Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We define a demonstration plant as a full CCS infrastructure (capture, transport and storage) where the capture rate exceeds 1.5 Mt/y from a boiler larger than 300 MW (e.g. Brockett 2009)

  2. See http://www.iisd.ca/email/climate-l.htm

  3. CCS is interwoven in a significant complexity with no clear cut scientific answers; environmental tradeoffs, scientific knowledge gaps and externalities that are difficult to evaluate (European Commission 2008; Koornneef et al. 2008; Odeh and Cockerill 2008; da Silva et al. 2008).

References

  • Anderson J, de Coninck H, Curnow P et al (2007) The ACCSEPT project: multidisciplinary analysis and gapfilling strategies. http://www.accsept.org/outputs/wp_4_november.pdf. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Anderson C, Schirmer J, Abjorensen N (2011) Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. In Press.

  • Ashworth P, Pisarski A, Thambimuthu K (2009) Public acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage in a proposed demonstration area. J Power Energy 223:299–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazilian M, Roques F (2008) Analytical methods for energy diversity & security. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlingske Tidene (2009) Vattenfalls gigantsatsning lammet. http://www.business.dk/article/20090802/okonomi/708020066. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Blyth W, Bradley R, Bunn D et al (2007) Investment risks under uncertain climate change policy. Energy Policy 35:5766–5773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockett S (2009) The EU enabling legal framework for carbon capture and geological storage. 9th International conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Energy Procedia 1:4433–4441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown N, Rip A, Van Lente H (2003) Expectations in & about science and technology. http://www.york.ac.uk/satsu/expectations/Utrecht%202003. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Carbon Capture Journal (2008) US subcommittee reviews DOE’s plans for FutureGen. http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=199&PHPSESSID=232. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Carbon Capture Journal (2010) E.ON pulls out of UK CCS competition Projects. http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=665&PHPSESSID=aqgudbstc2eeppbevtto3ppfo4. Cited 26 Oct 2010

  • Chrysostomidis I, Zakkour P (2008) Assessment of the range of potential funds and funding mechanisms for CO2 transportation networks. Draft Report. http://www.co2captureproject.org/policies_publications.html. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • da Silva EF, Hoff KA, Svendsen HF (2008) Can we improve upon MEA as solvent for CO2 capture? In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9), Washington DC, 16–20 Nov 2008

  • de Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Ramirez A et al (2009) Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Procedia 1:4795–4802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Coninck H, Flach T, Curnow P et al (2009a) The acceptability of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in Europe: an assessment of the key determining factors: part 1. scientific, technical and economic dimensions. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 3:333–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Coninck H, Stephens JC, Metz B (2009b) Global learning on carbon capture and storage: a call for strong international cooperation on CCS demonstration. Energy Policy 37:2161–2165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (2007) DOE signs FutureGen cooperative agreement. Press release: April 10, 2007. http://fossil.energy.gov/techline/techlines/2007/07019-DOE_Signs_FutureGen_Agreement.html. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Department of Energy (2010) Secretary Chu Announces FutureGen 2.0. Press release: August 5, 2010. http://www.energy.gov/news/9309.htm. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Dinica V (2006) Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies—an investor perspective. Energy Policy 34:461–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E.ON (2008) Carbon, cost and consequences. http://www.eon-uk.com/downloads/Manifesto_Brochure_-_final_30_05_08.pdf. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • ETP ZEP (2007) European technology platform for zero emission fossil fuel power plants (ZEP) – Strategic overview. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants. http://www.zero-emissionplatform.eu/website/library/index.html. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • European Council (2008) Presidency conclusions, European Council, June, 19–20, 2008. http://europa.eu/european-council/index_en.htm. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • European Commission (2008) 20 20 by 2020: Europe's climate change opportunity. COM(2008) 30 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0030:FIN:EN:PDF. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • European Commission (2011) Implementation of directive 2009/31 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. guidance document 2. Characterisation of the Storage Complex, CO2 Stream Composition, Monitoring and Correction Measures.

  • Foley B, Gismatullin E (2008) BP, Rio Cancel $2 Billion Australian Power Project. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=australia&sid=ag.zXqGzi22g. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • FutureGen (2007) Final site selection report (December 18, 2007). FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. http://www.futuregenalliance.org/news/site_selection_report.stm. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • G8 Energy Ministers (2008) Joint Statement by G8 Energy Ministers. http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/topics/g8/g8sta_eng.pdf. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Gale J (2009) Impure thoughts. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 3:1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenenberg H, de Coninck H (2008) Effective EU and member state policies for stimulating CCS. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2:653–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönkvist S, Bryngelsson M, Westermark M (2006) Oxygen efficiency with regard to carbon capture. Energy 31:3220–3226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha-Duong M, Loisel R (2009) Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO2: an editorial comment. Clim Change 93:311–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson A (2008) Kolets återkomst—Koldioxidavskiljning och lagring i vetenskap och politik. Linköping University, Dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson A, Bryngelsson M (2009) Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage—a framing of uncertainties and possibilities. Energy Policy 37:2273–2282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2008) CO2 capture and storage. A key abatement option. International Energy Agency, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC et al. (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York.

  • James S (2008) Personal communication. Combustion Technology Team, E.ON Engineering, E.ON UK.

  • Jepma CJ, Spijker E (2008) Setting the incentives right for timely CCS deployment. Report by the Netherlands Working Group ‘Schoon Fossiel’ SenterNovem, Utrecht

  • Johnsson F, Reiner D, Itaoka K, Herzog H (2010) Stakeholder attitudes on carbon capture and storage—an international comparison. Int J Greenh Gas Control 4:410–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koornneef J, van Keulen T, Faaij A et al (2008) Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of CO2. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2:448–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kougionas V (2009) EC supported research in carbon capture and storage. Oral presentation at the STRACO2 Workshop on CCS regulation in the EU and China. Brussels, 24 April 2009

  • Kownatzki S, Kather A (2011) CO2 purity in coal fired oxyfuel processes. Proceedings of the 2nd Oxyfuel Combustion Conference, Queensland, Australia, 12–16 September.

  • McKinsey (2008) Carbon capture & storage: assessing the economics. McKinsey & Company.

  • Narita D (2009) Economic optimality of CCS use: a resource-economic model. Kiel Institute for the World Economy. http://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/economic-optimality-of-ccs-use-a-resource-economic-model/KWP%201508.pdf. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Odeh NA, Cockerill TT (2008) Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy 36:367–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odenberger M, Kjärstad J, Johnsson F (2008) Ramp-up of CO2 capture and storage within Europe. Int J of Greenh Gas Con 2:417–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto VM, Löschel A, Reilly J (2008) Directed technical change and differentiation of climate policy. Energy Econ 30:2855–2878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellizzoni L (2003) Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environ Value 12:195–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai V, Victor DG, Thurber MC (2010) Carbon capture and storage at scale: lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Energy Policy 38:4089–4098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner M (2008) A looming rhetorical gap: a survey of public communications activities for carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/eprg08012.pdf. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • Sala S, Oltra C (2011) Expert’s attitudes towards CCS technologies in Spain. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 1339–1345.

  • Scrase JI, Watson J (2011) Strategies for the deployment of CCS technologies in the UK: a critical review. Energy Procedia 1:4535–4542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsson N, Anheden M, Dubettier R, Joly L, Lockwood F, Tranier J (2011) Development opportunities for future large scale lignite oxyfuel power plants. Proceedings of the 2nd Oxyfuel Combustion Conference, Queensland, Australia, 12–16 September.

  • Statoil (2007) Halten CO2 verdikjede: Teknisk mulig, men ikke kommersielt gjennomførbar. http://www.statoil.com/no/NewsAndMedia/News/2007/Pages/HaltenCO2ValueChain.aspx. Cited Oct 2010

  • StatoilHydro (2007) Sustainability Report 2007. http://www.statoilhydro.com/en/environmentsociety/sustainability/2007/pages/default.aspx. Cited 12 Nov 2008

  • Stigson P, Dotzauer E, Yan J (2009) Improving policy making through government-industry policy learning: the case of a novel Swedish policy framework. Appl Energy 86:399–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • STRACO2 (2009) Support to regulatory activities for carbon capture and storage: final report. http://www.euchina-ccs.org. Cited 25 Oct 2010

  • van der Zwaan B, Gerlagh R (2009) Economics of geological CO2 storage and leakage. Clim Change 93:285–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangkilde-Pedersen T, Lyng Anthonsen K, Smith N et al (2009) Assessing European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide. Energy Procedia 1:2663–2670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vattenfall (2008) Factsheet CCS. http://www.vattenfall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/Gemeinsame_Inhalte/DOCUMENT/388963co2x/578173repo/1476055fac/P0278297.pdf. Cited 26 Oct 2009

  • Vattenfall (2009) Bridging to the future. Newsletter on Vattenfall’s project on carbon capture and storage. No. 13. http://www.vattenfall.com/en/ccs/newsletter-online-2009---may.htm. Cited 25 Oct 2009

  • von Stechow C, Watson J, Praetorius B (2011) Policy incentives for carbon capture and storage technologies in Europe: a qualitative multi-criteria analysis. Glob Environ Chang 21:346–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallquist L, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M (2010) Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environ Sci Technol 44:6557–6562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson J (2008) Setting priorities in energy innovation policy: lessons for the UK. Discussion Paper 2008–07. John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

  • Wicks M (2008) CCS - the next step. Carbon Capture J 5:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EJ, Morgan MG, Apt J et al (2008) Regulating the geological sequestration of CO2: as greenhouse gas emissions rise and the impacts of climate change grow, the need for safe and effective CO2 capture and sequestration becomes ever more urgent. Environ Sci Technol 42:2718–2722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ZEP (2011) The costs of CO2 capture, transport and storage. Zero Emissions Platform.

  • ZeroGen (2008) ZeroGen project reconfigured. Press release: March 20, 2008. http://www.zerogen.com.au/cms/news/Default.aspx?NewsCode=150. Cited 25 Oct 2010

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the European Commission and the Directorate General for Research, who under the 7th Framework Programme funded the project Support to Regulatory Activities for Carbon Capture and Storage (STRACO2). We would also like to thank the project partners for the cooperation within the project as well as all respondents for their time and effort for returning the questionnaires with detailed replies. Peter Stigson and Anders Hansson would also like to express their gratitude to Mistra, the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, for funding within the Clipore project.

The non-cited views and conclusions that are drawn in the article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of neither of the project consortia nor any part or individual of the European Commission or Mistra.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd, P.O. Box 210 60, SE-100 31, Stockholm, Sweden

    Peter Stigson

  2. School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, Mälardalen University, P.O. Box 883, SE-721 23, Västerås, Sweden

    Peter Stigson

  3. Department of Thematic Studies: Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, SE-58183, Linköping, Sweden

    Anders Hansson

  4. Department of Thematic Studies: Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University, SE-601 74, Norrköping, Sweden

    Anders Hansson

  5. ZeroMission, Vikingagatan 28, SE-113 42, Stockholm, Sweden

    Mårten Lind

Authors
  1. Peter Stigson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anders Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mårten Lind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Stigson.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Excerpts from STRACO2 questionnaire with questions used in the study described in this article. Full questionnaire is available from the project website at http://www.euchina-ccs.org (Cited 25 Oct 2010).

  1. 1)

    Name of organisation

  2. 2)

    Status of organisation

    1. a)

      Government

    2. b)

      International organisation

    3. c)

      NGO

    4. d)

      Private business

    5. e)

      Research institution

    6. f)

      Other

  3. 3)

    Further use of this questionnaire

    1. a)

      Answers in this questionnaire may be used for public use

    2. b)

      Information given in this questionnaire may be used within the STRACO2 project and made public only in aggregated results

  4. 4)

    Which are the biggest obstacles to the commercial success of CCS at the moment? (you can select more than one)

    1. a)

      Policy obstacles

    2. b)

      Lack of technology

    3. c)

      Lack of regulation

    4. d)

      Lack of financial incentives

    5. e)

      Lack of investor capacity

    6. f)

      Lack of adequate storage sites

    7. g)

      Lack of public acceptance

    8. h)

      Lack of awareness about CCS technology

    9. i)

      Lack of Security

    10. j)

      Costs

    11. k)

      Other

  5. 5)

    Do you see potential sites in the EU as

    1. a)

      Abundant

    2. b)

      Enough

    3. c)

      Scarce

    4. d)

      No opinion

  6. 6)

    Who should take the lead in financing pilot projects and early applications of CCS?

    1. a)

      Governments

    2. b)

      The EU

    3. c)

      Private business

    4. d)

      Financial institutions

    5. e)

      Other

  7. 7)

    Please state why?

  8. 8)

    Which stakeholders are the most important financers of CCS in a longer term?

    1. a)

      Governments

    2. b)

      The EU

    3. c)

      Private business

    4. d)

      Financial institutions

    5. e)

      Other

  9. 9)

    What, if any, problems/barriers exist in the draft CCS directive by the EC?

  10. 10)

    What, if any, problems/barriers exist in the CCS amendments of the EU-ETS directive suggested by the European Commission?

  11. 11)

    What is your view on other regulatory activities in the EU related to CCS? (Synergies, barriers, opportunities etc.)

  12. 12)

    Do you find that any specific CCS technology is favoured by policies (over the others)?

  13. 13)

    If you have invested in CCS activities, what was the main driver?

    1. a)

      Present policy regulation

    2. b)

      Future policy developments (anticipated)

    3. c)

      Business strategic decisions

    4. d)

      Research RD&D

    5. e)

      Other

  14. 14)

    (For business/finance) What, if any, are the main regulatory (policy) obstacles for investing in CCS technology?

  15. 15)

    (For business/finance) What requirements do you put on policy makers to:

    1. a)

      Initiate, maintain or increase participation in CCS RD&D

    2. b)

      Invest in CCS applications

  16. 16)

    (For business/finance) What is your key message to policy makers in order to promote an increased business interest in CCS activities?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stigson, P., Hansson, A. & Lind, M. Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 17, 601–619 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9353-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9353-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation