Carbon Capture and Storage Workshop, Texas A&M University in Qatar
  • ISSN: 2220-2765
  • EISSN:



Fossil fuel-based power generation technologies with and without CO  capture offer a number of alternatives, which involve different fuel production and supply, power generation and capture routes with varied energy consumption rates and subsequent environmental impacts. The holistic perspective offered by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can help decision makers to quantify the trade-offs inherent in any change to the fuel supply and power production systems and ensure that a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions does not result in increases in other environmental impacts. Beside energy and non-energy related GHG releases, LCA also tracks various other environmental emissions, such as solid wastes, toxic substances and common air pollutants, as well as the consumption of resources, such as water, minerals and land use. In this respect, the dynamic LCA model developed at Imperial College incorporates fossil fuel production, transportation, power generation, CO  capture, CO  conditioning, pipeline transportation and CO  injection and storage, and quantifies the environmental impacts at the highest level of detail, allowing for the assessment of technical and geographical differences between the alternative technologies considered. The life cycle inventory (LCI) databases that were developed, model the inputs and outputs of the processes at component or unit process level, rather than “gate-to-gate” level, and therefore generate reliable LCI data in a consistent and transparent manner, with a clearly arranged and flexible structure for long-term strategic energy system planning and decision-making.

The presentation discussed the principles of the LCA models developed and the newly extended models for the natural gas-fired power generation, with alternative CO  capture systems. Additionally, the natural gas supply chain LCA models, including offshore platform gas production, gas pipeline transportation, gas processing, liquefied natural gas (LNG) processes, LNG shipping and LNG receiving terminal developed are used to estimate the life cycle GHG emissions for an idealised case study of natural gas production in Qatar, LNG transportation to a UK natural gas terminal and use in a power plant. The scenario considers a conventional and three alternative CO  capture systems, transport and injection of the CO  offshore in the Irish Sea.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. International Energy Agency (IEA) 2011, IEA world energy outlook 2011 exclusive summary; http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2011sum.pdf.
  2. Bulteel P. and Capros P. Untying the Energy Knot of Supply Security, Climate Change, Economic Competitiveness: The Role of Electricity, 2007. http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/p001469.pdf.
  3. Kannana R., Leonga K.C., Osmana R., Hoa H.K. and Tsob C.P.  Life cycle assessment study of solar PV systems: An example of a 2.7 kWp distributed solar PV system in Singapore. Solar Energy. May 2006; 80::5, 555563.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Korre A., Nie Z. and Durucan S.  Life cycle modelling of fossil fuel power generation with postcombustion CO2  capture. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 2010; 4::2, 289300.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. POSTNOTE 383 June 2011 Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation. UK Houses of Parliament, The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
  6. Nie Z., Korre A. and Durucan S.  Life cycle modelling and comparative assessment of the environmental impacts of oxy-fuel and post-combustion CO 2  capture, transport and injection processes. Energy Procedia. 2011; 4::25102517.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Adams B. and Senior C.  Curbing the blue plume: SO3 formation and mitigation. Power. May 2006; 150::4, 3941.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Akai M., Nomura N., Waku H. and Inoue M.  Life-cycle analysis of a fossil-fuel power plant with CO2  recovery and a sequestering system. Energy. 1997; 22::249255.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fiaschi D., Lombardi L. and Manfrida G. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and exergetic life cycle assessment (ELCA) of an innovative energy cycle with zero CO 2  emissions. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, 2000.
  10. Doctor R.D., Molburg J.C., Brockmeier N.F., Lynn M., Victor G., Massood R. and Gary J.S. Life-cycle analysis of a shell gasification-based multi-product system with CO 2  recovery. Proc. 1st Nat. Conf. Carbon Sequestration, Washington, D.C., USA, 2001.
  11. Lombardi L.  Life cycle assessment comparison of technical solutions for CO2  emission reduction in power generation. Energy Convers. Manage. 2003; 44::93108.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Koornneef J., Keulen T.V., Faaij A. and Turkenburg W.  Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with postcombustion capture, transport and storage of CO 2 . Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 2008; 2::4, 448467.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Pehnt M. and Henkel J.  Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 2009; 3::1, 4966.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Corti A. and Lombardi L.  Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle with reduced CO 2 emissions: Performance analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA). Energy. 2004; 29::12–15, 21092124.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Singh B., Strømman A.H. and Hertwich E.  Life cycle assessment of natural gas combined cycle power plant with post-combustion carbon capture, transport and storage. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 2010. [CrossRef].
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coal in sustainable society (CISS), 2003, Case study B17: electricity from CO 2  recovery type IGCC. Available at: www.ciss.com.au. Assessed 6 December 2004.
  17. ISO 14040 (E), 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
  18. Guine’e J.B., Gorre’e M., Heijungs R., Huppes G., Kleijn R. and Koning A. 2001, Life cycle assessment: An operational guide to the ISO standards, Final report, Centre of Environmental Science – Leiden University (CML), May 2001.
  19. Goedkoop M. and Spriensma R. The Eco-indicator 99 A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Methodology Report, no. 1999/36A. 3rd ed., Pre Consultants b.v, Amersfoort, the Netherlands. 2001.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...


Supplementary File 1

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error