Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Lost in the mix: will the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage provide us with a breathing space as we strive to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables?

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores concepts of carbon lock-in arising from the technologies of CO2 capture and storage (CCS). We examine the argument that CCS reduces carbon lock-in and the calls for a CCS ‘mandate’ and emission performance standards. We analyse the pros- and cons- of a low-carbon fossil fuel lock-in, arguing that lock-in per se is not the problem; it is rather the depth of lock-in which creates problems because deeper lock-in reduces flexibility and increases the ‘error cost’ (i.e. the cost of a decision which turns out to be based on incorrect understanding) and should be avoided. A set of technical and institutional indicators for measuring the flexibility of different technologies is then presented and applied to three technologies: a landfill gas power generator, a conventional nuclear power plant and a CCS plant under development in California. We conclude that these indicators are a useful way forward in assessing individual projects and that public authorities and other stakeholders might wish to employ some version of these indicators in their deliberations on the role of CCS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agnolucci P, Ekins P (2007) Technological transitions and strategic niche management: the case of the hydrogen economy. Int J Environ Technol Manage 7(5/6):644–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allott K (2008) Captured by King Coal. In: A last chance for coal: making carbon capture and storage a reality. Green Alliance, London, pp 33–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur B (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock-in by historical events: the dynamics of allocation under increasing returns. Econ J 99:116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur B (1994) Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz R, Sato M (2006) Emissions trading: lessons learnt from the 1st phase of the EU ETS and prospects for the 2nd phase. Climate Policy 6(4):351–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz R, Rogge K, Schleich J (2006) EU emissions trading: an early analysis of national allocation plans for 2008–2012. Climate Policy 6(4):361–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossel U, Eliasson B, Taylor G (2003) The future of the hydrogen economy: bright or bleak? European Fuel Cell Forum Report, 22nd October 2003, Lucerne http://www.efcf.com/reports/E08.pdf

  • Caldecott B, Sweetman T (2008) Setting the standard. In: A last chance for coal: making carbon capture and storage a reality. Green Alliance, London, pp 31–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter S (2008) California’s greenhouse gas performance standard for power plants. In: A last chance for coal: making carbon capture and storage a reality. Green Alliance, London, pp 38–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge D (1992) The management of scale: big organizations, big decisions, big mistakes. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eames M (2000) The Large Combustion Plant Directive (88/609/EEC): an effective instrument for pollution abatement? University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, SPRU

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley M (2008) Towards cleaner coal: industry and unions working together. In: A last chance for coal: making carbon capture and storage a reality. Green Alliance, London, pp 26–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiering M, Holling C (1974) Management and standards for perturbed ecosystems. Agro-Ecosyst 1:301–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels F, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36(3):399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbins J, Chalmers H (2008) Preparing for global rollout: a ‘developed country first’ demonstration programme for rapid CCS deployment. Energy Policy 36:501–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenpeace (2008) False hope: why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove-White R, Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wynne B (2006) Nuclear Paper 7: public perceptions and community issues. Sustainable Development Commission, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey F, Flood C (2009) Carbon prices drop in wake of climate talks. Financial Times. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64bab3da-ee24-11de-a274-00144feab49a.html

  • Holloway S, Rowley W (2008) Environmental sustainability of electricity generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage. UK Energy Research Centre Working Paper, 19th December 2008, Ref: UKERC/WP/ES/2008/002

  • Horne B (1996) Power plants: a guide to energy from biomass. Centre for Alternative Technology, Machynlleth

    Google Scholar 

  • Hydrogen Energy (2008) Press release: nation’s first application for a revolutionary hydrogen fuel electric generating facility with carbon capture and sequestration to be filed before the California Energy Commission. Hydrogen Energy International, Weybridge

  • Hydrogen Energy California Project (2009) http://hydrogenenergycalifornia.com/factsheets

  • IEA (2006) Energy technology perspectives: scenarios & strategies to 2050, in support of the G8 Plan of Action. OECD/IEA, Paris

  • IEA (2007) CO2 capture ready plants. International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham, UK. 2007/4

  • IEA (2009) Technology roadmap: carbon capture and storage. OECD/IEA, Paris

  • IPCC (2005) IPCC Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. In: Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (eds) Prepared by working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp A, Kasim A (2010) A futuristic least-cost optimisation model of CO2 transportation and storage in the UK/UK continental shelf. Energy Policy 38(7):3652–3667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M (2008) After the coal rush: assessing policy options for coal-fired electricity generation. Institute of Public Policy Research, London

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKerron G (2004) Nuclear power and the characteristics of ‘ordinariness’—the case of UK energy policy. Energy Policy 32:1957–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKerron G (2005) Who puts up the cash? The Observer 4:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Markusson N, Haszeldine S (2010) ‘Capture ready’ regulation of fossil fuel power plants—betting the UK’s carbon emissions on promises of future technology. Energy Policy 38:6695–6702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell W, Eames M (2006) Forecasts, scenarios, visions, backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: a review of the hydrogen futures literature. Energy Policy 34:1236–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MIT (2007) The future of coal: options for a carbon-constrained world. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai V, Victor D, Thurber M (2009) Carbon capture and storage at scale: lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Working Paper # 91, Stanford University. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1400163

  • Rubin E, Chen C, Rao A (2007) Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 35:4444–4454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott D (2007) Smelling land: the hydrogen defense against climate catastrophe. Canadian Hydrogen Association

  • Shackley S (2006) The implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK and comparison with nuclear power. In: Shackley S, Gough C (eds) Carbon capture and storage: an integrated assessment. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 245–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackley S, Green K (2007) A conceptual framework for exploring transitions to decarbonised energy systems in the United Kingdom. Energy 32:221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharman H (2003) A CO2 infrastructure for the North Sea. SHARP IOR Newsletter January 2003, 4. http://ior.senergyltd.com/issue4/co2/inco2/summary.htm

  • Texas Vox (2009) http://texasvox.org/2009/05/19/public-safety-victory-in-california-over-pet-coke-plant-dispute/

  • Thompson M (2004) Technology and democracy. In: Engelstad F, Osterud O (eds) Power and democracy: critical interventions. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 185–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranvik T, Thompson M, Selle P (2000) Doing technology (and democracy) the pack-donkey’s way: the technomorphic approach to ICT policy. In: Engel C, Keller K (eds) Governance of global networks in the light of differing local values. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 155–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Unruh G (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28:817–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh G (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in: the climate policy implications of carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30:317–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh G, Carrillo-Hermosilla J (2006) Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 34:1185–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDOE (2007) Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy power plants, volume 1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf

  • Utterback J (1994) Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Viebahn P, Nitsch J, Fischedick M, Esken A, Schuwer D, Supersberger N, Zuberbuhler U, Edenhofer O (2007) Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, and ecological aspects in Germany. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 1:121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker W (1999) Nuclear entrapment: thorp and the politics of commitment. Institute for Public Policy Research, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo T (2010) Coal emissions: the burning issue. The Guardian. 24 & 25th February 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/24/emissions-standard-energy-bill-tim-yeo

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scottish Centre for Carbon Capture and Storage (SCCS), School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW, Scotland, UK

    Simon Shackley

  2. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Michael Thompson

  3. Institute for Innovation, Science and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Michael Thompson

Authors
  1. Simon Shackley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Shackley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shackley, S., Thompson, M. Lost in the mix: will the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage provide us with a breathing space as we strive to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables?. Climatic Change 110, 101–121 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0071-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0071-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation