Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions

The potential for CO2 emission reductions through carbon capture and storage (CCS) is depending on investments that can bring the technology from the current R&D through to commercial applications. The intermediate step in this development is demonstration plants that can prove the technical, economic, social, and ecological feasibility of CCS technologies. Based on a CCS stakeholder questionnaire survey and a literature review, we critically analyse discrepancies regarding perceptions of deployment obstacles and experiences from early demonstration plants. The analysis identifies discrepancies between CCS policies versus important deployment considerations and CCS stakeholder policy demands. The discrepancy gap is emphasised by lessons from restructured, postponed, and cancelled CCS projects. To bridge this cognitive gap towards proving CCS through demonstration activities, the article highlights policy implications of establishing a broad understanding of deployment obstacles. Attention to these obstacles is important for policymakers and industry in channelling efforts to demonstrating CCS, hence validating the current focus on CCS as a key abatement potential. Under present conditions, the findings question the robustness of current CCS abatement potential estimates and deployment goals as established by policymakers and in scenarios.

[1]  A. Löschel,et al.  Directed technical change and differentiation of climate policy , 2008 .

[2]  Andrea Ramírez,et al.  Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options , 2009 .

[3]  C. Anderson,et al.  Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective , 2012, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[4]  R. Sala,et al.  Experts’ attitudes towards CCS technologies in Spain , 2011 .

[5]  Tim Cockerill,et al.  Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage , 2008 .

[6]  Jim Watson,et al.  Policy incentives for carbon capture and storage technologies in Europe: A qualitative multi-criteria analysis , 2011 .

[7]  Mariana Germano Gejão,et al.  Habilidades do desenvolvimento em crianças com hipotireoidismo congênito: enfoque na comunicação , 2008 .

[8]  Jinyue Yan,et al.  Improving policy making through government–industry policy learning: The case of a novel Swedish policy framework , 2009 .

[9]  B. Metz,et al.  Global learning on carbon capture and storage: A call for strong international cooperation on CCS demonstration , 2009 .

[10]  Filip Neele,et al.  Assessing European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide–the EU GeoCapacity project , 2009 .

[11]  B. Zwaan,et al.  Economics of geological CO2 storage and leakage , 2008 .

[12]  Anders Hansson,et al.  Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage—A framing of uncertainties and possibilities , 2009 .

[13]  Carlos Matus,et al.  Escuela de gobierno , 2007 .

[14]  Mårten Bryngelsson,et al.  Oxygen efficiency with regard to carbon capture , 2006 .

[15]  Filip Neele,et al.  Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. DSS and economic evaluations , 2009 .

[16]  B. Metz IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage , 2005 .

[17]  Scott Brockett,et al.  The EU enabling legal framework for carbon capture and geological storage , 2009 .

[18]  Bruce G. Miller CO 2 Capture and Storage , 2010 .

[19]  Joris Koornneef,et al.  Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of CO2 , 2008 .

[20]  Chakib Bouallou,et al.  Study of an innovative gas-liquid contactor for CO2 absorption , 2011 .

[21]  Todd Flach,et al.  The acceptability of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in Europe: An assessment of the key determining factors: Part 1. Scientific, technical and economic dimensions , 2009 .

[22]  Minh Ha-Duong,et al.  Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO2: an editorial comment , 2008 .

[23]  Jay Apt,et al.  Regulating the geological sequestration of CO2. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  R. Steeneveldt,et al.  CO2 Capture and Storage: Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap , 2006 .

[25]  Federica Donda,et al.  Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. Storage capacity , 2009 .

[26]  Daiju Narita Economic Optimality of CCS Use: A Resource-Economic Model , 2009 .

[27]  David G. Victor,et al.  Carbon Capture and Storage at Scale: Lessons from the Growth of Analogous Energy Technologies , 2009 .

[28]  Luigi Pellizzoni,et al.  Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy , 2003, Environmental Values.

[29]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[30]  J. Watson,et al.  Strategies for the deployment of CCS technologies in the UK: a critical review , 2009 .

[31]  V. Dinica Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies—an investor perspective , 2006 .

[32]  Peta Ashworth,et al.  Public acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage in a proposed demonstration area , 2009 .

[33]  Yao Rong Carbon-dioxide capture and storage technologies , 2011 .

[34]  Heleen Groenenberg,et al.  Effective EU and Member State policies for stimulating CCS , 2008 .

[35]  Filip Johnsson,et al.  Stakeholder attitudes on carbon capture and storage -- An international comparison , 2009 .

[36]  S. Awerbuch,et al.  Analytical methods for energy diversity and security : portfolio optimization in the energy sector: a tribute to the work of Dr Shimon Awerbuch , 2008 .

[37]  D. Bunn,et al.  Investment risks under uncertain climate change policy , 2007 .

[38]  Jim Watson,et al.  Setting priorities in energy innovation policy: lessons for the UK , 2008 .

[39]  Filip Johnsson,et al.  Ramp-up of CO2 capture and storage within Europe , 2008 .

[40]  A. Hansson Kolets återkomst : Koldioxidavskiljning och lagring i vetenskap och politik , 2008 .