Techno-Economic Assessment Tem

ABOUT
This template was created in 2021 by Grant Faber fo
is based on Version 1.1 of the Techno-Economic Ass
Author Utilization found at this link: https://deepblue.lib.um

The goal of this example template is to help streaml

assessments for emerging carbon capture, utilizatio
Purpose and comparable manner based on the Global CO2 In

Users should fill out the information on the Goal and

Then, relevant data points should be filled in on the
How to Use Interpretation worksheets can then be structured an
the study and the type of results desired.

Anyone conducting a TEA for technologies in Techno

to pilot trial) may find value in this template. Specifi
Intended Audiences assessment practitioners, entrepreneurs, researcher
executives.

Listing sources as comments on cells helps others fin

explanations in the Notes areas helps others unders
Tips Inventory worksheet eases the process of updating p
switches for scenarios expedites scenario analysis an

This template is designed primarily for assessing ear

Potential Template Expansions
about cost hotspot identification rather than highly
the template may be required for modeling of highe
Specifically, more advanced models may require sign
production processes; an expanded and potentially
balance calculations; more detailed labor calculation
aspects and parameters; more visualizations of resu
operational parameters for batch processes; allocati
between steps; results that feed into cash flow proje
and production data; more advanced, probabilistic u
analysis that varies multiple, interlinked parameters
these methods to make the template even more rob
modeling.
 these methods to make the template even more rob
modeling.

The process modeled in this template does not refle

purposes only. The author and the Global CO2 Initiati
Disclaimer or other issues with this template. Please link back t
essment Template
UT
n 2021 by Grant Faber for the University of Michigan Global CO 2 Initiative. It
he Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO 2
: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/162573

mplate is to help streamline the process of conducting techno-economic

arbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies in a consistent
sed on the Global CO 2 Initiative's existing guidelines.

ormation on the Goal and Scope worksheets to guide the rest of the study.
should be filled in on the Inventory worksheet. The Indicators and
can then be structured and written depending on how the user is conducting
esults desired.
https://www.globalco2initiative

or technologies in Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 1 through 6 (from idea

e in this template. Specific groups may include technology developers,
ntrepreneurs, researchers, investors, and corporate development

s on cells helps others find this information again in the future. Writing
reas helps others understand data and calculations. Avoiding formulas in the
the process of updating parameters in the future. Making on/off (1/0)
dites scenario analysis and allows for multiple scenarios at once.

rimarily for assessing early stage technologies where the goal of TEA is more
ation rather than highly precise manufacturing cost results. Expansions of
ed for modeling of higher TRL technologies or more complex processes.
d models may require significantly more steps; specific equations modeling
xpanded and potentially branching system; expanded mass and energy
detailed labor calculations; more space for longer descriptions of study
ore visualizations of results; inclusion of residence times or other
batch processes; allocations for non-dedicated machinery; loss rates
feed into cash flow projections; use of marginal rather than average cost
advanced, probabilistic uncertainty analysis; and code for global sensitivity
e, interlinked parameters simultaneously. Users can choose to deploy any of
template even more robust, accurate, and specific to the process they are
 template even more robust, accurate, and specific to the process they are

s template does not reflect any real technology and is for demonstrative
and the Global CO2 Initiative take no responsibility for errors, mistakes, bugs,
mplate. Please link back to the Initiative if using this model publicly!
ww.globalco2initiative.org/
 Techno-Economic Assessment: Tit
Name
Organization
Email
Date

GOAL
Study Context

The technology for this study is…

Technology

The technology is currently at TRL 5, which is detaile

lab environment, and developed process models an
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) this model. Results of this study will inform develop

The final product of this production process is an ex

the method of… This technology aims to replace the
Comparison Technology lower in terms of emissions, and not dependent on

This study assumes the United States as the location

floor space and electricity costs, use U.S. averages.
Location Used in Assessment

While this study assumes payback of debt taken on

the factory over 30 years, only costs for a static, sing
Time Horizon of Assessment Profitability over a period of time could be calculate
that includes a few more parameters.

Plant production volume is by default set at 2,000 ki

part of sensitivity analysis in the study.
Scale of Production
 This study is being conducted by… to help inform te
Involved Partners in Study

Purpose, Audience, and Commissioners

The purpose of this study is to prompt the research

technology's production process, to identify cost ho
Purpose of Study this point in the commercialization process, and to u
utilized in the final product.

The intended audience for this study is the technolo

Intended Audience

This study was commissioned by the executive team

Commissioners of Study

Usability Limitations

This study assumes a flow process operating for 90%

residence times for simplicity. Loss rates are compen
Limitations and Explanation of separately modeled also for simplicity. Scaling fac
which are less accurate but more convenient than d

Scenarios

In the default scenario of this study, 2,000 kg are pro

used, exact raw materials identified by the research
Base Case assumptions for chemical plants are assumed, and s
property, plant, and equipment are used.

In this first scenario, dedicated, low carbon electricit

electricity to understand the significance of the corr
Scenario #1: Low Carbon Electricity carbon electricity is slightly more expensive than ave
 In this second scenario, raw material 1 is replaced w
quantity. The goal of this scenario is to understand i
Scenario #2: Raw Material Replacement despite requiring slightly more material.
ssment: Title Here
on

L
text

dy is…

at TRL 5, which is detailed process development. It has been validated in a

oped process models and pilot plant projections are being used to inform
tudy will inform development of the pilot plant.

oduction process is an existing commodity conventionally produced through

ology aims to replace the conventional method with one that is cheaper,
, and not dependent on a fossil feedstock.

ted States as the location of the assessment. Certain values, such as factory
osts, use U.S. averages.

ayback of debt taken on for equipment over 10 years and debt taken on for
nly costs for a static, single year are calculated as part of the indicators.
f time could be calculated using the results of this analysis in a future study
arameters.

by default set at 2,000 kilograms. This is a modifiable parameter tested as

n the study.
ed by… to help inform technology being developed by…

d Commissioners

to prompt the research team to think through the cost implications of their
ocess, to identify cost hotspots that may be able to be easily mitigated at
lization process, and to understand the extent to which carbon dioxide is

this study is the technology development team at…

ed by the executive team of…

tations

process operating for 90% of the year rather than a batch process with
ty. Loss rates are compensated for in the initial raw materials needs instead
for simplicity. Scaling factors are used for equipment and floor space costs,
more convenient than direct quotes.

os

his study, 2,000 kg are produced, average electricity prices for the U.S. are
dentified by the research team are used, average labor costs and
lants are assumed, and standard assumptions for chemical plants relating to
ment are used.

ted, low carbon electricity is used instead of average, grid-supplied

e significance of the corresponding difference in cost. This dedicated low
more expensive than average U.S. grid electricity.
w material 1 is replaced with a cheaper alternative that is needed in a larger
enario is to understand if the alternative will make for a cheaper product
ore material.
 SCOPE
Application, Functional Unit, and Reference Flo

The final product is…

Final Product

This product is used to…

Application of Product

The appropriate functional unit for this particular pr

same molecular structure of the benchmark produc
Functional Unit performance does not need to be analyzed as there
this new process and the product created by the con

As the functional unit for this product is mass and pr

reference flow used in this study is 1 kilogram.
Reference Flow

System Boundaries and System Elements

This study uses gate-to-gate system boundaries, me

factory gates are considered. This is standard for TEA
System Boundaries the benchmark, which is the case here. Performance
across product systems, and activities before the fac

There are three primary system elements that are n

technology. Process 1 makes use of machine 1 and e
electricity, and process 3 makes use of machine 3 an
Overview of Relevant System Elements simultaneously and continuously in a flow process o
exception of planned downtime.

Graphical Representation
 Electricity Raw material 4 Electricity
Raw material 1

Raw material 2 Process 1 Process 2

Raw material 3

Benchmark Product

The benchmark product is 1 kilogram of the commo

by… and is priced by the market at around $1,200 pe
Benchmark Product(s) and Explanation

Indicators

Manufacturing cost is the first indicator. It is calcula

kilogram ($/kg) metric. This cost is also calculated fo
Manufacturing Cost producing the specified annual production volume,

The percentages of manufacturing costs attributable

overhead costs are calculated. A separate breakdow
Manufacturing Cost Distribution to each of these categories to help identify cost hots

The third indicator is a technical one and is the kilog

final product produced. This is not the amount that
Carbon Dioxide Utilization amount that is directly utilized per kilogram. A life c
life cycle carbon dioxide emissions reductions relativ

Multifunctionality and Allocation

Captured carbon dioxide (raw material 3) is the only

treated similarly to the other raw materials and inclu
Wastes Used and Allocation
 There are no by-products or co-products created by
concerning allocation of costs.
By-products/Co-products and Allocation
E
, and Reference Flow

unit for this particular product is mass because the final product has the
f the benchmark product currently sold on the market. Product
d to be analyzed as there is no difference between the product created by
oduct created by the conventional process.

is product is mass and production is occurring on a relatively small scale, the

study is 1 kilogram.

System Elements

e system boundaries, meaning only activities that take place within the
d. This is standard for TEAs where the final product is an exact substitute of
e case here. Performance and costs after the factory gate are identical
d activities before the factory gate are captured in cost data.

tem elements that are necessary to manufacture the final product using this
es use of machine 1 and electricity, process 2 makes use of machine 2 and
akes use of machine 3 and natural gas. All three processes operate
ously in a flow process over the course of the year with the possible
time.

entation
 Electricity Natural gas

Process 3 Final product

roduct

1 kilogram of the commodity product… This product is currently produced

arket at around $1,200 per kilogram.

rs

rst indicator. It is calculated per functional unit, leading to a dollar per

cost is also calculated for the entire plant over the course of 1 year when
nual production volume, leading to a dollar per year ($/year) metric.

cturing costs attributable to raw materials, labor, and manufacturing

ed. A separate breakdown is also calculated for each individual contributor
to help identify cost hotspots.

nical one and is the kilograms of carbon dioxide utilized per kilogram of the
s is not the amount that each kilogram reduces emissions by but rather the
zed per kilogram. A life cycle assessment would be required to calculate full,
missions reductions relative to the benchmark product.

nd Allocation

aw material 3) is the only waste product utilized in the process. Its cost is
er raw materials and includes costs for capture, compression, and transport.
r co-products created by this process and thus no corresponding issues
sts.
 INVENTORY
Production Parameters

Parameter Value Unit

Annual production volume 2,000 kg/year total amount of final product manuf
Annual operating time 90% % percentage of hours throughout yea
Shift positions in plant 4 position total number of employees directly
Final product market price 1,200 $/kg current market price for final produ

Scenario Specifications

Scenario 1 or 0 On/Off
Scenario #1: Low Carbon Electricity 0 OFF whether scenario 1 is turned on or n
Scenario #2: Raw Material Replacement 0 OFF whether scenario 2 is turned on or n

Material Flow

Raw Material Value Unit

Process 1
Raw material 1 23.4 kg/kg kilograms of RM 1 needed in proces
Raw material 2 15.6 L/kg liters of RM 2 needed in process 1 p
Raw material 3 (CO2) 9.9 kg/kg kilograms of RM 3 needed in proces
Raw material 1 replacement 30.2 kg/kg replacement material consumption

Process 2
Raw material 4 50.3 L/kg liters of RM 4 needed in process 2 p

Cost Parameters

Inflation Data Value Unit

Year of analysis for inflation 2021 year all cost parameters should be inflate
Currency $ USD currency for all cost parameters

Raw Material Value Unit

Raw material 1 7.7 $/kg dollars per kilogram for RM 1
Raw material 2 17.2 $/L dollars per liter for RM2
Raw material 3 (CO2) 0.1 $/kg dollars per kilogram for RM 3
Raw material 4 25.6 $/L dollars per liter for RM 4
Raw material 1 replacement 2.3 $/kg dollars per kilogram for RM 1 replac

Energy Value Unit

Electricity 0.07 $/kWh dollars per kilowatt-hour for industr
Natural gas 3.93 $/Mcf dollars per thousand cubic feet of na
Low carbon electricity 0.10 $/kWh dollars per kilowatt-hour for low car

Labor Value Unit

Direct labor cost $32.15 $/person-hour average dollars per hour paid in wag
Indirect labor coefficient 50% % percentage of direct labor going to s
Fringe coefficient 42% % percentage of both direct and indire

Property, Plant, and Equipment Value Unit

Cost of capital 6.7% % average cost of borrowed money to
Maintenance 4% % annual percentage of equipment an
Insurance 1% % annual percentage of equipment an
Offsite/Outside Battery Limits (OSBL) 55% % percentage of equipment and floor
Engineering 20% % percentage of equipment, OSBL, and
Contingency 10% % percentage of equipment, OSBL, and
Years to recover equipment investment 10 year years used to repay debt taken on fo
Years to recover factory investment 30 year years used to repay debt taken on fo
Factory floor space cost 250 $/m2 dollars per square meter for initial f
Equipment occupancy markup 50% % percentage used to increase equipm

Machine Parameters

Number of Machines Per Step Value Unit

Process 1 1 unit number of machines to be used in p
Process 2 1 unit number of machines to be used in p
Process 3 1 unit number of machines to be used in p

Reference Machine Throughput Value Unit

Machine 1 15.8 L/hour-unit reference processing capacity for m
Machine 2 74.0 L/hour-unit reference processing capacity for m
Machine 3 35.7 L/hour-unit reference processing capacity for m

Reference Machine Cost Value Unit

Machine 1 159,302 $/unit cost for machine 1 sized to handle r
Machine 2 230,500 $/unit cost for machine 2 sized to handle r
Machine 3 1,754,500 $/unit cost for machine 3 sized to handle r

Ancillary Equipment Factors Value Unit

Machine 1 2.0 factor factor to apply to machine 1 cost to
Machine 2 2.0 factor factor to apply to machine 2 cost to
Machine 3 2.0 factor factor to apply to machine 3 cost to

Reference Machine Scaling Exponents Value Unit

Machine 1 0.67 exp exponent used to scale base costs w
Machine 2 0.50 exp exponent used to scale base costs w
Machine 3 1.00 exp exponent used to scale base costs w

Reference Machine Power Rating Value Unit

Machine 1 3.2 kW/unit kilowatt rating for machine 1
Machine 2 4.2 kW/unit kilowatt rating for machine 2
Machine 3 0.2 Mcf/hour-unit thousands of cubic feet used per ho

Reference Machine Floor Space Value Unit

Floor space scaling exponent 0.67 exp area scaling found using 2/3 expone
Machine 1 8.0 m2/unit square meters taken up by each ma
Machine 2 5.5 m2/unit square meters taken up by each ma
Machine 3 7.0 m2/unit square meters taken up by each ma

Sensitivity Analysis Working Section

Note: this section contains data tables for sensitivity analysis because Excel requires data tables in the same
this analysis is conducted as part of the Interpretation phase. Thus, while the tables are here, co

The units in the right-hand columns in this section are manufacturing costs per kilog

Production volume (kg/year) $ 3,084

1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000 Productio
5,000 $1,000
6,000
Manufacturing Cost ($/kg)

7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000 $-
0 20,000 40,0
Annual Produ
 Manufa
$-
0 20,000 40,0
70,000
80,000 Annual Produ
90,000
100,000
Note: sensitivity analysis of produc
Raw material 4 cost ($/L) $ 3,084 in which machines are realistically s
in the Inventory and the
10
15
20
25
30
35

Annual operating time (%) $ 3,084

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Uncertainty Analysis Working Section

Note: this section contains data tables for uncertainty analysis because Excel requires data tables in the sam
this analysis is conducted as part of the Interpretation phase. Thus, while the tables are here, co

The units in the right-hand columns in this section are manufacturing costs per kilog

Offsite/outside battery limits (OSBL) (%) $ 3,084

15%
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
75%
85%
95%
Machine 3 reference cost ($/unit) $ 3,084
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
2,200,000
2,400,000
2,600,000
2,800,000
3,000,000
ORY
ameters

Notes
nt of final product manufactured by plant in 1 year
of hours throughout year when plant is operating
er of employees directly managing plant at any given time
rket price for final product produced by process

fications

Notes
enario 1 is turned on or not
enario 2 is turned on or not

low

Notes

f RM 1 needed in process 1 per 1 kilogram output of final product

M 2 needed in process 1 per 1 kilogram output of final product
f RM 3 needed in process 1 per 1 kilogram output of final product
nt material consumption for use in study scenario

M 4 needed in process 2 per 1 kilogram output of final product

eters

Notes
ameters should be inflated to this year if not current
r all cost parameters

Notes
kilogram for RM 1
liter for RM2
kilogram for RM 3
liter for RM 4
kilogram for RM 1 replacement for use in study scenario

Notes
kilowatt-hour for industrial buyer in study location
thousand cubic feet of natural gas for industrial buyer in study location
kilowatt-hour for low carbon electricity in study location for scenario

Notes
llars per hour paid in wages/salary to employees
of direct labor going to supervision and overhead employees
of both direct and indirect labor costs that covers benefits and other costs

Notes
st of borrowed money to pay for equipment and factory
centage of equipment and offsite costs for maintaining
centage of equipment and offsite costs for insuring
of equipment and floor space costs for utility connections, lighting, etc.
of equipment, OSBL, and floor space costs for engineering/design
of equipment, OSBL, and floor space costs for possible overruns
to repay debt taken on for equipment
to repay debt taken on for floor space
square meter for initial factory construction
used to increase equipment space to allow for workers, connections, etc.

meters

Notes
machines to be used in process 1
machines to be used in process 2
machines to be used in process 3

Notes
processing capacity for machine 1
processing capacity for machine 2
processing capacity for machine 3

Notes
chine 1 sized to handle reference throughput value above
chine 2 sized to handle reference throughput value above
chine 3 sized to handle reference throughput value above

Notes
pply to machine 1 cost to account for ancillary equipment (piping)
pply to machine 2 cost to account for ancillary equipment (piping)
pply to machine 3 cost to account for ancillary equipment (piping)

Notes
sed to scale base costs with formula cost=cost ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp
sed to scale base costs with formula cost=cost ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp
sed to scale base costs with formula cost=cost ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp

Notes
ting for machine 1
ting for machine 2
of cubic feet used per hour by machine 3

Notes
g found using 2/3 exponent on volume scaling
ers taken up by each machine 1
ers taken up by each machine 2
ers taken up by each machine 3

orking Section

s data tables in the same sheet as the variables being modified. Generally,
e the tables are here, conclusions are discussed in that section.

ufacturing costs per kilogram of the final product.

Production Cost Curve

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

Annual Production Volume (kg/year)
 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Annual Production Volume (kg/year)

itivity analysis of production volume is only applicable for ranges

achines are realistically sized given the fixed number of machines
in the Inventory and the required hourly throughput.

Working Section

es data tables in the same sheet as the variables being modified. Generally,
e the tables are here, conclusions are discussed in that section.

ufacturing costs per kilogram of the final product.

 INDICATORS
Indicator Summary

Process Costs $/kg $/year % of Total

Raw Materials $ 1,733 $ 3,465,812 56.2%
Raw material 1 $ 179 $ 358,020 5.8%
Raw material 2 $ 268 $ 536,640 8.7%
Raw material 3 (CO2) $ 1 $ 2,372 0.0%
Raw material 4 $ 1,284 $ 2,568,780 41.6%

Labor $ 1,081 $ 2,161,049 35.0%

Direct labor $ 507 $ 1,014,577 16.4%
Indirect labor $ 254 $ 507,288 8.2%
Fringe $ 320 $ 639,183 10.4%

Manufacturing Overhead $ 271 $ 542,119 8.8%

Factory floor space $ 0 $ 231 0.0%
Capital equipment $ 208 $ 416,820 6.8%
Maintenance $ 49 $ 97,432 1.6%
Insurance $ 12 $ 24,358 0.4%
Utilities - electricity $ 0 $ 842 0.0%
Utilities - natural gas $ 1 $ 2,436 0.0%

Total Manufacturing Cost $ 3,084 $ 6,168,980 100.0%

CO2 Utilization Value Unit

Direct CO2 utilized per functional unit 10 kg CO2/kg CO2 directly used in product. Does N

Intermediate Calculations

Labor Value Unit

Annual operating hours 7,889 hour/year total hours of plant uptime through
Annual direct hours worked by employees 31,558 hour/year number of person-hours worked by

Machine Cost Value Unit

Machine 1 hourly throughput needs 4.0 L/hour-unit based on fluid needs in process 1 an
Machine 2 hourly throughput needs 12.7 L/hour-unit based on fluid needs in process 2 on
Machine 3 hourly throughput needs 12.7 L/hour-unit based on fluid needs carried over fro
Scaled machine 1 cost 125,955 $/unit scaled machine 1 cost with formula
Scaled machine 2 cost 191,270 $/unit scaled machine 2 cost with formula
Scaled machine 3 cost 1,253,148 $/unit scaled machine 3 cost with formula

Total machinery cost 1,570,373 $ total cost for machinery factoring in

Machine Energy Use Value Unit

Scaled machine 1 power rating 0.8 kW/unit power rating scaled linearly with thr
Scaled machine 2 power rating 0.7 kW/unit power rating scaled linearly with thr
Scaled machine 3 power rating 0.1 Mcf/hour-unit power rating scaled linearly with thr

Annual machine 1 energy use 6,319 kWh/year-unit total kilowatt-hours used per machi
Annual machine 2 energy use 5,704 kWh/year-unit total kilowatt-hours used per machi
Annual machine 3 energy use 620 Mcf/year-unit total thousands of cubic feet of natu

Annual electricity usage 12,023 kWh/year total kilowatt-hours used by process

Annual natural gas usage 620 Mcf/year total thousands of cubic feet of natu

Machine Floor Space Value Unit

Scaled machine 1 floor space 4.8 m /unit
2
scaled floor space formula space=(1
Scaled machine 2 floor space 2.6 m2/unit scaled floor space formula space=(1
Scaled machine 3 floor space 5.3 m2/unit scaled floor space formula space=(1

Total floor space needs 12.6 m2 total floor space requirement factor
CATORS
or Summary

Manufacturing Cost Distribution

Manufacturing
Overhead; 8.8%

Labor;
35.0%
Raw Mate-
rials; 56.2%

Notes
irectly used in product. Does NOT account for process emissions. See LCA

ate Calculations

Notes
hours of plant uptime throughout a 365.25 day year (accounts for leap years)
ber of person-hours worked by various employees across shifts

Notes
d on fluid needs in process 1 and number of machines
d on fluid needs in process 2 only and number of machines
d on fluid needs carried over from process 2 and number of machines
d machine 1 cost with formula cost=(cost ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp)*factor
d machine 2 cost with formula cost=(cost ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp)*factor
d machine 3 cost with formula cost=(cost ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp)*factor

cost for machinery factoring in number of units

Notes
er rating scaled linearly with throughput
er rating scaled linearly with throughput
er rating scaled linearly with throughput

kilowatt-hours used per machine 1 in 1 year

kilowatt-hours used per machine 2 in 1 year
thousands of cubic feet of natural gas used per machine 3 in 1 year

kilowatt-hours used by process in 1 year

thousands of cubic feet of natural gas used by process in 1 year

Notes
d floor space formula space=(1+markup%)*space ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp
d floor space formula space=(1+markup%)*space ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp
d floor space formula space=(1+markup%)*space ref*(thruput/thruputref)exp

floor space requirement factoring in number of machines

 Cost Model

MANUFACTURING COST: ALL PROCESSES

Raw Materials $/kg $/year Note: A potential expansion of
Raw material 1 $ 179 $ 358,020 this model involves creating one
of the boxes on the left for each
Raw material 2 $ 268 $ 536,640 individual process in the system.
Raw material 3 (CO2) $ 1 $ 2,372 This would increase the
Raw material 4 $ 1,284 $ 2,568,780 granularity of results.
Total $ 1,733 $ 3,465,812

Production Labor $/kg $/year

Direct labor $ 507 $ 1,014,577
Indirect labor $ 254 $ 507,288
Fringe $ 320 $ 639,183
Total $ 1,081 $ 2,161,049

Manufacturing Overhead $/kg $/year

Factory floor space $ 0 $ 231
Capital equipment $ 208 $ 416,820
Maintenance $ 49 $ 97,432
Insurance $ 12 $ 24,358
Utilities - electricity $ 0 $ 842
Utilities - natural gas $ 1 $ 2,436
Total $ 271 $ 542,119

COST OF THE PROCESS $ 3,084 $ 6,168,980

Capital Equipment Cost $/plant

Machinery $ 1,570,373
Offsite/OSBL $ 865,438
Engineering $ 487,792
Contingency $ 243,896
Total $ 3,167,499
 ential expansion of
involves creating one
s on the left for each
process in the system.
increase the
of results.
 INTERPRETATION
Scenario Analysis

When the switch in the Inventory worksheet for low

negligible change to the final dollar per kilogram ind
Scenario #1: Low Carbon Electricity being an insignificant component of overall costs.

When the switch in the Inventory worksheet for raw

adjusted to assume the use of the alternative to raw
Scenario #2: Raw Material Replacement per kilogram as the alternative is significantly cheap
required does not offset this lower cost.

Sensitivity Analysis

Note: only a few variables were tested to analyze the results' sensitivity to them for demonstration pu

Production Cost Curve

$1,000
Manufacturing Cost ($/kg)

$-
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000
Annual Production Volume (kg/year)

The cost curve above demonstrates that a manufact

of 20,000 kilograms per year. The manufacturing co
before hitting this floor. As more units are produced
Production Volume (kg/year) distributing constant labor costs over more units (it
easily operate larger, automated plants) and from u
scale sublinearly with production volume.

Production Volume (kg/year)
Raw Material 4 Cost ($/L)
Annual Operating Time (%)
Note: only a couple variables were tested to analyze parameter uncertainty for demonstration purp
Offsite/Outside Battery Limits (OSBL) (%)
Machine 3 Reference Cost ($/unit)
Insight #1
before hitting this floor. As more units are produced
distributing constant labor costs over more units (it
easily operate larger, automated plants) and from u
scale sublinearly with production volume.
Given that raw material 4 contributes around 42% o
is unsurprising that the final manufacturing cost is h
Inventory worksheet shows that a reduction of the c
$15 per liter results in a roughly 16% reduction in m
not be feasible.
Surprisingly, in the base case model, cost decreases
time decreases from 90% from 40%. This is because
relative to capital equipment in the base case mode
time more than offset the increases in the size and c
the same volume in this shorter time. However, this
where labor is a smaller component of overall costs.
Uncertainty Analysis
OSBL costs are a percentage of Inside Battery Limits
floor space costs in this model. They can range wide
in the base case model. Uncertainty analysis using a
manufacturing costs of $3,015/kg to $3,154/kg (rou
not a significant contributor to manufacturing costs
uncertainty in the OSBL factor will not greatly affect
Sometimes it can be difficult to find data on costs of
to a lack of transparency or the desire to avoid using
potential costs for machine 3 are used to explore ho
manufacturing cost indicator. As capital equipment
costs in the base case model, varying machine 3's co
increases the manufacturing cost from $2,992/kg to
Insights and Recommendations
The manufacturing cost of the final product with thi
model. Raw materials contribute 56% of costs while
and 9% respectively. Raw material 4 was the most si
almost 42% of the final cost. As the commodity benc
cost reductions are necessary for the final product t
utilized per 1 kg of the final product.
 Scaling production to around 20,000 kg/year leads t
$2,000/kg. Using low carbon electricity has a negligi
of the final product. Using the replacement for raw
Insight #2 3.7% when using the base case production volume o
benefit of using the alternative will increase with sca
component of cost as production scales. Finally, unc

As the benchmark product is a commodity that is cu

research team will need to figure out if the producti
advantage of economies of scale to reach the manu
Recommendation #1 20,000 kilograms per year of production. The resear
material 4 with something cheaper or research if it c
bulk for a discount, as this would help reduce the m

As energy costs are a very small component of the o

carbon electricity in the pilot plant despite its slightl
benefits of this technology, which can be fully explo
Recommendation #2 lower costs from using the alternative for raw mater
it for the process going forward.
 ATION
alysis

entory worksheet for low carbon electricity is turned on, there is a nearly
al dollar per kilogram indicator for the final product. This is due to energy
onent of overall costs.

entory worksheet for raw material replacement is turned on, costs are
of the alternative to raw material 1. Costs decrease from $3,084 to $2,975
tive is significantly cheaper than the original material and the extra amount
s lower cost.

nalysis

em for demonstration purposes. A full study may assess many more.

st Curve

60,000 80,000 100,000

Volume (kg/year)

nstrates that a manufacturing cost floor is hit around a production volume

ar. The manufacturing cost is highly sensitive to production volume at first
more units are produced, there are economies of scale arising from
costs over more units (it is assumed the same number of employees can
mated plants) and from using machines whose costs and floor space needs
uction volume.
 more units are produced, there are economies of scale arising from
costs over more units (it is assumed the same number of employees can
mated plants) and from using machines whose costs and floor space needs
uction volume.

ontributes around 42% of the manufacturing cost in the base case model, it
l manufacturing cost is highly sensitive to RM 4's cost. The data table on the
that a reduction of the cost of raw material 4 from around $25 per liter to
ughly 16% reduction in manufacturing costs. Such a reduction may or may

e model, cost decreases from $3,084/kg to around $2,785/kg as operating

om 40%. This is because labor is a larger contributor to manufacturing cost
nt in the base case model, so the savings from less labor with 40% operating
ncreases in the size and cost of the capital equipment required to produce
orter time. However, this ceases to be the case at higher production volumes
mponent of overall costs.

nalysis

for demonstration purposes. A full study may assess many more.

e of Inside Battery Limits (ISBL) costs, which refer to machinery and factory
del. They can range widely across plants. A rough average of 55% was used
certainty analysis using a range from 15% to 95% led to a range in final
015/kg to $3,154/kg (roughly a 4% spread). Given that capital equipment is
r to manufacturing costs (and this is even less the case with scaling),
tor will not greatly affect the final manufacturing cost per unit.

t to find data on costs of machines, especially custom or unique ones, due

the desire to avoid using confidential information. In this case, a range of
3 are used to explore how uncertainty regarding its cost might affect the
or. As capital equipment is not a significant contributor to manufacturing
el, varying machine 3's cost from $1,000,000/unit to $3,000,000/unit only
g cost from $2,992/kg to $3,237/kg.

mendations

he final product with this new technology is $3,084/kg in the base case
ibute 56% of costs while labor and manufacturing overhead contribute 35%
material 4 was the most significant individual cost contributor, making up
t. As the commodity benchmark product only sells for $1,200/kg, significant
ry for the final product to be competitive. ~10 kg of carbon dioxide are
product.
nd 20,000 kg/year leads to a manufacturing cost floor of just around
n electricity has a negligible impact on the manufacturing costs per kilogram
he replacement for raw material 1 decreases the final cost metric by about
ase production volume of 2,000 kilograms per year. The anticipated cost
tive will increase with scale, as raw materials become a more significant
uction scales. Finally, uncertainty hardly affects results.

is a commodity that is currently priced around $1,200 per kilogram, the

figure out if the production process can be reasonably scaled to take
scale to reach the manufacturing cost floor of around $2,000/kg around
of production. The researchers should also seek a way to replace raw
cheaper or research if it can be manufactured cheaply onsite or purchased in
would help reduce the manufacturing cost significantly.

mall component of the overall cost, the researchers should plan to use low
ot plant despite its slightly higher cost. This will help improve the climate
which can be fully explored with a life cycle assessment. Also, given the
alternative for raw material 1, it is recommended that the research team use
ward.
 SOUR
This worksheet lists various sources that may be useful for collecting inventory data or impact asse
https://assessccus.globalco2initiative.org/tea/databas

TEA: Mater

Alibaba
Amazon
CatCost
MilliporeSigma (formerly Sigma-Aldrich)
Economic Feasibility for CO2 Conversion Pathways
Google Scholar
U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory Capital Cost Scaling Methodology
Chapter 6 – Costing and Project Evaluation, from Chemical Engineering Design
Appendix D: Capital Cost Guidelines, from Rules of Thumb in Engineering Practice
Capcost 2017, from Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes
Online Equipment Cost Calculator, from Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers
Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook
The Engineering ToolBox
U.S. Cooperative Extension Service Offices by State

TEA: La

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator
Prof. Aswath Damodaran’s cost of capital for U.S. industries index
Prof. Aswath Damodaran’s finance metric datasets

TE

U.S. Energy Information Administration

U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory TEA Section
International Renewable Energy Agency Cost Data
Open Energy Information

TEA: C
U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory Energy Analysis Tools
An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential
FE/NETL CO2 Transport Cost Model: Spreadsheet
FE/NETL CO2 Transport Cost Model: Overview
FE/NETL CO2 Transport Cost Model: User Manual

LCA: Emissio

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
(eGRID)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Reduction Model (WARM)
U.S. Argonne National Laboratory Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
Technologies Model (GREET)
GHGenius
Industrial Design & Engineering Materials Database (IDEMAT)
U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory LCA for Energy Technology and Pathways
U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Sustainability Analysis
Open Energy Information
IPCC Emissions Factor Database

LCA: Sp

Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)

PlasticsEurope Eco-profiles
World Steel Association Steel Life Cycle Inventory
EstiMol
ecoinvent Life Cycle Inventory Reports for Various Products
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) Library

LCA: Lis

Life Cycle Initiative Global LCA Databases

Greenhouse Gas Protocol Database List

LCA: Licens

ecoinvent
Google Scholar
openLCA Nexus
openLCA Tutorial
SimaPro Databases
SimaPro Tutorial
GaBi Databases
GaBi Tutorial
cm.chemicals

U.S. Federal LCA Commons

Global LCA Data Access (GLAD)
CPM LCA Database
Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA)
 SOURCE GUIDE
ory data or impact assessment factors. The list was derived from the database guides on the AssessCCUS website that can be
tiative.org/tea/databases/ and https://assessccus.globalco2initiative.org/lca/databases/.

TEA: Materials and Equipment

https://www.alibaba.com/
https://www.amazon.com/
https://catcost.chemcatbio.org/downloads
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/united-states.html
https://www.nrel.gov/bioenergy/co2-utilization-economics/conversion-pathways.html
https://scholar.google.com/
https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=1026
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081025994000060
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9783527611119.app4
https://richardturton.faculty.wvu.edu/publications/analysis-synthesis-and-design-of-chemical-processes-5th-edition
http://www.mhhe.com/engcs/chemical/peters/data/
https://chembugs.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/perrys-chemical-engineering-handbook1.pdf
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/
https://nifa.usda.gov/land-grant-colleges-and-universities-partner-website-directory

TEA: Labor and Finance

https://www.bls.gov/
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/wacc.html
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datacurrent.html

TEA: Energy

https://www.eia.gov/
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/techno-economic.html
https://irena.org/costs
https://openei.org/apps/TCDB/

TEA: Carbon Dioxide

 https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/search?search=AnalyticalTools
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X18300634
https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=543
https://www.netl.doe.gov/projects/files/FENETLCO2TransportCostModel2018ModelOverview_050818.pdf
https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/FENETLCO2TransportCostModel2018DescriptionandUsersManual_050718.pdf

LCA: Emissions and Energy Data

https://www.epa.gov/egrid

https://www.epa.gov/warm

https://greet.es.anl.gov/

https://www.ghgenius.ca/
https://www.ecocostsvalue.com/data/
https://www.netl.doe.gov/LCA
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustainability.html
https://openei.org/apps/LCA/
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php

LCA: Specific Materials

https://ws680.nist.gov/bees/
https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/eco-profiles
https://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-topic/life-cycle-thinking.html
https://www.ifu.com/umberto/estimol/
https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/login/
https://www.environdec.com/library

LCA: Lists of Databases

https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/applying-lca/lca-databases-map/
https://ghgprotocol.org/life-cycle-databases

LCA: License-Based Databases

https://www.ecoinvent.org/
https://scholar.google.com/
https://nexus.openlca.org/
https://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GreenDelta-Bottle-Tutorial_Parameters_1.10.pdf
https://simapro.com/databases/
https://pre-sustainability.com/legacy/download/SimaPro8Tutorial.pdf
http://www.gabi-software.com/america/databases/
http://www.gabi-software.com/fileadmin/gabi/tutorials/Paperclip_Tutorial_Handbook_4.4.pdf
https://www.carbon-minds.com/lca-database-for-chemicals-and-plastics/

LCA: Other

https://www.lcacommons.gov/lca-collaboration/search
https://www.globallcadataaccess.org/
http://cpmdatabase.cpm.chalmers.se/
http://www.eiolca.net/
AssessCCUS website that can be found at

ml

-chemical-processes-5th-edition

book1.pdf

y
lOverview_050818.pdf
andUsersManual_050718.pdf
_Parameters_1.10.pdf

ook_4.4.pdf