Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies

For the actual implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, societal support is a crucial precondition. This paper describes an extensive study on the acceptance of CCS by stakeholders in the Netherlands and explores one of the determining factors in the acceptance of CCS by the lay public, i.e. the way the Dutch press perceives and portrays CCS. The stakeholder analysis shows that there is a positive attitude towards CCS by industry, government, and environmental NGOs, provided that the conditions they pose on the deployment of CCS are met. The content analysis of Dutch news articles conveys that the media portrayal of CCS is—to a certain extent—a balanced reflection of the way CCS is perceived by the stakeholders. Both analyses show that the concerns about CCS have not overshadowed the main promise that CCS is part of the solution to climate change. However, the current negative aspects of CCS as raised by different stakeholders and the media will remain if no action is taken. Therefore, the conditions posed on the use of CCS, as well as the actions required to meet these conditions, could function as a proxy for the ‘societal voice’, articulating the most important issues concerning the future acceptance of CCS technology.     

The public perspective of carbon capture and storage for CO2 emission reductions in China

To explore public awareness of carbon capture and storage (CCS), attitudes towards the use of CCS and the determinants of CCS acceptance in China, a study was conducted in July 2009 based on face-to-face interviews with participants across the country. The result showed that the awareness of CCS was low among the surveyed public in China, compared to other clean energy technologies. Respondents indicated a slightly supportive attitude towards the use of CCS as an alternative technology to CO₂ emission reductions. The regression model revealed that in addition to CCS knowledge, respondents’ understanding of the characteristics of CCS, such as the maturity of the technology, risks, capability of CO2 emission reductions, and CCS policy were all significant factors in predicting the acceptance of CCS. The findings suggest that integrating public education and communication into CCS development policy would be an effective strategy to overcome the barrier of low public acceptance.     

Stakeholder perceptions of CO2 capture and storage in Europe: Results from a survey

During 2006, a survey was conducted of European energy stakeholders (industry, government, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), researchers and academicians and parliamentarians). A total of 512 responses was received from 28 countries as follows: industry (28%), research (34%), government (13%), NGOs (5%) and parliamentarians (4%). Three-quarters of the sample thought that widespread use of CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) was ‘definitely’ or ‘probably necessary’ to achieve deep reductions in CO₂ emissions between now and 2050 in their own country. Only one in eight considered that CCS was ‘probably’ or ‘definitely not necessary’. For a range of 12 identified risks, 20–40% thought that they would be ‘moderate’ or ‘very serious’, whilst 60–80% thought that there would be no risks or that the risks would be ‘minimal’. A particular risk identified by nearly half the sample is the additional use of fossil fuels due to the ‘energy penalty’ incurred by CCS. Further concerns are that development of CCS would detract from investment in renewable energy technologies. Half of the respondents thought that incentives for CCS should be set either at the same level as those for renewables or at a higher level. Environmental NGOs were consistently less enthusiastic about CCS than the energy industry.     

Carbon prices and CCS investment: A comparative study between the European Union and China

Carbon Capture and Storage is considered as a key option for climate change mitigation; policy makers and investors need to know when CCS becomes economically attractive. Integrating CCS in a power plant adds significant costs which can be offset by a sufficient CO₂ price. However, most markets have failed: currently, the weak carbon price threatens CCS deployment in the European Union (EU). In China, a carbon regulation is appearing and CCS encounters a rising interest. This study investigates two questions: how much is the extra-cost of a CCS plant in the EU in comparison with China? Second, what is the CO₂ price beyond which CCS plants become more profitable than reference plants in the EU and in China? To address these issues, I conducted a literature review on public studies about CCS costs. To objectively assess the profitability of CCS plants, I constructed a net present value model to calculate the Levelised Cost of Electricity and the breakeven CO₂ price. CCS plants become the most profitable plant type beyond 115 €/tCO₂ in the EU vs. 45 €/tCO₂ in China (offshore transport and storage costs). I advise on the optimal plant type choice depending on the CO₂ price in both countries.     

Conditional inevitability: Expert perceptions of carbon capture and storage uncertainties in the UK context

This paper presents findings on expert perceptions of uncertainty in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and policy in the UK, through survey data and semi-structured interviews with 19 individual participants. Experts were interviewed in industry, research, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the summer of 2009 and were asked to comment on a range of technical processes as well as policy concerns. The survey revealed that perceptions of the technology conform to a ‘certainty trough’ with users expressing the lowest level of uncertainty, and outsiders expressing the highest level of uncertainty. The interviews revealed that experts express certitude in the prospects for deploying large-scale CCS technology in the UK, all the while questioning several underlying technical and policy premises that are necessary to ensure this goal.     

Environmental analysis of a German strategy for carbon capture and storage of coal power plants

This paper combines an existing projection of the development of electricity production with a technology-specific environmental assessment. The combination of these two approaches, which so far have only been performed separately, allows a discussion about environmental effects of carbon capture and storage (CCS) implementation strategies on a national level. The results identify the future role of lignite and hard coal in German power production. The implementation of CCS technology leads to a considerable loss of efficiency. Due to CCS, about 50 million t of lignite will be additionally required in 2030 in comparison to the reference case without CCS in 2010. Increasing demand, the replacement of old plants and the compensation of efficiency losses lead to highly ambitious expansion rates. In the case of CCS implementation, the global warming potential (GWP) can be reduced by up to 70%. However, other environmental impacts increase in part considerably. Compliance with national ceilings for NO_x emissions can only be reached by compensation measures in other sectors. The results of the environmental assessment demonstrate the significant role of the coal composition, coal origin and the required transport. CO₂ pipeline transport and CO₂ storage make a fairly minor contribution to the overall environmental impact.     

Perceptions of opinion leaders towards CCS demonstration projects in China

We present results of a major survey of Chinese opinion leaders conducted from March to April 2009, supported by EU–UK–China near zero emissions coal (NZEC) initiative. Respondents were drawn from 27 provinces and regions using an online survey with follow-up face-to-face interviews. A total of 131 experts and decision-makers from 68 key institutions were consulted through online survey. This survey is the first to focus on demonstration projects in particular and is the most geographically diverse. We aim to understand perceptions of applying CCS technologies in the first large-scale CCS demonstration project in China. Though enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced coal bed methane recovery (ECBM) may not be long-term solutions for CO₂ storage, they were viewed as the most attractive storage technologies for the first CCS demonstration project. With regard to CO₂ capture technology, on the whole, post-combustion (which would be most applicable to the vast majority of existing power plants which are pulverised-coal) received slightly higher support than pre-combustion. More surprising, respondents from both the power and oil industries favoured pre-combustion. There was no consensus regarding the appropriate scale for the first demonstration. A large number of respondents were concerned about the energy penalty associated with CCS and its impact on the long-term sustainability of coal supply in China, although such concerns were much reduced compared with surveys in 2006 and 2008.     

Carbon capture and storage at scale: Lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies

At present carbon capture and storage (CCS) is very expensive and its performance is highly uncertain at the scale of commercial power plants. Such challenges to deployment, though, are not new to students of technological change. Several successful technologies, including energy technologies, have faced similar challenges as CCS faces now. To draw lessons for the CCS industry from the history of other energy technologies that, as with CCS today, were risky and expensive early in their commercial development, we have analyzed the development of the US nuclear-power industry, the US SO₂-scrubber industry, and the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. Through analyzing the development of the analogous industries we arrive at three principal observations. First, government played a decisive role in the development of all of these analogous technologies. Second, diffusion of these technologies beyond the early demonstration and niche projects hinged on the credibility of incentives for industry to invest in commercial-scale projects. Third, the conventional wisdom that experience with technologies inevitably reduces costs does not necessarily hold. Risky and capital-intensive technologies may be particularly vulnerable to diffusion without accompanying reductions in cost.     

Carbon capture and storage as a corporate technology strategy challenge

Latest estimates suggest that widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) could account for up to one-fifth of the needed global reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050. Governments are attempting to stimulate investments in CCS technology both directly through subsidizing demonstration projects, and indirectly through developing price incentives in carbon markets. Yet, corporate decision-makers are finding CCS investments challenging. Common explanations for delay in corporate CCS investments include operational concerns such as the high cost of capture technologies, technological uncertainties in integrated CCS systems and underdeveloped regulatory and liability regimes. In this paper, we place corporate CCS adoption decisions within a technology strategy perspective. We diagnose four underlying characteristics of the strategic CCS technology adoption decision that present unusual challenges for decision-makers: such investments are precautionary, sustaining, cumulative and situated. Understanding CCS as a corporate technology strategy challenge can help us move beyond the usual list of operational barriers to CCS and make public policy recommendations to help overcome them.     

“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS

Around the world there is increasing interest from government and industry in the potential for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies to play a part in decarbonisation. This paper examines how people with little previous exposure to CCS technology, frame and discuss it, and how in the absence of information, ideas, notions, values and experiences shape opinion. We present data from a series of focus groups held with environmental activists, planning councillors, and adult and youth community group members in London in 2012. We found that views on CCS are shaped strongly by wider factors, particularly trade offs between different energy futures. Lay-critiques were similar to those put forward by environmental groups and were strongly framed by conceptions of nuclear power. We argue that although there is little public disquiet concerning this technology in private opinions were generally negative. This, and the use of nuclear power as a framing device, may present a challenge to policy-makers and industry committed to implementing CCS while promoting education as the main mechanism for public acceptance.     

Trojan horse or horn of plenty? Reflections on allowing CCS in the CDM

The discussion around allowing CO₂ capture and geological storage (CCS) into the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is important, as the CDM is currently the only structural incentive for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. Without the potential incentives given by the CDM, CCS in developing countries will only take place sporadically in niche sectors. The debate around CCS in the CDM has developed into a highly polarised discussion, with a deep divide between proponents and opponents and no view on reconciliation between the various perspectives. Environmental organisations and several developing-country parties in the climate negotiations are increasingly vehemently opposed against CCS in the CDM, and industrialised countries, several large fossil-fuel-dependent developing countries and industry view CCS as a natural option under the CDM, provided some surmountable technical and procedural barriers are taken care of.     

Technological uncertainty and cost effectiveness of CO2 emission reduction

This paper studies implications of uncertainty about CO₂ backstop technology for cost effectiveness of CO₂ emission reduction policy. For this purpose, we develop a dynamic general equilibrium model that captures empirical links between CO₂ emissions associated with energy use, the rate and direction of technical change and the economy. We specify CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) as the backstop technology whose arrival is anticipated or not. We find a negative value of information in that the discounted welfare loss associated with the emission reduction is lower if CCS is not anticipated. CO₂ shadow prices are then relatively high in the years before the CCS has arrived. By not simply waiting with the emission reduction until CCS has arrived, one relies more on economy wide technical change and its welfare enhancing technology externalities in turn allowing for a higher steady state. We believe that policy makers should thus be prudent in designing CO₂ emission reduction policy and be careful not to let polluters become complacent by postponing some of their emission reduction efforts awaiting the silver bullet technology on the horizon.     

Restricted carbon emissions and directed R&D support; an applied general equilibrium analysis

We analyse welfare effects of supporting general versus emission-saving technological development when carbon emissions are regulated by a carbon tax. We use a computable general equilibrium model with induced technological change (ITC). ITC is driven by two separate, economically motivated research and development (R&D) activities, one general and one emission-saving specified as carbon capture and storage (CCS). We study public revenue neutral policy alternatives targeted towards general R&D and CCS R&D. Support to general R&D is the welfare superior. However, the welfare gap between the two R&D policy alternatives is reduced with higher carbon tax levels. For sufficiently high levels of the carbon tax equal subsidy rates are preferred.     

CO2 emissions and carbon capture and storage prospects in the electric power industry of Guangdong Province,China

The main objective of this study is to characterise the electric power industry's CO₂ emissions and to understand its carbon capture and storage (CCS) prospects in China's Guangdong Province. Coal-fired power plants in Guangdong are the major point sources, contributing to more than 90% of CO₂ emissions of the electric power industry. The fossil-fuelled power plants are mainly located in the Pearl River Delta (PRD), and the newly built and planned large plants are mainly located in coastal zones. More basic research and investigation are necessary in the coming years to develop CCS. In the medium term, the harbours of eastern cities can be the key areas for CCS demonstration projects. In the long term, the reduction effect can be more remarkable if the CO₂ capture and pipeline project could be constructed on a large scale within the densest CO₂ point source area in the PRD.     

The Transformation of the Nuclear Power Industry

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the nuclear power generation industry in the US was viewed by the public as a dying industry owing mainly to concerns about the safety of the nuclear units, the storage of spent nuclear fuel, transportation of nuclear materials to central locations, and the general security of the nuclear facilities. Since then, the industry has transformed itself from one perceived as a dangerous, expensive technology to that of a reliable electrical power source. It is now viewed as a positive source of power from a global warming perspective. Aggressive industry initiatives to improve plant operation and maintenance have alleviated the public fear of nuclear technology. With the public unrest quieted and the cost of non-nuclear generation on the rise, the promise of nuclear power as a safe and reliable energy source may now be realized     

Efficiency of Carbon storage with leakage: Physical and economical approaches

In this paper, two methods are proposed to assess the efficiency of carbon capture and storage (CCS) involving back-leakage of CO₂ from geological storage reservoirs to the atmosphere. The first method is a physical approach based on radiative forcing. It leads to a criterion that assesses whether a given technology of CCS is physically beneficial compared to a reference technology without CCS. The second method is an economic approach based on the classical framework of net present value (NPV). It leads to an economic feasibility condition that assesses whether a given CCS technology is economically beneficial compared to a reference technology. The two models are compared with respect to their parametric dependence. In particular, a maximum leakage rate may be defined, above which neither of the feasibility criteria is satisfied. The two approaches are also discussed with respect to the type of decision they may generate. Under general assumptions, the economic criterion is stricter than the physical criterion when the leakage coefficient is small, and the opposite is true when the leakage coefficient is large.     

Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US

This study analyzes perceptions of four stakeholder groups (non-governmental organizations [NGOs], government, industry, and academia) regarding forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US (United States) by combining SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats) framework with AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process). Results suggest that NGO representatives perceived rural development as an important opportunity. Government stakeholder group noted that less or no competition with food production and promotes energy security were major strength factors. Conversion technologies are still under trial was identified as a major weakness by industry representatives. Representatives of academia felt that the competition from other renewable energy sources could be a major threat. Overall, all stakeholder groups were in favor of forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US.     

Greenhouse gas mitigation in a carbon constrained world: The role of carbon capture and storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) promises to allow for low-emissions fossil-fuel-based power generation. The technology is under development; a number of technological, economic, environmental and safety issues remain to be solved. CCS may prolong the prevailing coal-to-electricity regime and countervail efforts in other mitigation categories. Given the need to continue using fossil-fuels for some time, however, it may also serve as a bridging technology towards a renewable energy future. In this paper, we analyze the structural characteristics of the CCS innovation system and perform an energy-environment-economic analysis of the potential contribution of CCS, using a general equilibrium model for Germany. We show that a given climate target can be achieved at lower marginal costs when the option of CCS is included into the mix of mitigation options. We conclude that, given an appropriate legal and policy framework, CCS, energy efficiency and some other mitigation efforts are complementary measures and should form part of a broad mix of measures required for a successful CO₂ mitigation strategy.     

Impact of international climate policies on CO2 capture and storage deployment: Illustrated in the Dutch energy system

A greenhouse gas emission trading system is considered an important policy measure for the deployment of CCS at large scale. However, more insights are needed whether such a trading system leads to a sufficient high CO₂ price and stable investment environment for CCS deployment. To gain more insights, we combined WorldScan, an applied general equilibrium model for global policy analysis, and MARKAL-NL-UU, a techno-economic energy bottom-up model of the Dutch power generation sector and CO₂ intensive industry. WorldScan results show that in 2020, CO₂ prices may vary between 20 €/tCO₂ in a Grand Coalition scenario, in which all countries accept greenhouse gas targets from 2020, to 47 €/tCO₂ in an Impasse scenario, in which EU-27 continues its one-sided emission trading system without the possibility to use the Clean Development Mechanism. MARKAL-NL-UU model results show that an emission trading system in combination with uncertainty does not advance the application of CCS in an early stage, the rates at which different CO₂ abatement technologies (including CCS) develop are less crucial for introduction of CCS than the CO₂ price development, and the combination of biomass (co-)firing and CCS seems an important option to realise deep CO₂ emission reductions.     

Assessing innovation in emerging energy technologies: Socio-technical dynamics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) in the USA

This study applies a socio-technical systems perspective to explore innovation dynamics of two emerging energy technologies with potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electrical power generation in the United States: carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). The goal of the study is to inform sustainability science theory and energy policy deliberations by examining how social and political dynamics are shaping the struggle for resources by these two emerging, not-yet-widely commercializable socio-technical systems. This characterization of socio-technical dynamics of CCS and EGS innovation includes examining the perceived technical, environmental, and financial risks and benefits of each system, as well as the discourses and actor networks through which the competition for resources – particularly public resources – is being waged. CCS and EGS were selected for the study because they vary considerably with respect to their social, technical, and environmental implications and risks, are unproven at scale and uncertain with respect to cost, feasibility, and life-cycle environmental impacts. By assessing the two technologies in parallel, the study highlights important social and political dimensions of energy technology innovation in order to inform theory and suggest new approaches to policy analysis.