From short-term profitability to long-term sustainability: exploring life cycle cost in chemical processes

As industries increasingly adopt sustainability-oriented strategies, economic assessment methods should evolve to incorporate environmental externalities and long-term system impacts. While conventional techno-economic analysis (TEA) evaluates financial feasibility, it may exclude life cycle-based costs and environmental burdens. This study focuses on TEA practices that have yet to fully incorporate life cycle considerations and compares them with life cycle costing (LCC) approaches under sustainability-driven contexts. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the system boundaries, cost coverage, and decision-making implications of both methods. Furthermore, a case study on recycled methanol production at a low technology readiness level (TRL) demonstrates how LCC enhances traditional TEA by internalizing environmental costs. Environmental costs were monetized using two methodologies (LIME3 and Ecovalue12), which are methods to monetize environmental impacts, and the results showed that the minimum selling price increased by 3–4% (LIME3) and 125–160% (Ecovalue12) compared to the TEA results. These findings highlight the variability introduced by environmental cost integration and the necessity for standardizing monetization methodologies. This work shows how life cycle-based cost assessments can provide a more comprehensive foundation for sustainability-oriented decision-making, particularly in emerging chemical technologies. • Compare TEA and LCC to assess sustainability in chemical process evaluations. • Conducted a meta-analysis of TEA and LCC system boundaries and cost scopes. • Integrated LCC into recycled methanol assessment, including environmental costs. • Applied LIME3 and Ecovalue12, showing cost variations from 3% to 160%. • Emphasized the need for standardized LCC in sustainability-driven decision-making.