based
feedstocks.

Figure 4.8: Estimated growth of CO2U liquid fuels market by 2030.

	
  

38	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Liquid fuels from CO2: Barriers and risks
Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihoodofsuccess
mitigation by 2030

Current mandates for fuelsfrom renewable sources canbe met by biofuels from biobased feedstocks

Increase mandates or replacebio-based feedstocks

High: Mandates are likely to
become more strict by 2030

Access to renewable energy
at a low price

Increase availability fromenergy from solar, wind andother renewable sources

High: in areas of oversupplyof solar and wind energy

Efficient conversion of CO2

Technological advances inconversion of CO2 are

High: Advances in catalysis
and photocatalysis should
allow for more efficientconversion

necessary
to
allow
for
different quality feedstocks to
be used and to increase theyield of the conversion

Other barriers include lack of access to a low-cost hydrogen and clean energy supply andcreation of a CO2 capture infrastructure. Note that some of these are also valid for other markets
for fuels, polymers or chemicals.

	
  

39	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

MethaneMethane is produced from resources such as shale gas, tight gas and coal beds. According to
the Energy Information Administration, shale accounts today for one-half of US natural gas
production, with its share expected to approach 70 percent by 2040.
Producing methane from CO2 is possible, but it remains to be seen if it can be profitable. It can
only be cost-competitive if alternatives are made more expensive through carbon taxes or bymandating methane production from renewable sources. Developers are investigating biomethane from renewable sources to reduce CO2 emissions, and methane from CO2 conversion
will compete with these renewable sources. European consortia have been establishedcomprising members of the value chain (universities, energy suppliers, CO2 suppliers,
converters and users).
•••

Estimated total market size in 2015: 3-4 trillion cubic meters annually. The overall
methane market is expected to grow to 4-5 trillion cubic meters by 2030 with a CAGR
between 1 and 2 percent.
Conversion technologies: Fermentation; catalytic hydrogenation; photocatalytic.
CO2U forecast and considerations: By 2030, the CO2U methane market is expected to
grow to between 4 billion (pessimistic), 13 billion (optimistic) and 65 billion (best case)
cubic meters annually.
• Funding in Europe for the co-electrolysis of CO2 and water is ongoing, with several
countries possessing significant alternative energy sources, such as hydroelectricand wind power.
• Shale-gas-fired technology is replacing coal-burning plants in the US, thereby
reducing carbon emissions and reducing the drive in the US to reduce CO2
emissions.

Figure 4.7: Estimated growth of the CO2U methane market through 2030.

	
  

40	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Methane from CO2: Barriers and risks
Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihoodof successmitigation by 2030

process

Development of conversion
technology and access to
low-cost renewable energy,
i.e. process integration ofrenewable energy or excessenergy, carbon capture andconversion

High, pilot programs are in
place

No incentive to change; gas
is seen as an improvement
over oil and coal in countries
such as the US

Change in policy to mandate
more strict requirements forCO2 emissions or implement

Low, the US is meeting its
current standards

Low-cost
catalysts

Funding into development of
more durable and selective
catalysts; Development offermentation technology

Requirement
integration

of

and

effective

carbon taxes
High: catalyst improvements
are expected

Other barriers include low gas price of fossil derived methane, lack of access to a low-costhydrogen and clean energy supply and creation of a CO2 capture infrastructure. Note that someof these are also valid for other markets for fuels, polymers or chemicals.

	
  

41	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

POLYMERS
Polyols and polycarbonates
While there are a smaller number of developers compared to the building materials, chemicalintermediates and fuels categories identified in this study, several large companies with accessto technical knowledge and production facilities are focusing on the production ofpolycarbonates and polyols from CO2. Research into other types of polymers is more
fragmented.
Polyols and polycarbonates from CO2 have been commercialized, but it remains to be seen if
the technology can compete. Reduction of the cost of CO2 and/or greater incentives to reducecarbon emissions must be implemented to be able for CO2U polymers compete with those fromconventional feedstock.
•••

Estimated total market size in 2015: 8-10 million metric tons for polyols andpolycarbonates. The total market for these two polymers is forecast to grow to 17 million
metric tons by 2030, with an estimated CAGR of 3-5 percent. Other polymers, such as
polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), are far from commercialization.
Technology pathways: Epoxide copolymerization; fermentation.
CO2U forecast and considerations: By 2030, the CO2U polymers (polyols andpolycarbonates) market is forecast to grow to between 0.4 million (pessimistic), 1.7
million (optimistic) and 6.8 million (best case) metric tons annually.
• The major contemporary driver for the development of CO2U polymers is to reduce
CO2 emissions from chemicals and materials manufacturing processes and facilities.
• Funding is available in Europe to companies exploring using CO2 as a feedstock.
• The thermo-catalytic conversion process is not currently cost competitive.

Figure 4.6: Estimated growth of the CO2U polymers (polyols and polycarbonates) market
through 2030.
	
  

42	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Polymers from CO2: Barriers and risks
Key barrier/risk

Means to mitigate

Likelihood of successmitigation by 2030

No incentive for reduction of
CO2 emissions for polymers

Set up mandates andregulations.
Incentivize
collaboration
between renewable energy
suppliers and converters.

Low, although Europe could
be an early adopter

Not cost competitive

Improveconversion
efficiency, reduce cost offeedstock and/or energy,
implement carbon tax

Low, a global carbon tax isunlikely

Access to low priced CO2

Development of capture of
CO2 and creation of a supply

High, supply chain will be
developed
basedonprogress in other markets

and chemicals at plants

chain infrastructure

Other barriers include time for qualification of polymers by customers, access to a low-costclean energy supply, and uncertainty about funding. Note that some of these are also valid forother markets for fuels, polymers or chemicals.

	
  

43	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Overall drivers, barriers and constraints
Different market forces influence near- and long-term potential of different market segments.
Following are some of the overall drivers, barriers and constraints affecting this market:
Policy• The Paris agreement sets global goals for reducing CO2 emissions andestablishes a system to support national governments in doing so. The agreement
entered into force in early November 2016.
• In general, CO2U is not a priority in government R&D strategies.
• In recent years CCS has received more attention than CO2U. That has helped drive
down costs of carbon capture, which are essential for both approaches, but the fundingfor utilization technologies has been limited. However CO2U is now receiving greaterattention around the world. CO2U is often called “CO2 transformation,” “CO2 usage” or“CO2 re-use” by European policy makers and developers.
Technology• Lack of coherent funding strategies from governments to support CO2U technologies.
• Another barrier is the lack of access to facilities to scale up CO2U technologies.
• Lack of access to feedstocks – for hydrogen, CO2, and renewable energy – is anadditional barrier.
Market• A barrier is the lack of access to facilities to scale up CO2U technologies.
• Cost: CO2U must compete with conventional feedstock and bio-based feedstocks,
which are often lower in cost.
• Access to a national CO2 infrastructure.
• Lack of process integration of renewable energy and conversion processes (no robust
value chain)
The above barriers and constraints affect the different market segments in different ways. In
some cases, technology may be the biggest barrier while in others it may be the policy. Fig.4.7
attempts to show how the relative influence of the three dimensions: policy, technology andmarket on the development of different products. We have scored (1 through 5) the four market
segments as shown below.

	
  

44	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Fig. 4.7 Relative influence of the dimensions on different CO2- based products

For example, policy has a greater impact on the development and market penetration of fuelsversus polymers. Another example is the smaller influence that technology will play on themarket deployment of building materials versus polymers.

V.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT	  The climate benefit of a CO2U product depends not just on how much CO2 the product contains.
The amount of CO2 emitted in making the product also matters. So does the amount of CO2
emitted in making any competitive products displaced. To the extent that climate benefits are agoal of those promoting CO2U products, life cycle analysis (LCA) is essential.
Understanding the full life cycle emissions impacts of CO2U technologies is especially importantfor validating policy support and guiding research. As shown in Figure 5.1, a true understandingof the emissions impacts of CO2U technologies must be based on rigorous life-cycle
assessment, which takes into account emissions from steps in the CO2U process including:
•
•
•

	
  

The CO2 capture process,Compressing and transporting CO2 to the location of the CO2U process,The energy consumed in the CO2U process itself;

45	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

•
•

The production of additional feedstocks, catalysts and other materials used in the CO2U
process; andEnd-of-life treatment for the CO2-based product.

Figure 5.1: Emissions sources for CO2U technologies. Adapted from von der Assen,
2015.

The ISO 14000 series establishes a standard framework and general procedure for performing
LCA calculations and is widely accepted.i However, even when using this framework, manyother complications occur in practice.
The first complication comes from the impact of using different CO2 sources as feedstock for a
CO2U process. Electric power generation is the largest source of emissions, but many others
exist, such as natural gas processing and fertilizer production.ii These sources have different
energy requirements for capture (largely based on their purity) so an LCA must take this into
account. It is possible to define an “environmental merit order” that ranks CO2 sources by theenvironmental impacts of using them as feedstock iii . This is fine in principle, but CO2U
processes in the market will probably decide which sources to use based on capture costsiv or
pipeline infrastructurev instead of environmental benefits.
A second complication is to correctly specify what comparison the LCA will be used to make.
For example, comparing the emissions impacts of different possible end-uses for a specificamount of captured CO2 (such as storage, EOR, mineralization or chemical intermediate
production) is different from comparing the emissions impacts of switching from a conventional
process for producing a specific product (such as aggregates or methanol) to one based on
captured CO2.
Third, in all cases other than air capturevi, the production of CO2 for use as feedstock in CO2U
technologies is accompanied by co-products such as electricity, steel, cement, ammonia, etc.,
and the overall emissions of these processes cannot be entirely assigned to the CO2-based
product(s). The preferred method for handling this is known as “system expansion”, in which thescope of the analysis is increased to include all other relevant products.vii Unfortunately, this can

	
  

46	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

get extremely unwieldy for processes that involve lots of products, and it also means that the
LCA does not result in a clear emissions impact from a single CO2-based product.
The alternative method, known as “proportional allocation”, parcels out the total emissions
among the various co-products, usually based on mass. However, this method sometimes
leaves room for ambiguity, and different approaches to allocation have been shown to lead tosignificantly different LCA conclusions.viii
A fourth complication is the lack of data on some of the non-CO2 reactants, catalysts and otherparts of the full CO2U system. Tracking the emissions footprints of these items is a significant
supply-chain information challenge, and it is often impossible in practice to use complete
information for an LCA study. Therefore there is a need for standard approximations or
estimates to compare LCAs for multiple products on an equal basis.
Finally, it’s important to note that while the primary focus of climate policy is on CO2 emissions,
there are other environmental impacts from CO2U technologies that should be considered, suchas the acidification potential, ozone layer depletion potential, etc.
Because of these complications, LCA experts can come to very different conclusions about theoverall emissions impact of the same or similar CO2U technologies. For example, a review of 16
individual studies of CO2U technologies including mineral carbonation(mineralization), chemical
production, biofuels production, and EOR found a wide range of results, whose variation is so
big that it is difficult to draw conclusions about their relative emissions impact, or give guidance
to policymakers.ix
Unfortunately, because of limited research funding, the CO2U, LCA research community issmall, and there are very few additional studies beyond those. Some additional studies havelooked at the production of plasticizersx, synthetic hydrocarbon fuelsxi, polyols for polyurethane
production xii , dimethyl carbonate xiii , and dry reforming of methane for dimethyl ether
productionxiv, but there are large gaps in the literature. These LCA studies are relatively lowcost, and should receive more funding.
As governments and industry consider increasing policy support for CO2U, ideally, they willneed to compare and harmonize their approach to LCA as it applies to policy decisions.
Governments and industry should increase their focus on this topic and ensure that LCA isincluded in all CO2U research coordination efforts. However, given the increasing interest in
CO2U, other stakeholders may need to act sooner. The Global CO2 Initiative is planning toconvene a global expert panel in an attempt to ‘standardize’ LCA analysis for CO2U
technologies. Additionally, the X Prize Foundation is pursuing rigorous LCA for all entries in its
Carbon X Prize, and will gather detailed process data, putting it in a position to contribute tostandardizing LCA approaches for CO2U.
Policy and industry support for CO2U may also need to consider other key factors beyond theenvironmental impacts as analyzed by LCA, such as whether the revenue from CO2U
technologies can cover the costs of feedstock CO2, and the scalability of the technology.xv A
related challenge is the perceived trade-off between CO2U business models that maximize profit
through producing small volumes of high-value products, and those that maximize emissions
reductions by producing large volumes of lower-value products.xvi

	
  

47	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Of course, the challenges faced in applying LCA to CO2U technologies are not entirely new, as
LCA has been a key part of environmental analysis and policymaking for many years, mostnotably relating to biofuels and bioenergy.xvii Increasing funding for CO2U LCA could draw theattention of experts currently focused only on biofuels/bioenergy issues and bring their expertiseto bear on CO2U issues.
VI.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRATEGIC ACTIONSCO2U will only help meet climate goals if CO2 products are widely deployed. The prospects forthat are good in some market segments, although in others high costs, well-establishedalternatives and entrenched incumbents create barriers to market entry. Sound market
strategies, targeted technological development and supportive policies all have a role inaccelerating deployment and supporting CO2U technologies in the market.

TECHNOLOGY
Decrease the cost of CO2 utilization
Fund research to improve catalysis for CO2 reduction and to improve electrolysis to
produce hydrogen.
Conversion of CO2 into CO2U products requires more energy than conversion from conventional
feedstocks because of the thermodynamic stability of carbon dioxide. Research anddevelopment is focusing on catalysis and other conversion processes to reduce the amount of
required energy.
Thermo-catalytic conversion of CO2 has been commercialized for several applications. In
general, yields, half-life, and selectivity of catalysts need to be further increased. In addition,
operating temperatures should be reduced to lower operating costs. Funding should go into
applied research in catalysis.
A hydrogen feed is needed in many processes. Generation of H2 by electrolysis using
renewable energy at a low cost is necessary to make CO2U cost-competitive. Funding also
should go into applied research in electrolysis.
Funding also should be applied to research on alternative processes to thermo-catalytic
conversion:
fermentation, electrochemical, and photocatalytic means. These processes
typically demand less energy usage. And additionally, funding support is needed for researchthat enables CO2 feeds with contaminants to be used in CO2U technology, which currently
requires relatively high-purity CO2 to optimize catalyst life.
Maximize high-potential long shots
Fund applied research on long-shot technologies and applications that have the highest
CO2 abatement potential.
In addition to the four markets analyzed in this work, there are early-stage CO2U technologies
and applications that could offer solutions beyond 2030. It’s essential to fund fundamental and

	
  

48	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

applied research into these technologies to further maximize the potential of CO2U for CO2
mitigation. We propose that the focus for these long shots be CO2U technology that allows forsustained capture of CO2, rather than making CO2-neutral products. One of the highest-potential
technical areas in this regard is the production of carbon fiber.

Figure 6.1 depicts a potential timeline for implementing the technology levers.

Figure 6.1: Potential timeline for implementing Technology levers

	
  

49	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

MARKET
Scale up production
Make funding available to establish collaborations among research institutes, start-ups,
governments and corporations for process integration of CO2 conversion, hydrogengeneration and carbon capture.
Consortia should be established to enable the CO2U value chain, integrating carbon capture; thesupply of affordable hydrogen from sources such as a chemical plant or a technology likeelectrolysis; access to low-cost renewable energy (such as over-capacity electricity); andphysical plants for CO2 conversion and CO2U product manufacturing.
One example that currently exists in the US is the DOE-supported Joint Center for Artificial
Photosynthesis (JCAP). China has also created a research cluster around CO2U technologies at
SARI ( Shanghai Advanced Research Institute).
Access to Capital
Various institutions are not aware of the value proposition of CO2U technologies.
Articulating the value proposition of CO2U solutions will drives more capital especially impact
capital that has the social and financial returns in mind.
Such capital enables a faster adoption and faster market deployment of the CO2- based
products.

Figure 6.2: Potential timeline for implementing market levers

	
  

50	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

POLICYSupportive policies can help start and build markets for CO2U products. Different policies may
be appropriate in different jurisdictions, depending on local circumstances. In this section we
catalogue policies that can play an important role in promoting CO2U products.
Government support for R&D
Governments spend billions of dollars every year on research and development for clean energy
technologies. Yet support for R&D on carbon dioxide utilization is modest. A significant
increase in funding in this area could speed deployment of CO2U technologies and yield
important dividends.
In December 2015, heads of state from more than 20 countries announced Mission Innovation,a pledge to double R&D on clean energy within five years. Governments participating in
Mission Innovation include the United States, China, Japan, the European Union and Saudi
Arabia. The increase in R&D budgets from these countries in the next few years offers animportant opportunity to scale up government R&D funding for CO2 utilization. This could bepart of the R&D portfolio of all Mission Innovation governments (as well as many industries).
Carbon Price	
  A price on carbon dioxide emissions, whether through an emissions trading program or tax
mechanism, provides emitters with an important incentive to cut emissions. There are many
strategies for doing so. In the power sector, for example, emitters could respond to a carbon
price by (i) improving efficiencies, (ii) switching to lower carbon fuels, (iii) capturing carbon
dioxide and sequestering it underground, (iv) capturing carbon dioxide and using it in products,or (v) some combination of the foregoing. In cases in which capturing carbon dioxide and using
it in products is cheaper than the alternatives, a carbon price will provide an important incentive
for CO2 utilization. Even when capturing and using CO2 in products is not the cheapest
alternative in the short-term, a carbon price may help incentivize investments into CO2 utilization
technologies if market participants expect the price to endure for the medium- or long-term.
Tax Incentives	
  Governments could offer tax credits for the use of CO2 in products to help spur development of
the industry. This type of focused, direct incentive can have a significant impact. However tothe extent the objective of the tax credit is to cut CO2 emissions, it would be important toestablish eligibility criteria that took into account (i) the permanence of the removal of CO2fromthe atmosphere due to the product, and (ii) the life cycle emissions associated with the product.
These create significant methodological challenges and are an important area for future
research.
Mandates	  Governments could mandate the use of CO2 in certain products as a tool for spurring themarket. Broader mandates, such as those requiring the use of renewable fuels in liquid fuelsupplies, could also provide incentives for CO2 use, if costs of CO2 use are competitive withother compliance strategies.
	
  

	
  

51	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Pipeline and other infrastructure development	
  CO2 must either be used at the point of capture or transported by pipeline. Considerable
investment in CO2 pipeline networks will be needed for CO2 utilization to flourish. Governments
have an important role in helping establish these pipeline networks, both by facilitating
regulatory approvals for pipeline construction and potentially by assisting with financing.
Government procurement	
  Government (including military) procurement can provide early market demand for emerging
technologies, such as the US Navy’s procurement of biofuels.xviii This form of market stimulation
also helps establish standard technical specifications for new products, which can help catalyze
efficient supply chains. Several CO2U technologies may be good targets for government
procurements, such as CO2-cured cement and CO2-based aggregates, which could be included
in government procurement guidelines for construction projects.xix
Product labeling	
  Providing consumers with easy-to-understand labels on products indicating their environmental
qualities can increase demand for those products. Some of the most prominent examples of thisstrategy are the US Energy Star and Energy Guide programs, the Japanese Energy Efficiency
Label program, and the EU Energy Labeling Directive. Consumer products based on captured
CO2 could be incorporated into these or similar labeling programs. The most appropriate CO2U
technologies for this may be CASE (coatings/adhesives/sealants/elastomers) and related
plastics products.
Credits under regulatory and voluntary programs	
  Governments could offer additional credits under existing regulatory programs tied to the use of
CO2U products. For example, vehicle emissions regulations and appliance energy efficiency
regulations could include additional credit for vehicles or appliances that are manufactured using
CO2U products such as foam insulation. Governments could also work with voluntary labelingprograms such as LEED to include credit for buildings that use CO2U -based construction
materials.
Support for certification and testing	
  Governments could fund the certification and testing of CO2U -based products by organizations
such as UL, ASHRAE, ASME and others. These accreditation processes can accelerate theadoption of new technologies into existing supply chains, but do require funding in order to
conduct the necessary testing and certification steps.
Support for expanded Lifecycle Assessment studies	
  Governments could increase funding support for LCA research, with a focus on specific CO2U
technologies that are industrially relevant. If so, this should be pursued in coordination withprivate-sector efforts to improve and standardize CO2U LCA, such as the efforts by GCI and X
Prize. Governments could also work to improve data availability throughout the supply chainsrelevant to CO2U technologies.

	
  

52	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Market-focused recommendations	  Market-focused recommendations may also be useful as we believe there are current market
opportunities that can proceed without policy initiatives. Combining major technology andmarket recommendations for specific product categories leads to the following
recommendations
Building materials
CO2 curing of cements offers a superior product and superior price and should be able tomove quickly if the following strategic actions are taken:• Ensure financing for conversions of precast concrete facilities.
• Focus on converting the practices of incumbents rather than creating competitive
companies.
• Identify the most cost effective places to capture CO2 for this purpose.
• Build an infrastructure to deliver CO2 – pipelines ultimately, but probably rail, shipor truck initially.
• Conduct detailed market surveys to determine optimum places to begin
deployment on a country-by-country basis.
Carbonate based aggregates offer a very large volume sink for carbon dioxide but face
more entrenched competitors and a price sensitive market. The following strategic
actions are recommended:• Conduct detailed market surveys to determine optimum places to begin
deployment on a country-by-country basis starting with core material sources.
• Research needs to ensure that core material that may be hazardous is properly
contained by the carbonate and the intended use• Ensure that appropriate certifications are obtained for the material produced to be
used in concrete.
• CO2 sources and delivery systems need to be identified to support the locations
identified• Obtain financing for facilities based on the above, taking advantage of greenbank and development bank options in less developed countries.
Fuels, chemical feedstock and plastics
Practically all of these applications are in direct competition with fossil fuel enabled value
chains for the same product. To date these uses of CO2 have been strongly affected in
the market by the price of petroleum. Four classes of strategic action need to be taken:• R&D to lower the cost of the CO2 based product such as:o Improved catalysts for the generation of hydrogen and to drive theconversion process.
o Emphasis on products that can use existing parts of the production anddistribution infrastructure.
• Ensure low cost capture of carbon dioxide and to the extent possible sources thatare not fossil fuel derived.
o Infrastructure for delivery as noted above will be critical

	
  

53	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

•

Work with incumbents to ensure faster access to market and smooth transition to
non-fossil based products.

High potential early stage technologies
There are a number of technologies that have high potential impact but are in an earlystage of development. The acceleration of the products to market and application isessential. The following strategic actions are recommended:• Provide “end in mind” funding for research and development that does thefollowing:o ARPA-E like supervision of developmento Early engagement with market partnerso Rapid identification and handling of regulatory issues.
We project the above steps would lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions (Figure 6.3)
and create significant business opportunities (Figure 6.4)

	
  

54	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

2020

2025

Potential Reduction
in CO2 Emissions (tons)

2030

0.3B–3.6B

Strategic actions implemented
Without strategic actions

0.1B–0.7B
0.01B–0.1B

Aggregates

0.07B–2.1B
0.03B–0.5B
0.01B–0.03B

Fuels

0.2B–0.7B

0.6B–1.4B

0.04B–0.2B

Concrete

Methanol
Polymers

0.0001B–0.001B

0.0008B–0.02B

0.005B–0.05B

0.00002B–0.00005B

0.00004B–0.0002B

0.0001B–0.002B

Figure 6.3: Potential in CO2 reduction due to implementing strategic actions(Upper bound estimates, assuming zero carbon energy is used in all production
processes.)

Key

	
  

55	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Figure 6.4: potential increase in financial returns due to implementing strategic actions
Key

	
  

56	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

VII.

	
  

CONCLUSIONS•The commercialization of products derived from carbon dioxide utilization (CO2U)
offers opportunities to mitigate CO2 emissions at a profit.

•

CO2 mitigation and CO2U can contribute to decreasing the risks associated with climatechange. CO2U utilizes CO2 to produce materials, fuels, or chemicals, whereas mitigation
strategies like carbon capture and storage remain an added cost.

•

Significant progress has been made CO2U during the last five years, with manytechnologies proving to be scalable and visible momentum in four major markets:• Building materials• Chemical intermediates• Fuels• Polymers•

Funding, incentives and prompt strategic actions are necessary to move CO2U toward
full-scale capabilities. At full scale, CO2U could open markets reaching or exceeding US$800 billion by 2030.

•

In evaluating the potential for CO2U products to contribute to emissions reductions, life
cycle analysis is essential. Considerable work is needed to standardize life cycle
analysis methodologies.

•

Policies to promote CO2U include government R&D funding, carbon pricing, tax andother incentives, government procurement and government support for certification,
testing and life cycle analyses.

•

CO2U has the potential to utilize 7 billion metric tons of CO2 per year by 2030 – theequivalent of approximately 15 percent of global CO2 emissions today. (This is an upperbound estimate, assuming zero carbon energy is used in all production processes.)

57	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

Sources – Market and CO2 estimates (see tables at p. 27)

1. http://www.lafarge.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/04152015customers_activities-cement_market_2014-uk.pdf
2. http://www.worldcement.com/europe-cis/27082015/Global-demand-cementbillion-tons-449/
3. http://www.betonabq.org/images/imguser/WorldReport_Aug_2013final__01__ce
ment.pdf
4. http://www.rockproducts.com/features/13045-world-aggregatesmarket.html#.WCSIUWsrLb0
5. http://press.ihs.com/press-release/chemicals/driven-china-global-methanoldemand-rise-nearly-80-percent-2023-north-americ
6. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0306261915009071/1-s2.0-S0306261915009071main.pdf?_tid=f380e50a-802e-11e6-b29f00000aacb360&acdnat=1474485162_73a26316639140889fe672c6681af8f3
7. http://www.methanol.org/about-methanol/
8. https://www.methanex.com/sites/default/files/investor/MEOH Presentation - June
2016_0.pdf
9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915313835
10. http://chemplan.biz/chemplan_demo/sample_reports/Formic_Acid_Profile.pdf
11. http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/syngas.asp
12. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160405005127/en/Global-SyngasMarket-Reach-290-MW-2020
13. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/concise-analysis-of-the-internationalsyngas-market--derivatives-market---forecast-to-2018-246304851.html
14. https://members.luxresearchinc.com/research/report/16519
15. http://investor.covestro.com/securedl/13817
16. https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTGMR2016SUM.pdf
17. http://www.lukoil.com/materials/doc/documents/global_trends_to_2025.pdf
18. https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
19. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920586106000800
20. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrialuse-captured-carbon-dioxide/appendix-g-co2-concrete
21. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616001876
22. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915009071
23. http://press.covestro.com/news.nsf/id/aazc7n-address-by-patrick-thomas
24. http://www.econic-technologies.com/catalyst-technology/polymerisation-process/

	
  

58	
  

	
  	
  
	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
References – Life Cycle Analysis section (see pp.45-48)
i

ISO 14040:2006, “Environmental Management – Lifecycle Assessment – Principles and framework”; ISO
14044:2006, “Environmental Management – Lifecycle Assessment – Requirements and guidelines”.
ii“Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Analysis Model for Alternative Sources of Carbon Dioxide”, DOE/NETL2013/1601 (2013.)
iii
N. von der Assen et al., “Selecting CO2 Sources for CO2 Utilization by Environmental Merit-Order
Curves”, Env. Sci. & Tech. 50 (2016).
iv
H. Naims, “Economics of carbon dioxide capture and utilization – a supply and demand perspective”,
Env. Sci. & Pol. Res. (2016).
v“A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.”, DOE/NETL-2014/1618 (2015).
vi
R. Socolow et al, “Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals”, American Physical Society, 2011; “TenReasons to Take Direct Air Capture Seriously”, Lenfest Center, Earth Institute, Columbia University, July18, 2014.
vii
R. Heijungs, “Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA”, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 19 (2014).
viii
P. Jaramillo et al., “Life Cycle Inventory of CO2 in an Enhanced Oil Recovery System”, Env. Sci. &Tech. 43 (2009).
ix
R. M. Cuéllar-Franca and Adisa Azapagic, “Carbon capture, storage and utilization technologies: A
critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts”, Journal of CO2 Utilization 9(2015).
x
B. Schäffner et al., “Synthesis and Application of Carbonated Fatty Acid Esters from Carbon Dioxide
Including a Life Cycle Analysis”, ChemSusChem 7 (2014).
xi
C. van der Giesen et al., “Energy and Climate Impacts of Producing Synthetic Hydrocarbon Fuels from
CO2”, Env. Sci. & Tech. 48 (2014).
xii
N. von der Assen and A. Bardow, “Life cycle assessment of poyols for polyurethane production using
CO2 as feedstock: insights from an industrial case study”, Green Chem. 16 (2014).
xiii
I. Garcia-Herrero et al., “Environmental Assessment of Dimethyl Carbonate Production: Comparison ofa Novel Electrosynthesis Route Utilizing CO2 with a Commercial Oxidative Carbonylation Process”, ACS
Sus. Chem. & Eng. 4 (2016).
xiv
W. Schakel et al., “Assessing the techno-environmental performance of CO2 utilization via dry
reforming of methane for the production of dimethyl ether”, Journal of CO2 Utilization 16 (2016).
xv
S. Bennett et al., “Towards a framework for discussing and assessing CO2 utilisation in a climate
context”, Energy Procedia 63 (2014).
xvi
M. Extavour and P. Bunje, “CCUS: Utilizing CO2 to Reduce Emissions”, CEP Magazine, June 2016.
xvii
M. McManus and C. Taylor, “The changing nature of life cycle assessment”, Biomass and Bioenergy
82 (2015).
xviii“Biofuels are included in latest U.S. Navy fuel procurement”, US Energy Information Administration,
July 25, 2014.
xix
See, e.g. “Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Construction Products”, US EPA website.

	
  

59