Carbon dioxide submarine storage in glass containers: Life Cycle Assessment and cost analysis of four case studies in the cement sector

  • Beatriz Beccari BarretoEmail author
  • Stefano Caserini
  • Giovanni Dolci
  • Mario Grosso
Original Article


This paper describes the potential application of a new patented technology for the storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) in glass containers into the deep seabed (confined submarine carbon storage (CSCS)) to cement plants located in four different locations in the world. This technology is based on the bottling of liquid CO2 at high pressure inside capsules made of glass that are delivered to the bottom of the ocean via a proper pipeline. A Life Cycle Assessment that considers all the stages of the process and 13 impact categories, with a focus on climate change, shows an impact in the four case studies between 0.084 and 0.132 ton of CO2 equivalent (eq) per ton of CO2 stored. Since carbonation of cement materials over their life cycle is a significant and growing net sink of CO2, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions generated during the production of cement might lead to negative emissions. A cost analysis was also performed, including the capital costs and the operational costs, even considering the funding structure through financing and equity. The costs of the four case studies are from 16 to 29 $/tCO2. Although further work is needed to assess in detail some aspects of the design, the result of this stage of the research allows concluding that the application of the CSCS in cement plants is an interesting option for achieving negative emissions, even if limited due the slowness of CO2 uptake during the lifetime of cement materials.


Cement CO2 storage Carbon capture and storage Carbonation Submarine storage 



The authors would like to thank Italcementi for the data provided.

Supplementary material

11027_2019_9853_MOESM1_ESM.docx (41 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 41 kb)


  1. Adams EE, Caldeira K (2008) Ocean storage of CO2. Elements 4:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aminu MD, Nabavi SA, Rochelle CA, Manovic V (2017) A review of developments in carbon dioxide storage. Appl Energy 208:1389–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson R, Fridh K, Stripple H, Häglund M (2013) Calculating CO2 uptake for existing concrete structures during and after service life. Environ Sci Technol 47:11625–11633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker DJ (2009) CO2 capture in the cement industry. Energy Procedia 1:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caserini S, Dolci G, Azzellino A, Lanfredi C, Rigamonti L, Barreto B, Grosso M (2017) Evaluation of new technology for carbon dioxide submarine storage in glass capsules. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 60:140–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooley J (2013) Estimating the supply and demand for deep geologic CO2 storage capacity over the course of the 21st century: a meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Procedia 37:5141–5150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EC - European Commission (2013) Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations. OJ L, 124, 4.5.2013Google Scholar
  8. EMODnet (2016) European Marine Observation and Data Network, Bathymetry portal. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  9. Eurostat (2016a) Natural gas price Statistics. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  10. Eurostat (2016b) Labour cost, wages, and salaries, direct remuneration (excluding apprentices) by NACE Rev. 2 activity—LCS surveys 2008 and 2012. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  11. Eurostat (2016c) Energy price Statistics. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  12. Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, Garcia WO, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente JLV, Wilcox J, Dominguez MMZ, Minx JC (2018) Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ Res Lett 13:063002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gale J (2015) Special Issue commemorating the 10th year anniversary of the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on CO2 Capture and StorageGoogle Scholar
  14. GCCSI (2011) Economic assessment of carbon capture and storage technologies 2011 update. Global Carbon Capture and Storage InstituteGoogle Scholar
  15. GCCSI (2018) The global status of CCS: 2018. Global CCS Institute, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  16. Havlova V, Laciok A, Cervinka R, Vokal A (2007) Analogue evidence relevant to UK HLW glass waste forms. Nuclear Research InstituteRez plcGoogle Scholar
  17. Hekinian R, Hoffert M (1975) Rate of palagonitization and manganese coating on basaltic rocks from the Rift Valley in the Atlantic Ocean near 36°50′N. Mar Geol 19(2):91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hills T, Leeson D, Florin N, Fennel P (2016) Carbon capture in the cement industry: technologies, progress, and retrofitting. Environ Sci Technol 50(1):368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hischier R, Weidema B, Althaus HJ, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, Frischknecht R, Hellweg S, Humbert S, Jungbluth N, Köllner T, Loerincik Y, Margni M, Nemecek T (2010) Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Ecoinvent report No 3. Swiss Centre for LCI, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  20. Honegger M, Reiner D (2018) The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. Clim Pol 18(3):306–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IEA (2013) Technology roadmap 2035 2040 2045 2050 energy technology perspectives carbon capture and storage. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. IEA (2015) Carbon capture and storage: the solution for deep emissions reductions. OECD/International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. IEA (2016) 20 years of carbon capture and storage—accelerating future |deployment. OECD/International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (2004) IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2004. IEA Greenhouse gas R&D ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  25. IEAGHG (2008) A regional assessment of the potential for CO2 storage in the Indian subcontinent. International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Report 2/2008Google Scholar
  26. IPCC (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, New York ISBN: 92-9169-1190-4Google Scholar
  27. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Section Minerals—CementGoogle Scholar
  28. IPCC (2018) GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  29. Kemper J (2015) Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:401–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MISIS Joint Cruise Scientific Report (2014) “State of Environment Report of the Western Black Sea based on Joint MISIS cruise” (SoE-WBS), Moncheva S. and L. Boicenco [Eds], 401 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Morbee J, Serpa J, Tzimas E (2010) The evolution of the extent and the investment requirements of a trans-European CO2 transport network. JRC Scientific and Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelder C (2015) Why carbon capture and storage will never pay off. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  33. Nemet GF, Callaghan MW, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Hartmann J, Jérôme H, Lamb WF, Minx JC, Rogers S, Smith P (2018) Negative emissions—part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ Res Lett 13:063002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norton FJ (1952) Helium diffusion through glass. Fall meeting of the glass division. The American Ceramic Society, OhioGoogle Scholar
  35. Oliver G, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M, Peters JAHW (2016) Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2016 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and European Commission, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  36. Opyd M, Frischcat GH, Aigner ML, Köpsel D (2007) Determination of inert gas solubilities in borosilicate glass melts. Glass Technol. Eur J Glass Sci Technol A 48:31–34Google Scholar
  37. Pade C, Guimaraes M (2007) The CO2 uptake of concrete in a 100-year perspective. Cem Concr Res 37:1348–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pawar R, Carey W (2015) Recent advances in risk assessment and risk management of geologic CO2 storage. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:292–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pommer K, Pade C (2005) Guidelines—uptake of carbon dioxide in the life cycle inventory of concrete. Nordic Innovation CentreGoogle Scholar
  40. Reseghetti F (2008) Factors affecting quality of XBT data: results of analyses on profiles from the western Mediterranean Sea. ENEA-C.R:.A.M. Teresa, Lerici, Italy. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  41. Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber HJ (2017) A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355:1269–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Schaeffer M, Krey V, Riahi K (2015) Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat Clim Chang 5:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roussanaly S, Jakobsen JP, Hognes EH, Brunsvo AL (2013) Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: part I—onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 19:584–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubin E, Davison J (2015) The cost of CO2 capture and storage. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:378–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rubin E et al (2013) A proposed methodology for CO2 capture and storage cost estimates. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control:488–503Google Scholar
  46. Shackelford JF (2014) Gas solubility and diffusion in oxide glasses—implications for nuclear wasteforms. Procedia Mater Sci 7:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. The Shift Project Data Portal (2016) Datasets on Electricity statistics. . Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  48. UNFCCC (2015) Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9, 12 December. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  49. Xi F, Davia SJ, Ciais P, Crawford- Brown D, Guan D, Pade C, Shi T, Syddall M, Lv J, Ji L, Bing L, Wang J, Wei W, Yang KH, Lagerblad B, Galan I, Candrade C, Zhang Y, Liu Z (2016) Substantial global carbon uptake by cement carbonation. Nat Geosci 9:880–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ZEP - Zero Emission Platform (2011) The costs of CO2 capture, transport and storage- post- demonstration CCS in the EU. European technology platform for zero emission fossil fuel power plantGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e AmbientalePolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations