The socio-political context for deploying carbon capture and storage in China and the U.S

Together, the U.S. and China emit roughly 40% of world's greenhouse gas emissions, and these nations have stated their desire to reduce absolute emissions (U.S.) or reduce the carbon intensity of the economy (China). However, both countries are dependent on coal for a large portion of their energy needs, which is projected to continue over the next several decades. They also have large amounts of coal resources, coal-dependent electricity production, and in China's case, extensive use of coal in the industrial sector, making any shift from coal socio-politically difficult. Both nations could use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to simultaneously decrease greenhouse gas emissions and continue the use of domestic coal resources; however, the socio-political context for CCS deployment differs substantially between the two countries and potentially makes large-scale CCS deployment challenging. Here, we examine and compare the political and institutional contexts shaping CCS policy and CCS deployment, both for initial pilot projects and for the creation of large-scale CCS technology deployment, and analyze how the socio-political context for CCS in China and the United States aligns with national climate, energy security, and economic priorities.     

The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey

Abstract

A series of meetings of two ‘Citizen Panels’ were held to explore public perceptions of off-shore carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and storage (CCS). In addition, a face-to-face survey of 212 randomly selected individuals was conducted. We found that, on first hearing about CCS in the absence of any information on its purpose, the majority of people either do not have an opinion at all or have a somewhat negative perspective. However, when (even limited) information is provided on the role of CO₂ storage in reducing CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere, opinion shifts towards expressing slight support for the concept.

Support depends, however, upon concern about human-caused climate change, plus recognition of the need for major reductions in CO₂ emissions. It also depends upon CCS being seen as just one part of a wider strategy for achieving significant cuts in CO₂ emissions. A portfolio including renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, and lifestyle change to reduce demand was generally favoured. CCS can be part of such a portfolio, but wind, wave, tidal, solar and energy efficiency were preferred. It was felt that uncertainties concerning the potential risks of CCS had to be better addressed and reduced; in particular the risks of accidents and leakage (including the potential environmental, ecosystem and human health impacts which might result from leakage).     

Interpretation of IPCC AR6 report on carbon capture,utilization and storage (CCUS) technology development北大核心CSCD

近年来,碳捕集利用与封存(CCUS)作为减缓气候变化的关键技术之一,得到国际社会广泛关注。政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第六次评估报告(AR6)第三工作组报告对CCUS进行了重新定位,并围绕减排潜力、减排成本、综合效益及应用前景等方面,对CCUS相关技术进行了系统全面评估。结论显示,CCUS技术是全球气候目标实现不可或缺的减排技术组合,到21世纪中叶有潜力实现累积千亿吨级减排效应,但当前CCUS技术成熟度整体处于示范阶段,成本较高,减排潜力有待进一步释放。综合考虑CCUS可以有效降低巨额资产搁浅风险、具有良好社会环境效益等因素,我国应结合自身“富煤、贫油、少气”的资源禀赋和基本国情,将CCUS作为战略性技术,统筹政策顶层设计、加速技术体系构建、探索市场激励机制、加强国际科技合作,促进CCUS技术发展。     

Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly depicted as an important element of the carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio. However, critics have warned that CCS might lead to “reinforced fossil fuel lock-in”, by perpetuating a fossil fuel based energy provision system. Due to large-scale investments in CCS infrastructure, the fossil fuel based ‘regime’ would be perpetuated to at least the end of this century.In this paper we investigate if and how CCS could help to avoid reinforcing fossil fuel lock-in. First we develop a set of criteria to estimate the degree of technological lock-in. We apply these criteria to assess the lock-in reinforcement effect of adding CCS to the fossil fuel socio-technical regime (FFR).In principle, carbon dioxide could be captured from any carbon dioxide point source. In the practice of present technological innovations, business strategies, and policy developments, CCS is most often coupled to coal power plants. However, there are many point sources of carbon dioxide that are not directly related to coal or even fossil fuels. For instance, many forms of bio-energy or biomass-based processes generate significant streams of carbon dioxide emissions. Capturing this carbon dioxide which was originally sequestered in biomass could lead to negative carbon dioxide emissions.We use the functional approach of technical innovations systems (TIS) to estimate in more detail the strengths of the “niches” CCS and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS). We also assess the orientation of the CCS niche towards the FFR and the risk of crowding out BECCS. Next we develop pathways for developing fossil energy carbon capture and storage, BECCS, and combinations of them, using transition pathways concepts. The outcome is that a large-scale BECCS development could be feasible under certain conditions, thus largely avoiding the risk of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in.     

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.     

Hype among low-carbon technologies: Carbon capture and storage in comparison

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology has become a crucial part of climate change mitigation strategies around the world; yet its progress has been slow. Some have criticised CCS as a distracting hype, even as mainstream support continues. This article adapts the literature on technological hypes to develop a framework suitable for technologies with limited media/public exposure, such as CCS. It provides a qualitative context and analyses seven quantitative indicators of hype that are largely internal to the CCS technology regime. Throughout, the article contrasts results for CCS with those of comparable technologies. The main findings, which support the view that CCS has been hyped, are as follows. “Expectations” mounted rapidly in the form of project announcements for electricity applications of CCS and deployment forecasts in influential reports. However, announcements soon plummeted. “Commitments” remained high, nonetheless, judging by allocations in public budgets and number of peer-reviewed publications. Meanwhile, “outcomes”—in terms of patents, prototypes and estimated costs—reveal few if any improvements for CCS. Considering these findings and the characteristics of CCS, its development is likely to be more difficult than initially expected. Accordingly, this article calls for decisively prioritising CCS for industrial and, potentially, bioenergy uses. Coal- and gas-fired power plants may be replaced by non-CCS technologies, so power CCS development is far less pressing.     

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).     

Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence

Climate engineering (CE) and carbon capture and storage are controversial options for addressing climate change. This study compares public perception in Germany of three specific measures: solar radiation management (SRM) via stratospheric sulphate injection, large-scale afforestation, and carbon capture and storage sub-seabed (CCS-S). In a survey experiment we find that afforestation is most readily accepted as a measure for addressing climate change, followed by CCS-S and lastly SRM, which is widely rejected. Providing additional information decreases acceptance for all measures, but their ranking remains unchanged. The acceptance of all three measures is especially influenced by the perceived seriousness of climate change and by trust in institutions. Also, respondents dislike the measures more if they perceive them as a way of shirking responsibility for emissions or as an unconscionable manipulation of nature. Women react more negatively to information than men, whereas the level of education or the degree of intuitive vs reflective decision making does not influence the reaction to information.

POLICY RELEVANCE

Current projections suggest that the use of climate engineering (CE) technologies or carbon capture and storage (CCS) is necessary if global warming is to be kept well below 2°C. Our article focuses on the perspective of the general public and thus supplements the dialogue between policymakers, interest groups, and scientists on how to address climate change. We show that in Germany public acceptance of potentially effective measures such as SRM or CCS-S is low and decreases even more when additional information is provided. This implies that lack of public acceptance may turn out to be a bottleneck for future implementation. Ongoing research and development in connection with CCS-S and SRM requires continuous communication with, and involvement of, the public in order to obtain feedback and assess the public’s reservations about the measures. The low level of acceptance also implies that emission reduction should remain a priority in climate policy.     

Capturing the stories of corporations: A comparison of media debates on carbon capture and storage in Norway and Sweden

The development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) are sensitive to public debates that socially frame the technology. This study examines the evolving CCS debates, focusing on the media's framing of firms. Corporations are central CCS actors, and we analyze them in light of the nation-state, which has been emphasized in previous research as the primary context of CCS politics. Empirically, we compare framings of Statoil and Vattenfall in the Norwegian and Swedish media, drawing on a qualitative dataset of news media articles published between 2005 and 2009. We conclude that firms make regular media statements either to foster legitimacy or to respond to criticism of CCS. We also conclude that framing is not necessarily linked to technological success or failure and that interpretations of the technology have different forms depending on whether the related activity occurs in domestic or foreign markets. Finally, we explain the media framings based on the domestic energy situation and politics.     

An International Relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage

With the publication of the IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS), CCS has emerged as a focal issue in international climate diplomacy and energy collaboration. This paper has two goals. The first goal is to map CCS activities in and among various types of intergovernmental organisations; the second goal is to apply International Relations (IR) theories to explain the growing diversity, overlap and fragmentation of international organisations dealing with CCS. Which international organisations embrace CCS, and which refrain from discussing it at all? What role do these institutions play in bringing CCS forward? Why is international collaboration on CCS so fragmented and weak? We utilise realism, liberal institutionalism and constructivism to provide three different interpretations of the complex global landscape of CCS governance in the context of the similarly complicated architecture of global climate policy. A realist account of CCS's fragmented international politics is power driven. International fossil fuel and energy organisations, dominated by major emitter states, take an active role in CCS. An interest-based approach, such as liberal institutionalism, claims that CCS is part of a “regime complex” rather than an integrated, hierarchical, comprehensive and international regime. Such a regime complex is exemplified by the plethora of international organisations with a role in CCS. Finally, constructivism moves beyond material and interest-based interpretations of the evolution of the institutionally fragmented architecture of global CCS governance. The 2005 IPCC Special Report on CCS demonstrates the pivotal role that ideas, norms and scientific knowledge have played in transforming the preferences of the international climate-change policy community.     

"一带一路"沿线主要国家碳捕集、利用和封存潜力与前景研究

碳捕集、利用和封存（CCUS）技术是世界公认的最有前景的碳减排技术之一,它在不改变能源结构的前提下,实现碳的有效封存,是协调经济发展和环境可持续的双赢策略。为了探讨“一带一路”沿线主要国家CCUS技术的发展前景,文中基于CO₂封存机理和CO₂在油藏和气藏中理论封存量的评估方法,分析了“一带一路”沿线主要国家CO₂的封存潜力。结果表明,“一带一路”沿线主要国家有较高的CO₂封存潜力, 在油藏和气藏中的理论封存量达到6200亿t。虽然目前沿线大部分国家CCUS技术都处于起步阶段,但在政府投资和政策的支持下,CCUS技术将为“一带一路”沿线主要国家碳减排目标的实现做出重要贡献。     

The promise of carbon capture and storage: evaluating the capture-readiness of new EU fossil fuel power plants

To what degree are recently built and planned power plants in the EU ‘capture-ready’ for carbon capture and storage (CCS)? Survey results show that most recently built fossil fuel power plants have not been designed as capture-ready. For 20 planned coal-fired plants, 13 were said to be capture-ready (65%). For 31 planned gas-fired power plants, only 2 were indicated to be capture-ready (6%). Recently built or planned power plants are expected to cover a large share of fossil fuel capacity by 2030 and thereby have a large impact on the possibility to implement CCS after 2020. It is estimated that around 15–30% of fossil fuel capacity by 2030 can be capture-ready or have CO₂ capture implemented from the start. If CCS is implemented at these plants, 14–28% of baseline CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel power generation in 2030 could be mitigated, equivalent to 220–410 MtCO₂. A key reason indicated by utilities for building a capture-ready plant is (expected) national or EU policies. In addition, financial incentives and expected high CO₂ prices are important. The implementation of a long-term regulatory framework for CCS with clear definitions of ‘capture- readiness’ and policy requirements will be important challenges.     

The role of climate finance beyond renewables: demand-side management and carbon capture,usage and storage

Mobilizing climate finance for climate change mitigation is a crucial part of meeting the ‘well-below’ 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Climate finance refers to investments specifically in climate change mitigation and adaptation activities, which involve public finance and the leveraging of private finance. A large proportion of climate finance is Official Development Assistance (ODA) from OECD countries to ODA-eligible countries. The evidence shows that the largest proportion of climate finance for climate change mitigation has been channelled to the development of renewable energy, with a much smaller proportion flowing to other crucial forms of clean energy-related measures, such as demand-side management (DSM) (particularly sustainable cooling) and carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). This forms the rationale and aim of this synthesis paper: to review the role of climate finance to develop clean energy beyond renewables. In doing so, the paper draws on practical policy and programme experiences of some donor countries, such as the UK, and Development Finance Institutions (DFIs). This paper argues that a greater amount of climate finance from OECD countries to ODA-eligible fossil fuel-intensive emerging economies and developing countries is required for sustainable cooling and CCUS, particularly in the form of technical assistance and clean energy innovation.

Key policy insights

• Demand-side management (DSM) and carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) are underfunded in climate finance compared with the promotion of renewables.

• Climate finance for sustainable cooling, in particular, represents just 0.04% of total ODA, despite cooling projected to represent 13% of global emissions by 2030.

• Public investment in CCUS is limited at US $28 billion since 2007, despite the costs of meeting the Paris Agreement estimated to be 40-128% more expensive without CCUS.

• Additional climate finance for these sectors should not come at the expense of funding for renewables but should be complementary to it.

     

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.     

Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): accounting,rewarding, and the Paris agreement

Studies show that the ‘well below 2°C’ target from the Paris Agreement will be hard to meet without large negative emissions from mid-century onwards, which means removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and storing the carbon dioxide in biomass, soil, suitable geological formations, deep ocean sediments, or chemically bound to certain minerals. Biomass energy combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is the negative emission technology (NET) given most attention in a number of integrated assessment model studies and in the latest IPCC reports. However, less attention has been given to governance aspects of NETs. This study aims to identify pragmatic ways forward for BECCS, through synthesizing the literature relevant to accounting and rewarding BECCS, and its relation to the Paris Agreement. BECCS is divided into its two elements: biomass and CCS. Calculating net negative emissions requires accounting for sustainability and resource use related to biomass energy production, processing and use, and interactions with the global carbon cycle. Accounting for the CCS element of BECCS foremost relates to the carbon dioxide capture rate and safe underground storage. Rewarding BECCS as a NET depends on the efficiency of biomass production, transport and processing for energy use, global carbon cycle feedbacks, and safe storage of carbon dioxide, which together determine net carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. Sustainable biomass production is essential, especially with regard to trade-offs with competing land use. Negative emissions have an added value compared to avoided emissions, which should be reflected in the price of negative emission ‘credits’, but must be discounted due to global carbon cycle feedbacks. BECCS development will depend on linkages to carbon trading mechanisms and biomass trading.

Key policy insights

• A standardized framework for sustainable biomass should be adopted.

• Countries should agree on a standardized framework for accounting and rewarding BECCS and other negative emission technologies.

• Early government support is indispensable to enable BECCS development, scale-up and business engagement.

• BECCS projects should be designed to maximize learning across various applications and across other NETs.

• BECCS development should be aligned with modalities of the Paris Agreement and market mechanisms.

     

Initial public reactions to carbon capture and storage (CCS): differentiating general and local views

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a potential climate change mitigation option, but public opposition may hamper its implementation. A quasi-experimental approach is used to examine whether ‘not in my back yard’ (NIMBY) sentiments can be anticipated at the initial stage when CO₂ storage locations have been selected and communicated to the public. Furthermore, the psychological structure of initial reactions to CO₂ storage plans is studied to ascertain the differences between people living in the direct vicinity of a proposed CO₂ storage location (i.e. onsite residents) and people who do not (i.e. offsite residents). The results indicate that initial reactions to local CCS plans are not necessarily dominated by NIMBY sentiments. For onsite residents as well as offsite residents, trust in government affects their judgements of the risks and benefits associated with CCS, which in turn affects their inclination to protest against CCS plans. Onsite residents’ inclination to protest is affected by their perceptions of local safety risks, but this is less of a concern for offsite residents. The inclination to protest against CCS is unrelated to concern about climate change.     

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。     

Policy invention and entrepreneurship: Bankrolling the burying of carbon in the EU

This article presents the case of a policy invention where various kinds of entrepreneurship and a window of opportunity played important roles. In 2008 the EU adopted a new Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) policy with an inventive funding instrument at its core: the NER 300 fund, based on revenues from the auctioning of emissions trading allowances. Thus far, the literature on policy entrepreneurs has focused more on success factors that enable particular persons to be especially influential than on the defining characteristics of entrepreneurship. We contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship and windows of opportunity by distinguishing two entrepreneurial techniques – framing and procedural engineering – and two categories of commitment – ‘tortoise’ and carpe diem. We conclude that ‘tortoises’ who contributed to creating the broad and general climate policy window paved the way for issue-specific carpe diemers who promoted the more specific NER 300 policy invention. Furthermore, we distinguish and discuss four different entrepreneurship mechanisms that may influence policy invention processes.     

Policy uncertainty and diffusion of carbon capture and storage in an optimal region

Abstract

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is the value of the climate change impacts from 1 tonne of carbon emitted today as CO₂, aggregated over time and discounted back to the present day. We used PAGE2002, the same probabilistic integrated assessment model as used by the Stern Review (Stern et al., 2006), to calculate the SCC and to examine how it varies with discount rate; and find that it is not sensitive to the path of emissions on which the tonne of carbon is superimposed. The mean value of the SCC is $43 per tonne under both a business-as-usual scenario, and under a scenario aimed at stabilizing CO₂ concentrations at 550 ppm. This counter-intuitive result is caused by the interplay between the logarithmic relationship between forcing and concentration, the nonlinear relationship of damage to temperature, and discounting. However, the SCC is sensitive to a number of scientific and economic inputs to the model. Two recent distributions for the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ (Murphy et al., 2004; Stainforth et al., 2005) increase the mean value of the SCC from $43 to $68 and $90 per tonne. Using a pure rate of time preference of 0.1% per year, as in the Stern Review, gives a mean SCC of $365 per tonne.