% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Mller:889923,
      author       = {Müller, Leonard Jan and Kätelhön, Arne and Bringezu,
                      Stefan and McCoy, Sean and Suh, Sangwon and Edwards, Robert
                      and Sick, Volker and Kaiser, Simon and Cuéllar-Franca, Rosa
                      and El Khamlichi, Aïcha and Lee, Jay H. and von der Assen,
                      Niklas and Bardow, André},
      title        = {{T}he carbon footprint of the carbon feedstock {CO} 2},
      journal      = {Energy $\&$ environmental science},
      volume       = {13},
      number       = {9},
      issn         = {1754-5706},
      address      = {Cambridge},
      publisher    = {RSC Publ.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2021-00531},
      pages        = {2979 - 2992},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {Capturing and utilizing CO2 as carbon feedstock for
                      chemicals, fuels, or polymers is frequently discussed to
                      replace fossil carbon and thereby help mitigate climate
                      change. Emission reductions by Carbon Capture and
                      Utilization (CCU) depend strongly on the choice of the CO2
                      source because CO2 sources differ in CO2 concentration and
                      the resulting energy demand for capture. From a
                      climate-change perspective, CO2 should be captured at the
                      CO2 source with the lowest CO2 emissions from capture.
                      However, reported carbon footprints differ widely for CO2
                      captured, from strongly negative to strongly positive for
                      the same source. The differences are due to methodological
                      ambiguity in the treatment of multifunctionality in current
                      assessment practice. This paper reviews methodological
                      approaches for determining the carbon footprint of captured
                      CO2 as carbon feedstock, and shows why some approaches lead
                      to suboptimal choices of CO2 sources and that increased
                      consistency in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on CCU is
                      needed. Based on strict application of Life Cycle Assessment
                      (LCA) standards and guidelines, it is shown that
                      substitution should be applied to avoid suboptimal choices
                      of CO2 sources. The resulting methodological recommendations
                      are applied to estimate the carbon footprint of feedstock
                      CO2 for current CO2 sources in Europe and for future CO2
                      sources in a scenario for a low carbon economy. For all CO2
                      sources, the cradle-to-gate footprint of captured CO2 is
                      negative ranging from −0.95 to −0.59 kg CO2 eq. per kg
                      of feedstock CO2 today and from −0.99 to −0.98 kg CO2
                      eq. in a low carbon economy. The carbon footprints of
                      different CO2 sources differ mainly due to their energy
                      demands. The presented assessment method and the carbon
                      footprints of the CO2 feedstocks CO2 provide the basis for
                      future assessments of carbon capture and utilization
                      processes.},
      cin          = {IEK-10},
      ddc          = {690},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-10-20170217},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF3-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000570224500018},
      doi          = {10.1039/D0EE01530J},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/889923},
}