1887
PDF

Abstract

Summary

This study explores the Carbon Return on Investment (CROI) ratio—a metric assessing the efficiency of carbon sequestration relative to the gross emissions from CCUS infrastructure—in the context of industrial clusters. Specifically, it investigates how substituting fossil fuels with renewable fuels like biomethane and biomass, alters the CROI value and enhances net carbon benefits. We provide a useful indication of the benefits stemming from the use of renewable fuels in two industrial sites, representing steam reforming plant and cement plant, potentially connectable to the CCUS network. The integration of biomethane and biomass enhances the CROI ratio, particularly when capture and transport infrastructure leverages renewable energy, reducing emissions and amplifying sequestration efficiency. The CROI values range from 6.6–13.3 across scenarios, and the net carbon benefits are markedly higher with renewable fuels compared to their baseline characteristics. The adoption of renewable fuels, potentially enabling negative emissions when paired with carbon capture processes, could redefine the environmental performance of industrial clusters, aligning with climate neutrality targets under initiatives like the EU Clean Industrial Deal.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522150
2025-09-01
2026-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2025/wccus/150.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522150&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. International Energy Agency (IEA), “Energy Technology Perspectives2023,” Paris, France, 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. SinghU, ColosiLM.The case for estimating carbon return on investment (CROI) for CCUS platforms. Appl Energy2021;285:116394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116394.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. IsoliN, ChaczykowskiM.Net energy analysis and net carbon benefits of CO2 capture and transport infrastructure for energy applications and industrial clustersAppl Energy2025;382;125227. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.125227
    [Google Scholar]
  4. LewisE, McNaulS, JamiesonM, HenriksenMS, MatthewsHS, WalshL, GroveJ, ShultzT, SkoneTJ, StevensR.Comparison of commercial, state-of-the-art, fossil-based hydrogen production technologies. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1862910,URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1862910.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HughesS, CveticP, HomsyS, ZoelleA, WoodsM, WhiteC, PidapartiS, KuehnN, HoffmanH, ForrestK, ShultzT, FoutT, GrolE, JamesIII RE, BohanR.Analysis of carbon capture retrofits for cement plants. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1970135, URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1970135.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BakkalogluS, HawkesA.comparative study of biogas and biomethane with natural gas and hydrogen alternatives. Energy Environ. Sci., 2024, 17, 1482. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EE02516K
    [Google Scholar]
  7. KrupanekJ, Gałko G, SajdakM, PogrzebaM.Comparison of Bio-Coke and Traditional Coke Production with Regard to the Technological Aspects and Carbon Footprint Considerations. Energies. 2024; 17(12):2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17122978
    [Google Scholar]
  8. IPCC. The intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) emission factor database (EFDB). 2023, URL https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. AbrahamsLS, SamarasC, GriffinWM, MatthewsHS.Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from US liquefied natural gas exports: implications for end uses. Environ Sci Technol2015;49(5):3237–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es505617p.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522150
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522150
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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