Environ. Sci. Technol.
2006, 40, 4016-4024
Life Cycle Investigation of CO2
Recovery and Sequestration
HSIEN H. KHOO* AND
REGINALD B. H. TAN
Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences, 1 Pesek Road,
Jurong Island, Singapore 627833
The Life Cycle Assessment of four CO2 recovery technologies,
combined with nine CO2 sequestration systems, serves
to expand the debate of CO2 mitigation methods beyond a
single issuesprevention of global warmingsto a wider
range of environmental concerns: resource depletion, acidic
and toxic gases, wastes, etc, so that the overall, and
unexpected, environmental impacts may be revealed.
1. Introduction
The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere
has spurred worldwide concerns of potential global climate
change among international organizations, governments, and
environmental scientists (1). Global warming or climate
change is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels to
meet worldwide energy demands (2). The World Energy
Outlook has projected that, given the present trend in
industrial development, worldwide energy use will grow by
1.7% annually from 2004 until the year 2030, which is an
overwhelming 58% increase (3).
Many types of methods are currently being investigated
to reduce the amount of CO2 escaping from the power plants
flue gas into the atmosphere. Among those discussed here
are post combustion capture technologies, and ocean and
geological sequestration (4-5).
2. Layout
In the next three sections, coal-fired power and CO2 recovery
methods will be presented followed by the introduction of
CO2 sequestration. In Section 6, life cycle assessment or LCA
will be used as powerful tool to analyze the CO2 fixation
technologies. In Stage 1, LCA is used to study a coal-fired
power plant, starting from coal mining, transportation, and
ending with the final generation of electricity. In Stage 2, an
LCA investigation is carried out for four types of CO2 recovery
technologies. In Stage 3, LCA will be performed to compare
various CO2 sequestration options.
The life cycle impact assessment results and interpreta-
tions/discussions will be presented in Section 7. In Section
8, CO2 sequestration effectiveness is carried out. The paper
then ends with some further discussions (Section 9).
3. Coal-Fired Electricity Generation
In the U.S. alone, over 1.6 billion tons of CO2 is produced
each year from power plants (2). A 1000 MW pulverized coal-
fired power plant can emit up to 6-8 Mt of CO2 annually,
an oil-fired power plant emits about 25% less, and a natural
gas combined cycle power plant emits about half of the CO2
emissions that come from coal-powered plants (4). Accord-
ingly, coal-based electricity is selected as the prime energy
* Corresponding author phone: (65) 6796-3952; fax: (65) 6873-
4805; e-mail: khoo_hsien_hui@ices.a-star.edu.sg.
4016 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006
provider for the various types of technologies or systems
investigated throughout the paper.
4. CO2 Recovery
Basic descriptions of four postcombustion capture tech-
nologies are presented in this section.
4.1. Chemical Absorption. Chemical absorption of CO2
by the use of solvents is the most well-established method
of CO2 capture in power plants. In this process, the CO2 from
the flue gas reacts with a chemical solvent to form a
compound which is then broken down by the application of
heat and regeneration. Typical solvents are monoethanol-
amine (MEA), diethanolamine, and potassium carbonate (6).
CO2 recovery rates of 95-98% can be achieved by using
amines (7). Chemical absorption processes need heat for
regeneration. The energy demands are estimated to be 330-
340 kWh per ton CO2 recovered; these values are for both
heat requirements and solvent regeneration (8-9). Since the
solvent is completely recycled in the process, the only
emissions generated in this technique are those caused by
energy use.
4.2. Membrane Separation. This physical process allows
CO2 to pass through the membrane wall while excluding the
other parts of the flue gas (1). Commercially available
polymeric gas separation membranes are mostly used with
energy demands of 70-75 kWh per ton of recovered CO2 (9).
Typical removal rates are 82-88% of CO2 from the power
plants flue gases (10-11). The main air pollution generated
from this technology is from energy use.
4.3. Cryogenics. Cryogenic fractionation can separate CO2
from other gases using pressure and temperature control. In
a cryogenic separation system, CO2 is physically separated
from other gases by condensing it at an extremely low
temperature. The amount of CO2 recovered is approximately
90-95% of the flue gas. The energy requirements are
estimated to be 600-660 kWh per ton of CO2 recovered as
a liquid form (9). The main air pollution generated from this
technology is from energy use.
4.4. Pressure Swing Adsorption. Some materials with high
surface areas, such as zeolites and activated carbon, can
separate CO2 from gas mixtures by physical adsorption. An
example of this application is pressure swing adsorption
(PSA), which is a commercially available technology for
recovering CO2 from power plants (1). The recovery of the
CO2 gas can be in the range of 85-90% with energy demands
from 160 to 180 kWh/ton CO2 recovered (9, 12). The only
emissions generated in this technique are those caused by
energy use.
5. CO2 Sequestration
After recovering the CO2 gas, it must be stored somewhere
to prevent it from appearing in the atmosphere. One way to
achieve this is by CO2 sequestration. For ocean sequestration,
six case studies are presented. They are known as vertical
injection, inclined pipeline, pipe towed by ship, dry ice, gas-
lift advanced dissolution (GLAD) system, and CO2-hydrate.
Next, geological sequestration with enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) and geological sequestration with enhanced coalbed
methane (ECBM) recovery will be explored. Finally, the
sequestration of CO2 in a saline aquifer will be presented.
5.1. Ocean Sequestration. It was suggested by several
scientists (4, 13-14) that the ocean is the largest buffer to
dump and store CO2. It was estimated that the ocean already
contains an estimated 40 000 GtC (billion tons of carbon)
compared with 750 GtC in the atmosphere and 2200 GtC in
10.1021/es051882a CCC: $33.50 2006 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 05/06/2006
the terrestrial biosphere. As a result, the amount of carbon
that would cause a doubling of the atmospheric concentration
would change the ocean concentration by less than 2% (2).
CO2 gas is constantly being exchanged between the ocean
and the atmosphere, and therefore, questions arise as to
how effective the ocean will be as a choice to store CO2.
Herzog et al. (15) projected, through scientific experiments,
that the amount of time over which the percentage of the
injected CO2 would be sequestered permanently would
depend largely on the injection or disposal depths. It has
been estimated that at depths of 1500 m, 2000 m, 2500 m,
and 3000 m, approximately 74%, 81%, 83%, and 90% of CO2
respectively will remain stored or completely dissolved in
the ocean for at least 500 years. Several options have been
proposed for the large-scale CO2 ocean sequestration.
5.1.1. Vertical Injection. In the first option, the injection
of CO2 into the ocean depths of 3000 m from a vertical pipe
hanging from a floating platform is introduced (14). First,
CO2 gas is recovered from the power plant flue gases and
liquefied, after which it is transported by an ocean tanker for
a distance of 100 km to a floating platform. From there, a
vertical pipe is used to inject liquid-CO2 directly into the
ocean. At depths of 3000 m, 90% of the CO2 is expected to
be stored for at least 500 years (15).
Technological and engineering challenges faced for
transporting liquid CO2 to the ocean sites have been discussed
by Nihous (16). The energy required for CO2 liquefaction by
the use of a five-stage intercooled compression unit is
estimated to be 120 kWh per ton CO2 (9). Energy requirements
for compression and injection from the floating platform are
estimated to be about 40-50 kWh per ton CO2 (17).
5.1.2. Inclined Pipe. In the second option, compressed
CO2 is pumped into a depth of 2000 m into the oceans via
a long inclined pipe (18). At this depth, it is estimated that
81% of the gas will remain sequestered (15). Compression of
CO2 pipeline transportationsfor distances of 250-500 km
from the power plant to the offshore sitescan be up to 100
kWh/t of CO2 (19). Re-compression is required for the final
injection, which requires up to 30-40 kWh/ton CO2 (17).
5.1.3. Pipe Towed by Ship. In the third case, liquefied CO2
is loaded onto a ship or ocean tanker, transported for an
estimated distance of 300 km, and then injected into the
ocean via a pipe suspended from the ship (20). The estimated
energy for compression and injection from the ship is roughly
25-30 kWh per ton CO2 (17).
5.1.4. Dry Ice. Solid CO2 or dry ice blocks are disposed into
the ocean from a moving ship. Solid CO2 has a specific gravity
of 1.5 and will readily sink (13). The process for making dry
ice (sublimation) takes up twice the energy of that required
for CO2 liquefaction (21). In this ocean sequestration system,
the estimated travel distance of the tanker is 300 km, where
the CO2 blocks are assumed to reach complete dissolution
at depths of 3000 m (22). Preliminary tests have shown that
the CO2 blocks would fall through the water and slowly
dissolve on the sea floor (23).
5.1.5. GLAD. The fifth carbon ocean sequestration method
involves the sequestration of low purity CO2 gas. After the
CO2 gas is recovered from the power plant, it is passed directly
to a gas-lift pump system, named gas lift advanced dissolution
or GLAD. The GLAD system first dissolves the CO2 into
seawater at a relatively shallow depth of 200-300 m and
then transports CO2-rich seawater to depths of 1000-3000
m (24).
An advantage of the GLAD method is that it bypasses the
need to liquefy CO2. The energy requirement for the
compression for the GLAD system is 3.7 kWh per ton CO2
(25). It is assumed for this case that the CO2 gas reaches
complete dissolution at an average depth of 1500m.
5.1.6. CO2-Hydrate. In the last ocean sequestration system,
liquid-CO2 is transported by pipe to a hydrate reactor and
injected as hydrates into the ocean at depths of 1000-1500
m (26). The CO2-hydrates will sink and is assumed to reach
complete dissolution at a depth of 2500m. The estimated
energy requirements for the piping, hydrate reactor, and
injection system is 30 kWh/ton (17, 27).
5.2. Geological Sequestration. In geologic sequestration,
CO2 is injected into underground reservoirs where it is
expected to be isolated from the atmosphere for several
hundred years (28). Three cases will be presented here.
5.2.1. EOR. Geologic CO2 sequestration with EOR is a
proven technology (5). Under supercritical conditions, CO2
acts as a powerful solvent that can be used to increase oil
recovery (29). EOR projects are already ongoing in the U.S.,
where the source of CO2 is transported by pipeline from
natural CO2 reservoirs (28). EOR is yet to be applied where
the source of CO2 is from electricity generation.
A Norwegian case study is investigated to do this. In the
case study, CO2 is first captured from the flue gas of existing
coal-fired power system and sequestered geologically in
conjunction with EOR in the North Sea (30-31). A pipeline,
682 km in length, is used to deliver supercritical CO2 from
a coal-fired power plant to the Gullfaks oil field. For this
case, it was assumed that steel pipe engineering technology
exists to allow the long-distance transportation of CO2 (32).
In the proposed CO2-EOR project, the energy requirement
for long distance pipeline transportation is estimated to be
130 kWh/ton, and recompression and injection, 7-9 kWh/
ton (31, 33). Stevens et al. (34) estimated that for current
EOR projects, up to 10% of CO2 injected is released to the
atmosphere. The recovery of oil is taken to be 0.18 ton of oil
for every ton CO2 sequestered (29), and the oil recovery
process itself requires approximately 94 kWh/ton of oil
recovered (33).
5.2.2. ECBM. Deep unmineable coal formations provide
an opportunity to both sequester anthropogenic CO2 and at
the same time increase the production of methane. The ECBM
case study is taken from Tamabayashi et al. (35), where the
Chikuhou coalfield in Kyushu, Japan, is identified as a
potential area for coalseam CO2 sequestration. The recovered
CO2 gas is transported by pipeline to the injection site. During
the injection of CO2, methane or natural gas is recovered. It
was estimated that compression and pipeline transportation
requires 100 kWh/ton CO2 and injection requires 5-6 kWh/
ton (36). These data agree closely with those reported for
ECBM studies carried out in the U.S. (33).
The production of natural gas requires approximately 38
kWh/ton (33). And the average ratio of CO2-to-gas recovery
is taken as 3:1 (37). The leakage rate which is considered
safe and acceptable for the underground storage of CO2
was estimated to be 0.01% per year (38). This means that for
a sequestration period of 500 years, a total of 5% leakage is
expected.
5.2.3. Sleipner. In the final case, the Sleipner project in
the North Sea is presented as the worlds first industrial-
scale storage of CO2 in an underground reservoir. In the
Sleipner project CO2 gas is being injected 1000 m below sea
level into a saline aquifer known as the Utsira Formation
(39). The main difference between the Sleipner project and
the other two geological sequestration methods is that CO2
is extracted as a byproduct from natural gas production. As
for EOR and ECBM, the source of CO2 is from electricity
generation, with the recovery of natural resources taking place
during the process of sequestering CO2.
The system for the investigation starts with the extraction
of CO2 from natural gas via amine scrubbing and ends with
the final injection or disposal of CO2 into the saline aquifer,
where the gas is expected to stay stored for at least 500 years
without leakage (40). The amine scrubbing process for the
extraction of CO2 from the natural gas is estimated to be
VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 4017
FIGURE 1. LCA Methodology.
about 20% less than the same system used to remove CO2
from power plant flue gases, that is, 240 kWh/ton (8).
5.3. Investigation of CO2 Sequestration. Many feasibility
and assessment studies pertaining to CO2 sequestration
methods have been performed. Initial investigations focused
on costs or economical modeling of CO2 removal systems
(41-42). Others discussed various types of CO2 transportation
methods and the design of pipes suitable for deep ocean
injection (16-18). The costs and technology applied for EOR
and ECBM projects have also been reported (28-29). Most
studies also covered economical feasibility, safety, and social
issues concerning geological sequestration (5, 33).
This paper will be the first of its kind to perform a complete
life cycle assessment study on the nine CO2 sequestration
options.
6. Life Cycle Assessment
Due to the different characteristics of all three stages, a
systematic and holistic approach to investigate and evaluate
the pollution generated from each stage is called for. Life
cycle assessment or LCA is used for this very purpose. LCA
is a scientific and technically oriented assessment tool that
can help to broaden the environmental management per-
spective by offering a systems point of view. The power of
LCA is that it expands the debate on environmental concerns
beyond a single issue (global warming) to a broad range of
environmental issues (human toxicity, ecotoxicity, wastes,
etc.). We (43-44) have successfully applied LCA in various
case studies for comparing and identifying the most envi-
ronmentally suitable strategy, the best practicable environ-
mental action, or alternative combination of processes/
technologies.
6.1. LCA Goal and Scope. This work will be the first to
investigate all three stages, thereby linking the CO2 route
from its source (flue gas) to its final destination (storage area).
The overall system boundary is illustrated in Figure 1.
First, LCA is performed on the three separate stages as
isolated components (sub-systems), and next as an undivided
single chain of processes (whole system). Stage 1 starts with
coal mining and ends with the final amount of electricity
produced. The inventory data was gathered from coal-fired
power plants operating in the U.S. (45).
Stage 2 begins with the amount of CO2 emissions entering
the system due to the generation of 1 MWh (functional unit)
from a coal-fired power plant, and ends with the final CO2
recovered. Stage 3 begins with the same amount of CO2
entering the system -estimated as 950-kg CO2 per MWh and
4018 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006
ends with the final amount of CO2 sequestered or stored. For
the Sleipner project, the functional unit is taken as 950-kg
CO2 generated from the processing of natural gas.
6.2. Inventory Analysis. The inputs and outputs of a well-
defined system are systematically identified and quantified.
These input-output flows are then assessed in terms of their
potential to contribute to specific environmental impacts.
6.3. Impact Assessment. The SimaPro EDIP 97 method
for impact assessment is used to analyze the following eight
environmental impact categories: global warming potential
(GWP), acidification, human toxicity to air, human toxicity
to water, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, wastes, and fossil fuels.
The EDIP is a problem-oriented (midpoint) method which
is widely used and highly recognized by many LCA experts
(46).
In an ideal investigation, the LCIA should include the
adverse impacts on ocean marine life due to the accumulation
of CO2. However, this particular environmental impact
category is yet to be developed in the EDIP (46). Impact of
marine life or any other types of benthic lifeforms due to the
increase of CO2 concentrations in the ocean are not included
in the LCA investigation.
6.4. Interpretation. The interpretation of the LCA study
can be carried out in various forms. In the next section, the
results of the eight impact categories will be presented and
discussed. Further interpretations are made based on the
generation of the final scores and sensitivity analysis.
7. Results and Discussions
In the results, the amount of CO2 generated from the coal-
fired power plant (per MWh), as well as the Sleipner project,
is taken to be 950 kg. The CO2 removal efficiencies of 95%
(chemical absorption), 82% (membrane separation), 90%
(cryogenics), and 85% (PSA), are employed.
7.1. Results for CO2 Recovery Methods. Due to the size
and complexity of the studies, the impact assessment results
for the four CO2 recovery technologies will be compiled in
Table 1.
For GWP, the most promising system for CO2 postcom-
bustion recovery stems from the highest efficiency of the
greenhouse gas that can be captured from the power plant,
combined with reasonable energy demands. In this case,
chemical absorption using MEA, followed by PSA. Although
Cryogenics technology is capable of recovering a large
amount (90%) of CO2 from the power plant, its large energy
consumption (600 kWh/ton CO2 recovered) resulted in
additional greenhouse gas emissions.
TABLE 1. Impact Assessment Results for CO2 Recovery Technologies
CO2 recovery technologies
environmental impact categories chemical absorption membrane separation cryogenics pressure swing adsorption
GWP (g-CO2-eq) 7.87 104 1.86 105 1.79 105 1.72 105
acidification (g-SO2-eq) 3.42 102 7.25 101 6.21 102 1.66 102
human toxicity - Air (m3/g) 7.24 104 1.54 104 1.32 105 3.51 104
human toxicity - water (m3/g) 4.02 10-4 8.53 10-5 7.31 10-4 1.95 10-4
eutrophication (g-NO3-eq) 1.53 103 3.25 102 2.79 103 7.44 102
ecotoxicity (m3/g) 2.20 10-2 4.66 10-3 3.99 10-2 1.06 10-2
wastes ((kg/kg) 6.49 100 1.38 100 1.18 101 3.15 100
resources (kg/kg) 1.65 10-3 3.51 10-4 3.01 10-3 8.02 10-4

FIGURE 2. Total global warming potential results for ocean and geological sequestration.

While the purpose of the postcombustion technologies is
to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, there are a series
of air and water emissions that comes along with the
processes. Air emissions containing acidic gases contribute
to acidification; whereas heavy metals, such as arsenic, lead,
and mercury, contribute to human toxicity (air). For the
acidification impact category, the results were calculated
according to the regulation of 90% removal of SOx and NOx
from the coal-fired power plant (47). As for human toxicity
to air, the impact results were generated after the regulation
of the removal of 95% of heavy metals from the power plant
flue gas (48). The highest results for the acidification and
human toxicity to air impacts are displayed first by cryogenics,
second bychemical absorption, and followed by PSA.
Eutrophication is caused by the accumulation of nitrates,
ammonia, and cyanides, as well as air emissions of N2O and
NOx. Wastewater containing acids and sulfides contributes
to ecotoxicity (water acute). Wastes and resource depletion
are another two environmental concerns caused by the
burning of fossil fuels. The rest of the impacts display the
same trend: the higher the demand for energy, the higher
the impact. Driven by the need to reduce greenhouse gases,
further developments will be carried out to capture CO2
effectively, while imposing lighter energy and waste penalties
for these types of post combustion recovery systems (11).
7.2. Results for CO2 Sequestration Options. The results
for comparing the five ocean and two geological sequestration
options are shown in Figures 2 (GWP), 3 (acidification), 4
(human toxicity, air), 5 (human toxicity, water), 6 (eutrophi-
cation), 7 (ecotoxicity), 8 (wastes), and 9 (resources).
7.2.1. Global Warming Potential. Intuitively, the Sleipner
project will offer the highest potential for CO2 sequestration.
The safe storage of CO2 in the Utsira formation is depicted
in biggest inverted peak in the GWP graph (Figure 2). This
is followed by geological sequestration with ECBM. A
significant amount of CO2 sequestered (negative peaks), with
reasonable environmental impacts (positive peaks) is also
displayed by geological sequestration with EOR.
For ocean sequestration, vertical injection appears to be
the most promising option in terms of both the final amount
of CO2 stored and amount of energy spent in the sequestration
process. Dry ice also offers a high percentage of the final CO2
stored, however, the sublimation process involved imposes
a large energy penalty, which adds unnecessarily to GWP.
For these two options, the final destination for CO2 storage
is at depths of 3000 m. At this depth, 90% of the gas is expected
to be trapped for 500 years (15).
Two other viable options are CO2-hydrates and inclined
pipeline, which offers 83% and 81% sequestration potentials,
respectively. For both the pipe towed by ship method and
GLAD, the amount of potential CO2 leakage from the ocean
to the atmosphere is the highest. The disposal depth for these
two options is 1500 m, where the leakage rate is about 26%
(15). The GLAD system does not have the potential to store
large amounts of CO2, however, it offers an advantage of
requiring very minimal energy usage (25). Compared to the
other four ocean sequestration options, the GLAD system
itself hardly poses any environmental damage.
7.2.2. Acidification. The acidifcation results are displayed
in Figure 3. The results shown are according to the regulation

VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 4019
FIGURE 3. Total acidification results for ocean and geological sequestration.

FIGURE 4. Total human toxicity to air results for ocean and geological sequestration.
of 90% removal of acidic gases from the power plant (47).
The large environmental impacts caused by ocean tanker
transportation can be observed very clearly in the graphs.
The acidic gases generated due to pipeline transportation
are very small compared to those generated by the ocean
tankers. The environmental impacts due to the liquefaction
and sublimation processes are moderate in this impact
category.
7.2.3. Human Toxicity. The environmental impacts of
human toxicity to air and to water are displayed in Figures
4 and 5, respectively. For human toxicity to air, the
environmental impact results were generated after the
removal of 95% of heavy metals from the power plant (48).
The graphs displayed by both human toxicity results exhibit
the same trend. Significant environmental impacts are most
evidently shown by the amine scrubbing process for Sleipner
and the dry ice ocean sequestration option. Other observable
impacts are from the process of CO2 liquefaction for vertical
injection, pipe towed by ship, and CO2 hydrate formation,
as well as pipeline transportation for inclined pipeline, EOR,
and ECBM.
7.2.4. Eutrophication and Ecotoxicity. The results of
eutrophication and ecotoxicity are displayed in Figures 6
and 7, respectively.
As expected, the amine scrubbing (Sleipner) and CO2
sublimation process (dry ice) both contribute most signifi-
cantly to the graphs. The CO2 liquefaction process and
pipeline transportation both generate relatively large amounts
of wastewater from the power plant due to substantial energy
demands: 120 kWh/ton CO2 for liquefaction and about an
average amount of 122 kWh/ton for long distance pipeline
transportation of CO2 (9, 17). As for the GLAD, much less

4020 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006
FIGURE 5. Total human toxicity to water results for ocean and geological sequestration.

FIGURE 6. Total eutrophication results for ocean and geological sequestration.

energy is required for dissolution; hence, leading to nearly
negligible environmental impacts.
7.2.5. Wastes and Resources. One of the biggest environ-
mental concerns of coal-fired power plants is the generation
of significant amounts of wastes. The solid wastes results are
displayed in Figure 8. The highest two cases are dry ice and
Sleipner, and the lowest is displayed by GLAD. It must be
highlighted that, in all nine cases, it is assumed that the source
of energy for the chain of processes involved in CO2 storage
or sequestration is from a coal-fired power plant (45).
The resource results for ocean and geological sequestra-
tion are displayed in Figure 9. The positive peaks exhibit the
energy demands (resource consumed) for the sequestration
systems, accumulated from CO2 liquefaction process, trans-
portation, compression, etc. The negative peaks demonstrate
the potential amount of resources gained from the EOR and
ECBM geological sequestration technologies. The inverted
peaks are greater for ECBM due to the higher ratio of methane
recovered as compared to the recovery of oil in EOR. Among
the many solutions that contribute toward CO2 mitigation,
geological sequestration seems to be a promising path that
presents the advantage of being able to cope with large
volumes of anthropogenic CO2 at stake, while fulfilling the
growing energy demands of todays society.
For Sleipner, the results do not include the amount of
natural gas produced. This is because for EOR and ECBM,
the methods employed to sequester CO2 themselves generate
the recovery of oil and gas. Whereas in the Sleipner case
study, the LCA system boundary starts with the production
of CO2 (as a byproduct) from the process of extracting and

VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 4021
FIGURE 7. Total ecotoxicity results for ocean and geological sequestration.
FIGURE 8. Total waste results for ocean and geological sequestration.
selling natural gas.
7.3. Final Scores. The results for the potential environ-
mental impacts (GWP, acidification, human toxicity, etc) for
the four CO2 recovery technologies and a total of nine
sequestration systems were projected individually and
separately. In this manner, no overall verdict can be
reached. To make overall comparisons, a single final score
for each combination of options, as an undivided series of
processes, must be attained. To do this, the impact assess-
ment results will have to include the normalization and
weighting stages, which are provided by SimaPro (46).
The final scores are displayed in Table 2. The scores shown
are totaled from the accumulation of the eight environmental
categories, starting with the generation of 950 kg CO2 (per
MWh from the power plant or from Sleipner process), to
necessary processes involved in the sequestration methods,
4022 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006
and ending with the final amount of CO2 stored in the ocean
or underground.
From Table 2, the best negative scores (least environ-
mental burdens) stem predominantly from the three geo-
logical sequestration methods, especially Sleipner. For this
project, the sequestration of CO2 in the Utsira formation
promises zero leakage for at least 500 years (40). The
accumulated negative values for both EOR and ECBM
methods are not only from the prevention of GWP, but also
due to the prevention of resource depletion. The most
promising environmental benefit stems from employing
ECBM combined with chemical absorption (95%-98% CO2
recovery). The next three highest benefits also stems from
geological sequestration, EOR with chemical absorption, and
ECBM combined with membrane separation and with PSA.
FIGURE 9. Total resource results for ocean and geological sequestration.

TABLE 2. Final Scores Combining CO2 Recovery and Sequestration Systems

ocean geological
CO2 recovery
technology and vertical inclined pipe towed Sleipner
recovery rate injection pipeline by ship dry ice GLAD CO2 hydrate with EOR with ECBM (aquifer storage)
chemical 95% -0.06 -0.05 -0.01 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.08 -0.10 -0.13
absorption 98% -0.07 -0.05 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.09 -0.11 -0.13
membrane 82% -0.04 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.08 -0.12
separation 88% -0.06 -0.05 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.07 -0.10 -0.12
90% -0.03 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.12
cryogenics
95% -0.05 -0.03 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.06 -0.08 -0.13
pressure 85% -0.04 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.08 -0.12
swing
adsorption 90% -0.06 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.07 -0.09 -0.12

As for ocean sequestration, the highest benefit comes from
the chemical absorption technology combined with vertical
injection. Reasonable (negative) scores are also demonstrated
by any combination of CO2 removal with vertical injection.
The second most feasible options are by inclined pipeline
and dry ice disposal, both combined with chemical absorp-
tion for CO2 recovery. The worst cases are displayed by
combining any CO2 removal methods with pipe towed by
ship. Most of the efforts taken for preventing global warming
are suppressed by the generation of other environmental
burdens. With the exception of using cryogenics to remove
CO2 from the power plant, all the final scores for the GLAD
option display rather small environmental benefits.
Supporting Information Available
Further details of the LCA study, including the flow diagrams
for the case studies, system boundaries, LCI data, assump-
tions, and estimations. Sequestration effectiveness and
sensitivity analysis for comparing: (i) power plant CO2
emissions of 950, 970, and 990 kg-CO2 per MWh; (ii) Different
EDIP weights: medium, low, and high, and (iii) Comparison
between the EDIP and eco-indicator. Further discussions
pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of CO2 seques-
tration is also provided. This material is available free of
charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
Literature Cited
(1) McKee, B. Solutions for the 21st Century: Zero Emissions
Technology for Fossil Fuels; IEA, Com. Energy Research and
Technol.; OECD/IEA: France, 2002.
(2) Herzog, H. J. CO2 Mitigation strategies: Perspectives on capture
and sequestration option. Energy. Environ. 1996, 7, 223-235.
(3) World Energy Outlook. The Authoritative Source for Energy
Market Analysis; http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
(4) Herzog, H. J.; Golomb, D. Carbon Capture and Storage from
Fossil Fuel Use. In Encyclopedia of Energy; Elsevier: Oxford,
UK, 2004; Vol. 1.
(5) Holloway, S. An overview of the underground disposal of carbon
dioxide. Energy Convers. Manage. 1997, 38, S193-S198.
(6) Hendriks, C. Energy & Env: CO2 Removal from Coal-fired Power
Plant; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Netherlands, 1995.
(7) Wilson, M. A., Wrubleski, R. M.; Yarborough, L. Recovery of CO2
from power plant flue gases using amines. Energy Convers.
Manage. 1992, 33, 325-331.
(8) Bolland, O. E-mail correspondence, 2006.
(9) Gottlicher, G.; Pruschek, R. Comparison of CO2 removal systems
for fossil fuelled power plants. Energy Convers. Manage. 1997,
38, S173-S178.
(10) Audus, H., Leading Options for the Capture of CO2 at Power
Stations, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Techology, Cairns, Australia, Aug 13-

VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 4023
 16, 2000; Durie, R. A., Williams, D. J., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing:
Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, 2001.
(11) Gielen, D. Energy Policy Consequences of Future CO2 Capture
and Sequestration Technol, 2nd Annual Conference Carbon
Sequestration, Alexandria: VA, May 5-8, 2003.
(12) Takamura, Y.; Narita, S.; Aoki1, J.; Uchida1, S. Application of
high-PSA process for improvement of CO2 recovery system. Can.
J. Chem. Eng. 2001, 79.
(13) Millero, F. J. The CO2 system in the oceans. Geochim. Cosmchim.
Acta. 1995, 59, 661-677.
(14) Ozaki, M.; Sonoda, K.; Fujioka, Y.; Tsukamoto, O.; Komatsu, M.
Sending CO2 into deep ocean from floating platform. Energy
Convers. Manage. 1995, 36, 475-478.
(15) Herzog, H.; Caldeira, K.; Adams, E. Carbon Sequestration via
Direct Injection. In Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences; Steele, J. H.,
Thorpe, S. A., Turekian, K. K., Eds.; Academic Press: London,
UK, 2000.
(16) Nihous, G. C. Technological challenges associated with ocean
sequestration of CO2. Waste Manage. 1997, 17, 337-341.
(17) Sasaki, K. Carbon Sequestration TechnologysCurrent Status and
Future Outlook, Institute of Energy Economics; IEEJ Publish-
ers: Japan, 2004.
(18) Golomb, D. Transport systems for ocean disposal of CO2. Energy
Convers. Manage. 1997, 38, S279-S286.
(19) Aspelund, A.; Weydahl, T.; Barrio, M. Overview of CO2 Transport
Alternatives. 2nd Trondheim Conference on CO2 capture,
transport and storage, Trondheim, Norway, Oct. 25-26, 2004.
(20) Ozaki, M. CO2 Injection and dispersion in ocean by moving
ship. Waste Manage. 1997, 17, 369-373.
(21) Gambini, M.; Vellini, M. CO2 Emission Abatement From Fossil
Fuel Power Plants By Exhaust Gas Treatment, Proceedings of
the International Joint Power Generation Conference, Florida:
USA, July 23-26, 2000.
(22) Johnston, P.; Santillo, D.; Stringer, R.; Parmentier, R.; Hare, B.;
Krueger, M. Ocean Disposal/Sequestration of CO2 from Fossil
Fuel Production and Use, Techical Note 01/99; Greenpeace
Research Laboratories: Devon, UK, 1999.
(23) Murray, C. N.; Visintini, L.; Bidoglio, G.; Henry, B. Permanent
storage of carbon dioxide in the marine environment: the solid
CO2-Penetrator. Energy Convers. Manage. 1996, 37, 1067-1072.
(24) Kosugi, S.; Niwa, K.; Saito, T.; Kajishima, T.; Hamaogi, K. Design
factors in gas-lift advanced dissolution (GLAD) system for ocean
CO2 sequestration. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2001, 56, 6205-6210.
(25) Niwa, K. E-mail correspondence, 2004.
(26) Tsouris, C.; Brewer, P.; Peltzer, E.; Walz, P.; Riestenberg, D.;
Liang, L.; West, O. R. Hydrate composite particles for ocean
carbon sequestration: Field verification. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2004, 38, 2470-2475.
(27) Tsouris, C. E-mail correspondence. 2006.
(28) Klara, S. M.; Srivastava, R. D.; McIlvried, H. G. Integrated
collaborative technology development program for CO2 se-
questration in geologic formationssUS Department of Energy
R&D. Energy Convers. Manage. 2003, 44, 2699-2712.
(29) Aycaguer, A.; Lev-On, M.; Winer, A. M. Reducing carbon dioxide
emissions with enhanced oil recovery projects: A life cycle
assessment approach. Energy. Fuels. 2001, 15, 303-308.
(30) Agustsson, H.; Statoil, A. S. A. An Evaluation of EOR by CO2
Injection in the Gullfaks Field, Offshore Norway. SPE/DOE 14th
4024 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 12, 2006
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, April Tulsa, Oklahoma,
USA, April 17-21, 2004
(31) Solli, C. E-mail correspondence, 2005.
(32) Svensson, R.; Odenberger, M.; Johnsson, F.; Stromberg, L.
Transportation systems for CO2sapplication top carbon capture
and storage. Energy Convers. Manage. 2004, 45, 2343-2353.
(33) Heddle, G.; Herzog, H. J.; Klett, M. The Economics of CO2 Storage.
publication no. LFEE 2003-003 RP; MIT: USA, 2003.
(34) Stevens, S. H.; Kuuskraa, V. A.; Taber, J. J. Sequestration of CO2
in depleted oil and gas fields: Barriers to overcome in imple-
mentation of CO2 capture and storage, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
program report no. PH3/22; IEA: Cheltenham, UK, 2000.
(35) Tamabayashi, K.; Sagisaka, M.; Moro, T. Environmental and
Economical Study on CO2 Sequestration and CH4 Recovery by
Coal Seam in Japan. Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on EcoBalance, Tsukuba: Japan, Oct. 25-27, 2004.
(36) Sagisaka, M. E-mail correspondence, 2005.
(37) Reeves, S. ECBM recovery: CO2 sequestration assessed, Oil Gas
J. 2003, 101, 49.
(38) von Goerne, G. The Environmental Impacts of CO2 Leakage,
CAN Workshop on Carbon Capture and Storage, Brussels,
Belgium, May 27-28, 2004.
(39) Chadwick, R. A.; Zweigel, P.; Gregersen, U.; Kirby, G. A.; Holloway,
S.; Johannessen, P. N. Geological reservoir characterization of
a CO2 storage site: The Utsira Sand, Sleipner, northern North
Sea. Energy 2005, 29, 1371-1381.
(40) Chadwick, R. A. E-mail correspondence. 2006.
(41) McFarland, J. R.; Herzog, H. J.; Reilly, J. M. Economic Modeling
of the Global Adoption of Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Technologies, 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Control Technology, Kyoto, Japan, Oct 1-4, 2002; Elsevier:
Oxford, UK, 2003.
(42) David, J.; Herzog. H. J. The Cost of Carbon Capture. 5th
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technol-
ogy, Cairns: Aus, Aug 13-16, 2000; Durie, R. A., Williams, D.
J., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria, Australia,
2001.
(43) Khoo, H. H.; Tan, R. B. H. Life Cycle evaluation of CO2 recovery
and mineral sequestration alternatives, Environ. Progress, 2006.
(44) Khoo, H. H.; Tan, R. B. H. Life Cycle Management for National
Waste Strategies in Singapore, International Workshop on
Capacity Building on Life Cycle Assessment in APEC Economies,
Bangkok: Thailand, Dec. 15-16, 2005.
(45) Spath, P. L.; Mann, M. K.; Kerr, D. R. LCA of Coal-Fired Power
Production. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; U.S. De-
partment of Commerce: Washintong, DC, U.S., 1999.
(46) SimaPro. 2006; http://www.pre.nl/
(47) USEPA. Reducing Power Plant Emissions: Interstate Air Quality
Rule. Office of Air and Radiation: Washington, DC, U.S., 2003.
(48) Offen, G. R. Mercury Control for Power Plants. Subcommittee
On Environment, Technology, and Standards; EPRI: California,
U.S., 2003.
Received for review September 23, 2005. Revised manuscript
received March 29, 2006. Accepted March 30, 2006.
ES051882A