IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v151y2021ics1364032121008200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-criteria decision approach to select carbon dioxide and hydrogen sources as potential raw materials for the production of chemicals

Author

Listed:
  • Lopes, J.V.M.
  • Bresciani, A.E.
  • Carvalho, K.M.
  • Kulay, L.A.
  • Alves, R.M.B.

Abstract

The use of fossil resources has lead to great increase in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere beyond sustainable limits, which causes environmental issues such as greenhouse gas effect, climate change and extreme weather events and threats the human life. Thus, several researches have been focused on mitigate this problem. Possible strategies involve implementing technologies of carbon capture storage and utilization. Among them, integrated processes for carbon dioxide capture and its conversion into value-added products have gained attention. Carbon dioxide hydrogenation is among the most developed technologies for its conversion, but requires an external hydrogen (H2) source. Since the conversion of carbon dioxide is highly energy-demanding, assessing its overall process sustainability requires a comprehensive study on the whole system, including its raw material sources (carbon dioxide and hydrogen). Thus, this work proposes a multi-criteria framework to select suitable sources of carbon dioxide and hydrogen to be used in the conversion of carbon dioxide. Potential sources of carbon dioxide (from power plants to ethanol fermentation) and hydrogen (from dedicated production to by-product hydrogen) were evaluated considering environmental, economic, and technical aspects associated with the usage of each source. The Technique of Order Preference Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is the multi-criteria decision analysis method used to aggregate the criteria and to rank each source individually and further in a pair-wise assessment to identify potential synergic combinations between carbon dioxide and hydrogen sources. Results suggested that using carbon dioxide from natural gas steam reforming, iron and steel industries, ethylene oxide and other high concentration point sources may be the ideal choice for sustainability. The analysis also indicated that hydrogen may be more sustainable if it is a process by-product or is produced by low-cost wind-powered electrolysis. It is important to consider that the analysis is based on several specific data inputs and assumptions, and that a lower score does not mean that the source is not worth investing in.

Suggested Citation

  • Lopes, J.V.M. & Bresciani, A.E. & Carvalho, K.M. & Kulay, L.A. & Alves, R.M.B., 2021. "Multi-criteria decision approach to select carbon dioxide and hydrogen sources as potential raw materials for the production of chemicals," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:151:y:2021:i:c:s1364032121008200
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121008200
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111542?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Honglin & Liu, Yanrong & Laaksonen, Aatto & Krook-Riekkola, Anna & Yang, Zhuhong & Lu, Xiaohua & Ji, Xiaoyan, 2020. "Carbon recycling – An immense resource and key to a smart climate engineering: A survey of technologies, cost and impurity impact," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Shin, Sunkyu & Lee, Jeong-Keun & Lee, In-Beum, 2020. "Development and techno-economic study of methanol production from coke-oven gas blended with Linz Donawitz gas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    3. Yoro, Kelvin O. & Daramola, Michael O. & Sekoai, Patrick T. & Armah, Edward K. & Wilson, Uwemedimo N., 2021. "Advances and emerging techniques for energy recovery during absorptive CO2 capture: A review of process and non-process integration-based strategies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    4. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    5. Saeidi, Samrand & Najari, Sara & Fazlollahi, Farhad & Nikoo, Maryam Khoshtinat & Sefidkon, Fatemeh & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír & Baxter, Larry L., 2017. "Mechanisms and kinetics of CO2 hydrogenation to value-added products: A detailed review on current status and future trends," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1292-1311.
    6. Najmus S. Sifat & Yousef Haseli, 2019. "A Critical Review of CO 2 Capture Technologies and Prospects for Clean Power Generation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-33, October.
    7. Qyyum, Muhammad Abdul & Dickson, Rofice & Ali Shah, Syed Fahad & Niaz, Haider & Khan, Amin & Liu, J. Jay & Lee, Moonyong, 2021. "Availability, versatility, and viability of feedstocks for hydrogen production: Product space perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    8. Nikolaidis, Pavlos & Poullikkas, Andreas, 2017. "A comparative overview of hydrogen production processes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 597-611.
    9. Cameron Hepburn & Ella Adlen & John Beddington & Emily A. Carter & Sabine Fuss & Niall Mac Dowell & Jan C. Minx & Pete Smith & Charlotte K. Williams, 2019. "The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7781), pages 87-97, November.
    10. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    11. Pérez-Fortes, Mar & Schöneberger, Jan C. & Boulamanti, Aikaterini & Tzimas, Evangelos, 2016. "Methanol synthesis using captured CO2 as raw material: Techno-economic and environmental assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 718-732.
    12. Yao, Zhiyi & You, Siming & Ge, Tianshu & Wang, Chi-Hwa, 2018. "Biomass gasification for syngas and biochar co-production: Energy application and economic evaluation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 43-55.
    13. Unknown, 2016. "Energy for Sustainable Development," Conference Proceedings 253270, Guru Arjan Dev Institute of Development Studies (IDSAsr).
    14. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    15. Hosseini, Seyed Ehsan & Wahid, Mazlan Abdul, 2016. "Hydrogen production from renewable and sustainable energy resources: Promising green energy carrier for clean development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 850-866.
    16. Run-Ping Ye & Jie Ding & Weibo Gong & Morris D. Argyle & Qin Zhong & Yujun Wang & Christopher K. Russell & Zhenghe Xu & Armistead G. Russell & Qiaohong Li & Maohong Fan & Yuan-Gen Yao, 2019. "CO2 hydrogenation to high-value products via heterogeneous catalysis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    18. Lee, Dong-Yeon & Elgowainy, Amgad & Dai, Qiang, 2018. "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen fuel production from chlor-alkali processes in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 467-479.
    19. James S. Dyer, 2005. "Maut — Multiattribute Utility Theory," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 265-292, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bellone, Yuri & Croci, Michele & Impollonia, Giorgio & Nik Zad, Amirhossein & Colauzzi, Michele & Campana, Pietro Elia & Amaducci, Stefano, 2024. "Simulation-Based Decision Support for Agrivoltaic Systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 369(C).
    2. Ortiz, C. & García-Luna, S. & Carro, A. & Chacartegui, R. & Pérez-Maqueda, L., 2023. "Negative emissions power plant based on flexible calcium-looping process integrated with renewables and methane production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baena-Moreno, Francisco M. & Pastor-Pérez, Laura & Zhang, Zhien & Reina, T.R., 2020. "Stepping towards a low-carbon economy. Formic acid from biogas as case of study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    2. Georgios Varvoutis & Athanasios Lampropoulos & Evridiki Mandela & Michalis Konsolakis & George E. Marnellos, 2022. "Recent Advances on CO 2 Mitigation Technologies: On the Role of Hydrogenation Route via Green H 2," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-38, June.
    3. Yoon, Ha-Jun & Seo, Seung-Kwon & Lee, Chul-Jin, 2022. "Multi-period optimization of hydrogen supply chain utilizing natural gas pipelines and byproduct hydrogen," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    5. Jahangiri, Mehdi & Rezaei, Mostafa & Mostafaeipour, Ali & Goojani, Afsaneh Raiesi & Saghaei, Hamed & Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Jalaladdin & Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Shahabaddin, 2022. "Prioritization of solar electricity and hydrogen co-production stations considering PV losses and different types of solar trackers: A TOPSIS approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 889-903.
    6. Marino, C. & Nucara, A. & Panzera, M.F. & Pietrafesa, M. & Varano, V., 2019. "Energetic and economic analysis of a stand alone photovoltaic system with hydrogen storage," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 316-329.
    7. Giuseppe Sdanghi & Gaël Maranzana & Alain Celzard & Vanessa Fierro, 2020. "Towards Non-Mechanical Hybrid Hydrogen Compression for Decentralized Hydrogen Facilities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-27, June.
    8. Li, Guoxuan & Wang, Shuai & Zhao, Jiangang & Qi, Huaqing & Ma, Zhaoyuan & Cui, Peizhe & Zhu, Zhaoyou & Gao, Jun & Wang, Yinglong, 2020. "Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of biomass-to-hydrogen production with methane tri-reforming," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    9. Sagir, Emrah & Alipour, Siamak, 2021. "Photofermentative hydrogen production by immobilized photosynthetic bacteria: Current perspectives and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Morteza Aien & Omid Mahdavi, 2020. "On the Way of Policy Making to Reduce the Reliance of Fossil Fuels: Case Study of Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-28, December.
    11. Seunghyun Cheon & Manhee Byun & Dongjun Lim & Hyunjun Lee & Hankwon Lim, 2021. "Parametric Study for Thermal and Catalytic Methane Pyrolysis for Hydrogen Production: Techno-Economic and Scenario Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    12. Chisalita, Dora-Andreea & Petrescu, Letitia & Cormos, Calin-Cristian, 2020. "Environmental evaluation of european ammonia production considering various hydrogen supply chains," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Yifan Wang & Laurence A. Wright, 2021. "A Comparative Review of Alternative Fuels for the Maritime Sector: Economic, Technology, and Policy Challenges for Clean Energy Implementation," World, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-26, October.
    14. Christina Wulf & Martin Kaltschmitt, 2018. "Hydrogen Supply Chains for Mobility—Environmental and Economic Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, May.
    15. Daniel Chuquin-Vasco & Francis Parra & Nelson Chuquin-Vasco & Juan Chuquin-Vasco & Vanesa Lo-Iacono-Ferreira, 2021. "Prediction of Methanol Production in a Carbon Dioxide Hydrogenation Plant Using Neural Networks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Tobias Witt & Matthias Klumpp, 2021. "Multi-Period Multi-Criteria Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Renewable Energy Transition Case from Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Wenhui Zhao & Jibin Ma & Zhanyang Wang & Youting Li & Weishi Zhang, 2022. "Potential Hydrogen Market: Value-Added Services Increase Economic Efficiency for Hydrogen Energy Suppliers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Arinelli, Lara de Oliveira & Brigagão, George Victor & Wiesberg, Igor Lapenda & Teixeira, Alexandre Mendonça & de Medeiros, José Luiz & Araújo, Ofélia de Queiroz F., 2022. "Carbon-dioxide-to-methanol intensification with supersonic separators: Extra-carbonated natural gas purification via carbon capture and utilization," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    19. Lui, Jade & Chen, Wei-Hsin & Tsang, Daniel C.W. & You, Siming, 2020. "A critical review on the principles, applications, and challenges of waste-to-hydrogen technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    20. Li, Lei & Manier, Hervé & Manier, Marie-Ange, 2019. "Hydrogen supply chain network design: An optimization-oriented review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 342-360.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:151:y:2021:i:c:s1364032121008200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.