The political economy of technology support: Making decisions about carbon capture and storage and low carbon energy technologies

This article reviews the political economy of government choice around technology support for the development and deployment of low carbon emission energy technologies, such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). It is concerned with how governments should allocate limited economic resources across abatement alternatives. In particular, it explores two inter-related questions. First, should government support focus on a narrow range of options or be distributed across many potential alternatives? Second, what criteria should be considered when determining which specific technologies to support? It presents a simple economic model with experience curves for CCS and renewable energy technologies to explore the lowest cost alternatives for meeting an emission abatement objective. It then explores a variety of economic and political factors that must be considered when governments make decisions about technology support.     

A low-carbon society: global visions,pathways, and challenges

The feasibility of two low-carbon society (LCS) scenarios, one with and one without nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS), is evaluated using the AIM/Enduse[Global] model. Both scenarios suggest that achieving a 50% emissions reduction target (relative to 1990 levels) by 2050 is technically feasible if locally suited technologies are introduced and the relevant policies, including necessary financial transfers, are appropriately implemented. In the scenario that includes nuclear and CCS options, it will be vital to consider the risks and acceptance of these technologies. In the scenario without these technologies, the challenge will be how to reduce energy service demand. In both scenarios, the estimated investment costs will be higher in non-Annex I countries than in Annex I countries. Finally, the enhancement of capacity building to support the deployment of locally suited technologies will be central to achieving an LCS.

Policy relevance

Policies to reduce GHG emissions up to 2050 are critical if the long-term target of stabilizing the climate is to be achieved. From a policy perspective, the cost and social acceptability of the policy used to reduce emissions are two of the key factors in determining the optimal pathways to achieve this. However, the nuclear accident at Fukushima highlighted the risk of depending on large-scale technologies for the provision of energy and has led to a backlash against the use of nuclear technology. It is found that if nuclear and CCS are used it will be technically feasible to halve GHG emissions by 2050, although very costly. However, although the cost of halving emissions will be about the same if neither nuclear nor CCS is used, a 50% reduction in emissions reduction will not be achievable unless the demand for energy service is substantially reduced.     

Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies

Proponents of climate change mitigation face difficult choices about which types of policy instrument(s) to pursue. The literature on the comparative evaluation of climate policy instruments has focused overwhelmingly on economic analyses of instruments aimed at restricting demand for greenhouse gas emissions (especially carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes) and, to some extent, on instruments that support the supply of or demand for substitutes for emissions-intensive goods, such as renewable energy. Evaluation of instruments aimed at restricting the upstream supply of commodities or products whose downstream consumption causes greenhouse gas emissions—such as fossil fuels—has largely been neglected in this literature. Moreover, analyses that compare policy instruments using both economic and political (e.g. political “feasibility” and “feedback”) criteria are rare. This article aims to help bridge both of these gaps. Specifically, the article demonstrates that restrictive supply-side policy instruments (targeting fossil fuels) have numerous characteristic economic and political advantages over otherwise similar restrictive demand-side instruments (targeting greenhouse gases). Economic advantages include low administrative and transaction costs, higher abatement certainty (due to the relative ease of monitoring, reporting and verification), comprehensive within-sector coverage, some advantageous price/efficiency effects, the mitigation of infrastructure “lock-in” risks, and mitigation of the “green paradox”. Political advantages include the superior potential to mobilise public support for supply-side policies, the conduciveness of supply-side policies to international policy cooperation, and the potential to bring different segments of the fossil fuel industry into a coalition supportive of such policies. In light of these attributes, restrictive supply-side policies squarely belong in the climate policy “toolkit”.     

碳捕获和封存技术认知、政策现状与减排潜力分析

在综合大量相关资料的基础上,研究总结了碳捕获和封存（CCS）技术的发展现状、示范项目进展和相关的国际法规政策,分析了其大规模应用的障碍,并将CCS技术与提高能效、发展可再生能源等减排技术方案进行了对比。分析认为,一方面我国需审慎评估CCS技术推广使用可能产生的负面影响;另一方面我国也需要适当加大对CCS关键技术的研发投入,避免在技术上受制于人。此外,有关CCS推广的财税政策的推出,需要视CCS技术的实际发展情况而定。我国还需要根据现实情况,重点考虑如何对现有火电厂进行改造,为CCS技术未来的大规模推广打下基础。     

White Knights: will wind and solar come to the rescue of a looming capacity gap from nuclear phase-out or slow CCS start-up?

In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, countries like Germany and Japan have planned a phase-out of nuclear generation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has yet to become a commercially viable technology with little prospect of doing so without strong climate policy to spur development. The possibility of using renewable power generation from wind and solar as a non-emitting alternative to replace a nuclear phase-out or failure to deploy CCS technology is investigated using scenarios from EMF27 and the POLES model. A strong carbon price appears necessary to have significant penetration of renewables regardless of alternative generation technologies available, but especially if nuclear or CCS are absent from the energy supply system. The feasibility of replacing nuclear generation appears possible at realistic costs (evaluated as total abatement costs and final user prices to households); however for ambitious climate policies, such as a 450 ppm target, CCS could represent a critical technology that renewables will not be able to fully replace without unbearable economic costs.     

US institutional pathways to clean coal and shale gas: lessons for China

China's 12th Five-Year Plan (2011–2015) envisages that shale gas and coal will be central to its energy future. However, for China to meet the energy security and climate change objectives set out in its 12th Five-Year Plan it will be reliant on the widespread commercial deployment of two key technologies; hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling for shale gas, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal. China is moving to acquire these technologies through technology transfer and diffusion from the US, but progress has been slow, and neither is currently available in China on a commercial scale. Drawing on interviews in the US and China, this article argues that China's expectation of technology from the US may well be disappointed because of factors unique to the US institutional environment that have made the development of fracking technology possible and hinder the development of CCS technology at a commercial scale.

Policy relevance

If China is to meet the energy security and climate change objectives set out in its 12th Five-Year Plan it will be reliant on the widespread commercial deployment of fracking and clean coal technologies. While China expects to acquire these technologies via technology transfer and diffusion from the US, progress has been slow. Because of factors unique to the US institutional environment the availability of both technologies on a commercial scale in China is unlikely in the coming years. As a result, Chinese policy makers would be well-advised not to count on these technologies to meet their energy and climate goals.     

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?

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.     

中国燃煤电厂碳捕集与生物质掺烧碳捕集改造的经济性

碳捕集与封存（CCS）技术作为解决全球气候变化问题的重要手段之一,能够有效减少CO₂排放。中国作为碳排放大国,当前电力的主要来源仍是煤电,碳捕集（CC）改造在燃煤电厂中有很大的应用潜力。经济性对CC改造的部署至关重要。为此,本文计算了中国各省典型电厂CC改造前后的平准化度电成本,比较了不同省份的CO₂捕集成本与CO₂避免成本,分析了不同掺烧率下生物质掺烧结合碳捕集(bioenergy with carbon capture,BECC)改造的经济性。研究发现,CC改造会导致不同地区的燃煤电厂度电成本增加57.51%~93.38%。煤价较低的华北和西北地区（青海除外）CC改造经济性较好,BECC改造则更适合华中地区。建议在推进燃煤电厂CC和BECC改造时要充分考虑区域资源特点,完善碳市场建设,形成合理碳价以促进CC和BECC部署。     

Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change

This paper uses the MERGE integrated assessment model to identify the least-cost mitigation strategy for achieving a range of climate policies. Mitigation is measured in terms of GDP foregone. This is not a benefit-cost analysis. No attempt is made to calculate the reduction in damages brought about by a particular policy. Assumptions are varied regarding the availability of energy-producing and energy-using technologies. We find pathways with substantial reductions in temperature change, with the cost of reductions varying significantly, depending on policy and technology assumptions. The set of scenarios elucidates the potential energy system transformation demands that could be placed on society. We find that policy that allows for “overshoot” of a radiative forcing target during the century results in lower costs, but also a higher temperature at the end of the century. We explore the implications of the costs and availability of key mitigation technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy, and their combination, known as BECS, as well as nuclear and energy efficiency. The role of “negative emissions” via BECS in particular is examined. Finally, we demonstrate the implications of nationally adopted emissions timetables based on articulated goals as a counterpoint to a global stabilization approach.     

Efficiency of policy instruments for CCS deployment

Policy instruments for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology investment during the learning phase are analysed and compared. The focus is on specific barriers to investment in learning during early commercial deployment. Imperfections in the carbon price signal and market failures from barriers indicate a need for support during the learning investment phase and the initial roll out of CCS in electricity generation. Different ways for CCS technology to cross the so-called investment ‘death valley’ are analysed and compared: a command and control instrument (CCS mandate), investment support (grant, tax credit, loan guarantee, subsidy by trust fund) and production subsidies (guaranteed carbon price, feed-in price, etc.). Three criteria are used in this comparison: effectiveness, static efficiency and dynamic efficiency. Policy instruments need to be adapted to the technological and commercial maturity of the CCS system. Mandate policies require handling with much care, and subsidization mechanisms must be designed to be market-oriented.     

Policy incentives for carbon capture and storage technologies in Europe: A qualitative multi-criteria analysis

In this paper, we compare different policy incentives for overcoming investment uncertainties that are typical for low-carbon technologies prior to their commercialisation, some of which may be attributable to market failures. The paper focuses on the particular case of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and conducts a qualitative multi-criteria analysis of different public policy support schemes for CCS demonstration to evaluate their suitability. The assessed schemes include mandatory CCS, emission performance standards and several different financial incentives (in addition to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme). Based on the available literature and on experience in the UK and Germany with promotion instruments for low-carbon technologies, the results of our analysis suggest that two alternative schemes, a CCS bonus incentive or a carbon dioxide (CO₂) price guarantee, perform best in comparison with the other assessed instruments. While they reduce the uncertainty of CCS investments in the face of low European Union Allowance prices, they also avoid significant adverse impacts on operational and investment decisions in electricity markets.     

Effectiveness and efficiency of climate change mitigation in a technologically uncertain World

Following a multi-scenario framework based on the technology assumptions proposed by the 27th Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-27), our analysis focuses on analyzing the impacts of key technology assumptions on climate policies, including the interdependencies of different technological options. Each scenario may be considered as either a possible state of nature upon which one has no influence, each scenario thus dictating the availability (or non availability) of some subset of the technology groups, or as an opportunity for society, by its own actions and policies, to influence the availability of said technology group. The main insights obtained from the assessment show the prominent role of bioenergy as a means to abate greenhouse gas emissions, irrespective of other technological developments, while the role of the other technologies (wind and solar, carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear) are more dependent of one another. It appears that CCS may play a sort of “backstop” role: it compensates for a lower contribution of solar and wind, or of nuclear. This means that an increased social acceptability of one (or all) of these three sets of technology should be at the heart of future climate policies. The costs caused by the adaptation of electricity networks to accommodate a high fraction of intermittent sources would deserve more attention in future research.     

国家自然科学基金大气科学学科二级申请代码下设研究方向与关键词解读:D0509大气观测、遥感和探测技术与方法

为顺应新一轮科技发展革命,国家自然科学基金委员会积极开展了以“优化学科布局”为主要任务之一的改革工作,学科申请代码的调整是该任务的重要组成部分和切入点。从2019年到2022年,国家自然科学基金委大气科学学科对二级申请代码进行了调整,将与大气探测相关的研究归并至“D0509大气观测、遥感和探测技术与方法”,并将其定义为“支撑技术”板块,以区别于“分支学科”和“发展领域”。本文对D0509二级代码的修订过程进行了介绍,并从大气观测、遥感和探测技术与方法的重要性、内涵与外延、发展趋势等视角,对相关的研究方向和关键词进行了解读。特别是从学科基础层面和具体应用层面两个维度,对D0509下设的六大研究方向,以及各方向的关键词进行分析,有助于申请人和评审专家根据自己的学术背景准确挑选关键词,以利于申请书的精准评审。本文可以为科研人员在基金申请过程中关键词的选择提供参考。     

Carbon dioxide capture and storage: a status report

Abstract

Fossil fuel combustion is the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result of combustion, essentially all of the fuel carbon is emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO₂), along with small amounts of methane and, in some cases, nitrous oxide. It has been axiomatic that reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions requires reducing fossil-fuel use. However, that relationship may no longer be as highly coupled in the future. There is an emerging understanding that CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) technology offers a way of using fossil fuels while reducing CO₂ emissions by 85% or more. While CCS is not the ‘silver bullet’ that in and of itself will solve the climate change problem, it is a powerful addition to the portfolio of technologies that will be needed to address climate change. The goal of this Commentary is to describe CCS technology in simple terms: how it might be used, how it might fit into longer term mitigation strategies, and finally, the policy issues that its emergence creates. All of these topics are discussed in much greater detail in the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (SRCCS) (IPCC, 2005).     

The social and political complexities of learning in carbon capture and storage demonstration projects

Demonstration of a fully integrated power plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS) at scale has not yet been achieved, despite growing international political interest in the potential of the technology to contribute to climate change mitigation and calls from multiple constituents for more demonstration projects. Acknowledging the scale of learning that still must occur for the technology to advance towards deployment, multiple CCS demonstration projects of various scales are emerging globally. Current plans for learning and knowledge sharing associated with demonstration projects, however, seem to be limited and narrowly conceived, raising questions about whether the projects will deliver on the expectations raised. Through a comparison of the structure, framing and socio-political context of three very different CCS demonstration projects in different places and contexts, this paper explores the complexity of social learning associated with demonstration projects. Variety in expectations of the demonstration projects’ objectives, learning processes, information sharing mechanisms, public engagement initiatives, financing and collaborative partnerships are highlighted. The comparison shows that multiple factors including the process of building support for the project, the governance context and the framing of the project matter for the learning in demonstration projects. This analysis supports a broader conceptualization of learning than that currently found in CCS demonstration plans - a result with implications for both future research and practice.     

Toward policy integration: Assessing carbon capture and storage policies in Japan and Norway

The objective of this paper is to develop independent and systematic criteria for assessing CCS policy in terms of its level of policy integration. We believe that we should assess CCS policy in terms of the distance to an ideal integrated CCS policy in order to keep track of its trajectory toward sustainable development. After reviewing the existing literature of environmental policy integration, an assessment framework for integrated CCS policy is developed based on Arild Underdal's notion of ‘integrated policy’ then, its usefulness is demonstrated by applying it to CCS policies in Japan and Norway. In the final part, we summarize the findings of the cases and conclude with some observations regarding explanatory factors of the difference in terms of the achieved level of policy integration between Japan and Norway's CCS policies, and some policy implications derived from the analysis based on the framework.     

Global warming estimates,media expectations,and the asymmetry of scientific challenge

Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are “exaggerated” and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions. This paper offers an initial test of the competing expectations, making use of the tendency for science to be self-correcting, over time. Rather than relying in any way on the IPCC process, the paper draws evidence about emerging science from four newspapers that have been found in past work to be biased against reporting IPCC findings, consistently reporting instead that scientific findings are “in dispute.” The analysis considers two time periods — one during the time when the papers were found to be overstating challenges to then-prevailing scientific consensus, and the other focusing on 2008, after the IPCC and former Vice-President Gore shared the Nobel Prize for their work on climate disruption, and before opinion polls showed the U.S. public to be growing more skeptical toward climate science once again. During both periods, new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss “both sides” of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate “other side” is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date.     

Historical and potential future contributions of power technologies to global warming

Using the mathematical formalism of the Brazilian Proposal to the IPCC, we analyse eight power technologies with regard to their past and potential future contributions to global warming. Taking into account detailed bottom-up technology characteristics we define the mitigation potential of each technology in terms of avoided temperature increase by comparing a “coal-only” reference scenario and an alternative low-carbon scenario. Future mitigation potentials are mainly determined by the magnitude of installed capacity and the temporal deployment profile. A general conclusion is that early technology deployment matters, at least within a period of 50–100?years. Our results conclusively show that avoided temperature increase is a better proxy for comparing technologies with regard to their impact on climate change, and that numerous short-term comparisons based on annual or even cumulative emissions may be misleading. Thus, our results support and extend the policy relevance of the Brazilian Proposal in the sense that not only comparisons between countries, but also comparisons between technologies could be undertaken on the basis of avoided temperature increase rather than on the basis of annual emissions as is practiced today.     

Carbon capture and storage in developing countries: A comparison of Brazil, South Africa and India

The ambition to introduce carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in developing countries raises particular considerations and challenges, where, most fundamentally, pressing socio-economic needs imply that there are other political priorities than GHG mitigation. This suggests that the interest in, and viability of, large-scale deployment of CCS in developing countries has to be analyzed as a strategic issue in the overall context of national development. But what are then the strategic concerns that may influence developing countries’ decisions to pursue large-scale deployment of CCS technology? The present article takes a first step in answering this question by comparing CCS policies and ongoing activities in Brazil, India and South Africa.