Assessing relative importance and mutual influence of barriers for CCS deployment of the ROAD project using AHP and DEMATEL methods

Abstract Several carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects around the world were cancelled, delayed or are on hold due to different types of barriers, such as: economic, legal, social and technical. Previous works treat these barriers as independent factors, ignoring potential interactions and possibly providing wrong information. This paper presents the findings of a survey in which experts evaluate the main barriers hampering the deployment of the ROAD project, in the Netherlands. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) methods, we have concluded that: (i) CCS barriers are highly interconnected; (ii) “CO2 price” and “financial incentives” are the most important barriers and should be priorities for investments; (iii) “CO2 price” highly influences other barriers; (iv) “financial incentives” is very much influenced by them; (v) policy recommendations should take into consideration how these barriers influence each other. Our study recommends caution to policy-makers using the results from previous works, once that they may not reproduce correctly the ranking of the barriers, which may lead to incorrect analysis and conclusions.

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

[2]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies , 2007 .

[3]  Hyerim Bae,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process to assess and optimize distribution network , 2008, Appl. Math. Comput..

[4]  B. Evar.  Conditional inevitability: Expert perceptions of carbon capture and storage uncertainties in the UK context , 2011 .

[5]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP , 2011 .

[6]  Wei-Wen Wu,et al.  Developing global managers' competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method , 2007, Expert Syst. Appl..

[7]  Heleen Groenenberg,et al.  Policy instruments for advancing CCS in Dutch power generation , 2011 .

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

[9]  Jim Watson,et al.  Assessing CCS Viability - A Socio-technical Framework , 2011 .

[10]  Lincoln L. Davies,et al.  Understanding Barriers to Commercial-Scale Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the United States: An Empirical Assessment , 2013 .

[11]  J. A. de Bruijn,et al.  Management in Networks: On multi-actor decision making , 2008 .

[12]  Emma ter Mors,et al.  It's not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht , 2012 .

[13]  Jiuping Xu,et al.  Greenhouse Gas Control , 2014 .

[14]  Andrea Ramírez,et al.  Using a participatory approach to develop a sustainability framework for carbon capture and storage systems in The Netherlands , 2008 .

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

[16]  Andreas Kopp,et al.  Aspects of the Storage Permit Application for CO2 Storage in the Depleted Gas Field Offshore the Netherlands , 2013 .

[17]  Paul Upham,et al.  The acceptability of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in Europe: An assessment of the key determining factors. Part 2. The social acceptability of CCS and the wider impacts and repercussions of its implementation , 2009 .

[18]  Liang Dapeng,et al.  Barriers and incentives of CCS deployment in China: Results from semi-structured interviews , 2009 .

[19]  Anders Hansson,et al.  Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions , 2012, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[20]  Franz May,et al.  International viewpoint and news Failed CO2 capture and storage projects—more than missed opportunities , 2012, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[21]  Jia Li,et al.  Opportunities and barriers for implementing CO2 capture ready designs: A case study of stakeholder perceptions in Guangdong, China , 2012 .

[22]  Filip Johnsson,et al.  The importance of CO2 capture and storage: A geopolitical discussion , 2011 .

[23]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Measures and evaluation for environment watershed plans using a novel hybrid MCDM model , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[24]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[25]  Asma M. A. Bahurmoz.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Methodology For Win- Win Management , 2004, Egypt. Comput. Sci. J..

[26]  T. Saaty.  Decision making — the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP) , 2004 .

[27]  Ming-Lang Tseng,et al.  Using a hybrid MCDM model to evaluate firm environmental knowledge management in uncertainty , 2011, Appl. Soft Comput..

[28]  Jay Apt,et al.  Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Framing the Issues for Regulation - An Interim Report from the CCSReg Project , 2009 .

[29]  Dae-Ho Byun,et al.  The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model , 2001, Inf. Manag..

[30]  Wen-Hsien Tsai,et al.  Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[31]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and ANP with Applications , 2008 .

[32]  Clair Gough.  State of the Art in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK: an experts' review , 2008 .

[33]  E. C. Hodgman,et al.  A conceptual framework to guide nursing curriculum. , 1973, Nursing forum.

[34]  S. Gilfillan,et al.  Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK , 2008 .

[35]  Peter J. G. Pearson,et al.  A socio-technical framework for assessing the viability of carbon capture and storage technology , 2012 .

[36]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Public acceptance of CCS system elements: A conjoint measurement , 2012 .

[37]  Robin Irons,et al.  CCS project development in Rotterdam , 2011 .

[38]  R. Everaars.  The Rotterdam Climate Initiative: Carbon, Capture & Solved? , 2012 .

[39]  Peter Radgen,et al.  Stakeholder acceptance of carbon capture and storage in Germany , 2009 .

[40]  S. Shackley,et al.  Stakeholder perceptions Of CO2 capture and storage in Europe: Results from a survey , 2007 .

[41]  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 .

[42]  Peter Radgen,et al.  Too Early or Too Late for CCS-What Needs to be Done to Overcome the Valley of Death for Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe?☆ , 2013 .

[43]  Vivian Scott,et al.  What can we expect from Europe's carbon capture and storage demonstrations? , 2013 .

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

[45]  Emma ter Mors,et al.  Effective communication about complex environmental issues: Perceived quality of information about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration , 2010 .

[46]  Clair Gough,et al.  A roadmap for carbon capture and storage in the UK , 2010 .

[47]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL , 2007, Expert Syst. Appl..

[48]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  Editorial: Overview and analysis of the Dutch CCS program as a knowledge network , 2012 .

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

[50]  Dr Jon Gibbins.  Carbon Capture and Storage , 2005 .

[51]  Timothy H. Dixon,et al.  What have we Learnt from CCS Demonstrations – Phase 1b , 2013 .

[52]  H. Herzog,et al.  Stakeholder attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage-An international comparison , 2009 .

[53]  Björn A. Sandén,et al.  Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets—economy wide versus technology specific approaches , 2005 .

[54]  S. Brunsting,et al.  Public concepts of CCS: Understanding of the Dutch general public and its reflection in the media , 2012 .

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

[56]  W. Leitner,et al.  Opportunities for Utilizing and Recycling CO2 , 2015 .

[57]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  A value-created system of science (technology) park by using DEMATEL , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[58]  Paul Mcfedries.  Carbon copy , 2010 .

[59]  David Reiner,et al.  Opportunities and hurdles in applying CCS Technologies in China — With a focus on industrial stakeholders , 2009 .

[60]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS , 2011 .

[61]  André Faaij,et al.  Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands , 2009 .

[62]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Climate change 2014 : mitigation of climate change , 2014 .

[63]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach , 2013, Oper. Res..