**6. Conclusions**

This techno-economic and environmental analysis assessed in a quantifiable manner the decarbonization process of some important fossil-based industrial processes (electricity generation, iron, steel and cement production). As decarbonization technologies, two reactive gas-liquid (chemical scrubbing using alkanolamines—MDEA) and gas-solid (based on calcium-based sorbents) systems were assessed. The CaL decarbonization option exhibits improved performance indicators over the chemical scrubbing for the evaluated post-combustion capture configurations (higher energy conversion yields, lower carbon footprint and specific primary energy consumption, better economic indicators, etc.). In addition, for some of the evaluated processes (steel and cement production plants), the spent solid sorbent from the looping cycle can be utilized by the integration of the whole production chain with positive techno-economic and environmental results. For the pre-combustion capture configuration (evaluated here in relation to a coal gasification plant), the chemical scrubbing by gas-liquid absorption shows higher energy efficiency and more potential for future developments than CaL decarbonization option. Regarding the environmental impact of the LCA analysis, it is worth mentioning that the carbon footprint is reduced by the process decarbonization, but other environmental indicators show significant increases. To illustrate this element, the results of an LCA analysis were presented in detail for super-critical combustion-based power plant concepts.

**Author Contributions:** A.-M.C., L.P. and C.-C.C. did the model conceptualization of evaluated systems and proposed the assessing methodology, A.-M.C., S.D. and C.-C.C. assessed the main technical and environmental performances, V.S. and C.-C.C. were responsible with modeling, simulation and Heat Integration work as well as writing the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
