Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews

Laypeople's acceptance and perception of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) can have an influence on its political feasibility. It is important, therefore, to study how laypeople perceive CCS and which cognitions they hold with respect to this technique. We conducted in-depth interviews with laypeople (N = 16) to explore their mental concepts of CCS. Little knowledge about CCS was detected among laypeople. We also found that laypeople fear that a deployment of CCS could create incentives that would hinder a sustainable development of the energy economy. A misunderstanding of the concepts of hydro- and geostatic pressure, as well as a lack of knowledge about the physical–chemical properties of carbon dioxide seemed to trigger fundamental rejection of CCS among some laypeople. This qualitative study identifies concepts that underlie CCS perception, and these should be objects of future studies. We provide some suggestions for risk management and communication about CCS.     

Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) technology has the potential to enable large reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, but one of the unanswered questions about CCS is to what extent it will be accepted by the public. To provide insight regarding risk perception as an important component that will influence the public acceptance of CCS, this study discusses different notions of risk and their varying uses by the public, who generally use a social constructivist risk perspective, and risk experts, who generally use a realist perspective. Previous studies discussing the public acceptance of CCS have relied on survey response data and/or focus groups. This study instead uses the psychometric theory of public risk perception to postulate how the public is likely to respond to efforts to use geologic storage of CO₂, a component of the CCS architecture. Additionally this paper proposes further actions that could favorably impact the public's perception of risk from geologic storage projects. Through the psychometric analysis this study concludes that the risks of geologic storage are likely to eventually be considered no worse than existing fossil fuel energy technologies. However, since geologic storage of CO₂ is a new technology with little operational experience, additional field tests and a demonstrated ability to mitigate problems should they arise will be necessary to improve the public's perception of risk from CCS technologies.     

Public perceptions of CCS: Emergent themes in pan-European focus groups and implications for communications

This paper reports on European public perceptions of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as determined through six focus groups, one held in each of the UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Belgium and Spain. The development of opinion and the emergence of concerns were observed via phased exposure to a specially commissioned film providing an overview of CCS technology, its rationale and associated debates, supplemented by additional information on national energy mixes. In general there was a high level of commonality in opinion and concerns across the six countries, with only minor differences. The concerns that emerged were not allayed by the information provided. On the contrary, there was evidence of a shift from initial uncertainty about CCS to negative positions. CCS was generally perceived as an uncertain, end-of-pipe technology that will perpetuate fossil-fuel dependence. Noting the political context to CCS, we conclude that advocates will likely find the European public opinion context a challenging one in which to achieve deployment, particularly for onshore storage, except where local communities perceive real economic or other benefits to CCS.     

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

In Part 1, we presented the findings of the EU ACCSEPT project (2006–2007) with regards to scientific, technical, legal and economic issues. In Part 2, we present the analysis of social acceptability on the part of both the lay public and stakeholders. We examine the acceptability of CO₂ capture and geological storage (CCS) within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The debate over the inclusion of CCS within the CDM is caught-up in a set of complex debates that are partly technical and partly political and, therefore, difficult, and time-consuming, to resolve. We explore concerns that support for CCS will detract from support for other low-carbon energy sources. We can find no evidence that support for CCS is currently detracting from support for renewable energy sources, though it is probably too early to detect such an effect. Efforts at understanding, engaging with, and communicating to, the lay public and wider stakeholder community (not just business) in Europe are currently weak and inadequate, despite well-meaning statements from governments and industry.     

Stakeholder attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage—An international comparison

This paper presents results from a survey of stakeholder attitudes towards Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The survey is the first to make a global comparison across three major regions: North America, Japan, and Europe. It is based on a 30-question survey which targeted individuals working at stakeholder organizations that seek to shape, and will need to respond to, policy on CCS, including electric utilities, oil and gas companies, CO₂-intensive industries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The paper reports results from the original survey carried out in 2006 and from a recent follow up on key CCS questions (April 2009).The results show generally small differences across the regions and between the different groups of stakeholders. All believed that the challenge of significant reductions in emissions using only current technologies was severe. There was a widespread belief that CCS as well as renewable technologies such as solar power will achieve major market entry into the electricity sector within the next 10–20 years, whereas there is more scepticism about the role of hydrogen and especially nuclear fusion in the next 50 years. All groups were generally positive towards renewable energy. Yet, there were some notable areas of disagreement in the responses, for example, as expected, NGOs considered the threat of climate change to be more serious than the other groups. North American respondents were more likely to downplay the threat compared to those of the other regions. The Japanese were more concerned about the burden that would be placed on industry in the coming decade as a result of emissions constraints and NGOs were more likely to believe that the burden imposed would be light or very light. NGO respondents also believed CCS to be far more attractive than nuclear power (fission) but much less than renewables. As expected, the risk for leakage from reservoirs was ranked number one of the risk options given. The follow-up study generally confirmed the results of the original study with a few notable differences. As expected, the results of the follow-up shows that respondents consider CCS to play an increased role in the national climate debate. In Japan, there was an increased fraction of respondents who claimed that their organization has a clear position on CCS.     

Accelerating the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies by strengthening the innovation system

In order to take up the twin challenge of reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, while meeting a growing energy demand, the potential deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies is attracting a growing interest of policy makers around the world. In this study we evaluate and compare national approaches towards the development of CCS in the United States, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The analysis is done by applying the functions of innovation systems approach. This approach posits that new technology is developed, demonstrated and deployed in the context of a technological innovation system. The performance assessment of the CCS innovation system shows that the extensive knowledge base and knowledge networks, which have been accumulated over the past years, have not yet been utilized by entrepreneurs to explore the market for integrated CCS concepts linked to power generation. This indicates that the build-up of the innovation system has entered a critical phase that is decisive for a further thriving development of CCS. In order to move the CCS innovation system through this present difficult episode and deploy more advanced CCS concepts at a larger scale; it is necessary to direct policy initiatives at the identified weak system functions, i.e. entrepreneurial activity, market creation and the mobilization of resources. Moreover, in some specific countries it is needed to provide more regulatory guidance and improve the legitimacy for the technology. We discuss how policy makers and technology managers can use these insights to develop a coherent policy strategy that would accelerate the deployment of CCS.     

Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of CO2

In this study the methodology of life cycle assessment has been used to assess the environmental impacts of three pulverized coal fired electricity supply chains with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS) on a cradle to grave basis. The chain with CCS comprises post-combustion CO₂ capture with monoethanolamine, compression, transport by pipeline and storage in a geological reservoir. The two reference chains represent sub-critical and state-of-the-art ultra supercritical pulverized coal fired electricity generation. For the three chains we have constructed a detailed greenhouse gas (GHG) balance, and disclosed environmental trade-offs and co-benefits due to CO₂ capture, transport and storage. Results show that, due to CCS, the GHG emissions per kWh are reduced substantially to 243 g/kWh. This is a reduction of 78 and 71% compared to the sub-critical and state-of-the-art power plant, respectively. The removal of CO₂ is partially offset by increased GHG emissions in up- and downstream processes, to a small extent (0.7 g/kWh) caused by the CCS infrastructure. An environmental co-benefit is expected following from the deeper reduction of hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride emissions. Most notable environmental trade-offs are the increase in human toxicity, ozone layer depletion and fresh water ecotoxicity potential for which the CCS chain is outperformed by both other chains. The state-of-the-art power plant without CCS also shows a better score for the eutrophication, acidification and photochemical oxidation potential despite the deeper reduction of SO_x and NO_x in the CCS power plant. These reductions are offset by increased emissions in the life cycle due to the energy penalty and a factor five increase in NH₃ emissions.     

Environmental bonds and the challenge of long-term carbon sequestration

The potential to capture carbon from industrial sources and dispose of it for the long-term, known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), is widely recognized as an important option to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, CCS has the potential to provide emissions cuts sufficient to stabilize greenhouse gas levels, while still allowing for the continued use of fossil fuels. In addition, CCS is both technologically-feasible and commercially viable compared with alternatives with the same emissions profile. Although the concept appears to be solid from a technical perspective, initial public perceptions of the technology are uncertain. Moreover, little attention has been paid to developing an understanding of the social and political institutional infrastructure necessary to implement CCS projects. In this paper we explore a particularly dicey issue--how to ensure adequate long-term monitoring and maintenance of the carbon sequestration sites. Bonding mechanisms have been suggested as a potential mechanism to reduce these problems (where bonding refers to financial instruments used to ensure regulatory or contractual commitments). Such mechanisms have been successfully applied in a number of settings (e.g., to ensure court appearances, completion of construction projects, and payment of taxes). The paper examines the use of bonding to address environmental problems and looks at its possible application to nascent CCS projects. We also present evidence on the use of bonding for other projects involving deep underground injection of materials for the purpose of long-term storage or disposal.     

Electricity systems with near-zero emissions of CO2 based on wind energy and coal gasification with CCS and hydrogen storage

Emissions from electricity generation will have to be reduced to near-zero to meet targets for reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. Variable renewable energy sources such as wind will help to achieve this goal but they will have to be used in conjunction with other flexible power plants with low-CO₂ emissions. A process which would be well suited to this role would be coal gasification hydrogen production with CCS, underground buffer storage of hydrogen and independent gas turbine power generation. The gasification hydrogen production and CO₂ capture and storage equipment could operate at full load and only the power plants would need to operate flexibly and at low load, which would result in substantial practical and economic advantages. This paper analyses the performances and costs of such plants in scenarios with various amounts of wind generation, based on data for power demand and wind energy variability in the UK. In a scenario with 35% wind generation, overall emissions of CO₂ could be reduced by 98–99%. The cost of abating CO₂ emissions from the non-wind residual generation using the technique proposed in this paper would be less than 40% of the cost of using coal-fired power plants with integrated CCS.     

Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural,economic, and ecological aspects in Germany

For the option of “carbon capture and storage”, an integrated assessment in the form of a life cycle analysis and a cost assessment combined with a systematic comparison with renewable energies regarding future conditions in the power plant market for the situation in Germany is done.The calculations along the whole process chain show that CCS technologies emit per kWh more than generally assumed in clean-coal concepts (total CO₂ reduction by 72–90% and total greenhouse gas reduction by 65–79%) and considerable more if compared with renewable electricity. Nevertheless, CCS could lead to a significant absolute reduction of GHG-emissions within the electricity supply system.Furthermore, depending on the growth rates and the market development, renewables could develop faster and could be in the long term cheaper than CCS based plants.Especially, in Germany, CCS as a climate protection option is phasing a specific problem as a huge amount of fossil power plant has to be substituted in the next 15 years where CCS technologies might be not yet available. For a considerable contribution of CCS to climate protection, the energy structure in Germany requires the integration of capture ready plants into the current renewal programs. If CCS retrofit technologies could be applied at least from 2020, this would strongly decrease the expected CO₂ emissions and would give a chance to reach the climate protection goal of minus 80% including the renewed fossil-fired power plants.     

CO2 capture and storage from a bioethanol plant: Carbon and energy footprint and economic assessment

Biomass energy and carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can lead to a net removal of atmospheric CO₂. This paper investigates environmental and economic performances of CCS retrofit applied to two mid-sized refineries producing ethanol from sugar beets. Located in the Region Centre France, each refinery has two major CO₂ sources: fermentation and cogeneration units. “carbon and energy footprint” (CEF) and “discounted cash flow” (DCF) analyses show that such a project could be a good opportunity for CCS early deployment. CCS retrofit on fermentation only with natural gas fired cogeneration improves CEF of ethanol production and consumption by 60% without increasing much the non renewable energy consumption. CCS retrofit on fermentation and natural gas fired cogeneration is even more appealing by decreasing of 115% CO₂ emissions, while increasing non renewable energy consumption by 40%. DCF shows that significant project rates of return can be achieved for such small sources if both a stringent carbon policy and direct subsidies corresponding to 25% of necessary investment are assumed. We also underlined that transport and storage cost dilution can be realistically achieved by clustering emissions from various plants located in the same area. On a single plant basis, increasing ethanol production can also produce strong economies of scale.     

Effective EU and Member State policies for stimulating CCS

Although CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) is widely recognised as an option to mitigate climate change, consistent and effective EU policies to advance CCS are still absent. This paper discusses policy instruments for advancing large-scale deployment of CCS in the European Union, and evaluates them in a multi-criteria analysis. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) is a cost-effective instrument for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but it is questionable whether its currently limited time horizon and short-trading periods will lead to substantial CCS diffusion. Complementary policies at the EU and the Member State level may repair this and provide sufficient incentives for CCS. Potential policies include financial instruments such as investment subsidies, a feed-in scheme, or a CO₂ price guarantee, as well as a CCS mandate or a low-carbon portfolio. These policy options differ with respect to their environmental effectiveness, possible interaction with the EU-ETS, costs and financial risk involved, and their competition with other mitigation options. Interactions between Member State policies and the EU-ETS are smaller in scope than those of EU-wide policies, but they are more likely to lead to displacement of financial resources from other low-carbon technologies. In addition, national policies may pose a significant part of the financial risk of CCS operations with Member States, reducing the operator's incentive to innovate. Overall, structural policies at the EU level, such as a mandate or a low-carbon portfolio standard would be more conducive for realising large-scale deployment of CCS across the EU as well as more acceptable to environmental organisations.     

Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology

The extent of social acceptance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to significantly influence the sustainable development of CO₂ storage projects. Acceptance of CCS by the key stakeholders (policy makers, the general public, the media and the local community), linked to specific projects, as well as how the technology is communicated about and perceived by the public, have become matters of interest for the social sciences. This article reports on an investigation of the public perception of CCS technology in Spain. Individuals’ views on CCS are analysed through focus groups with lay citizens using “stimulus materials”. As the analysis shows, lay views of CCS differ significantly from the views of decision-makers and experts. Public concerns and reactions to CCS technology and potential projects, as well as the degree of consensus on its acceptance or rejection are detailed. Implications for the future use of CCS are discussed.     

Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands

Two research methods were used in this study to analyze the awareness and perception of the Dutch general public regarding Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). In an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ), a representative sample of the Dutch public (n = 995) was provided with all information on attributes of six CCS options, which experts deemed necessary to come to well-considered and well-informed opinions. A traditional questionnaire was used simultaneously (n = 327) to study uninformed evaluations of these technologies. The results showed that the Dutch public is mostly unaware of CCS and has little knowledge about how current energy use causes global warming. Uninformed respondents are still inclined to give their opinion however, which results in unpredictive, easily changeable opinions. ICQ respondents who processed information on attributes of CCS options were likely to base their option evaluations on this information, though not entirely. All in all, the results of the ICQ suggest that, after processing information deemed necessary by experts, Dutch people reluctantly agree with large scale implementation of each of the six CCS options.     

Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants

In this article, we present a life cycle assessment (LCA) of CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) for several lignite power plant technologies. The LCA includes post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxyfuel capture processes as well as subsequent pipeline transport and storage of the separated CO₂ in a depleted gas field.The results show an increase in cumulative energy demand and a substantial decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all CO₂ capture approaches in comparison with power plants without CCS, assuming negligible leakage within the time horizon under consideration. Leakage will, however, not be zero. Due to the energy penalty, CCS leads to additional production of CO₂. However, the CO₂ emissions occur at a much lower rate and are significantly delayed, thus leading to different, and most likely smaller, impacts compared to the no-sequestration case. In addition, a certain share of the CO₂ will be captured permanently due to chemical reactions and physical trapping.For other environmental impact categories, the results depend strongly on the chosen technology and the details of the process. The post-combustion approach, which is closest to commercial application, leads to sharp increases in many categories of impacts, with the impacts in only one category, acidification, reduced. In comparison with a conventional power plant, the pre-combustion approach results in decreased impact in all categories. This is mainly due to the different power generation process (IGCC) which is coupled with the pre-combustion technology.In the case of the oxyfuel approach, the outcome of the LCA depends highly on two uncertain parameters: the energy demand for air separation and the feasibility of co-capture of pollutants other than CO₂. If co-capture were possible, oxyfuel could lead to a near-zero emission power plant.     

Using coal for transportation in China: Life cycle GHG of coal-based fuel and electric vehicle,and policy implications

This paper compares the GHG emissions of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels to the GHG emissions of electric vehicles (EVs) powered with coal-to-electricity in China. A life cycle model is used to account for full fuel cycle and use-phase emissions, as well as vehicle cycle and battery manufacturing emissions. It is found that the reduction of life cycle GHG emissions of EVs charged by electricity generated from coal, without utilizing carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology can be 3–36% when compared to petroleum-based gasoline car. The large range in emissions reduction potential is driven by the many different power generation technologies that are and could in the future be used to generate electricity in China. When CCS is employed in power plants, the GHG emission reductions increase to 60–70% compared to petroleum-based gasoline car. However, the use of coal to produce liquid transportation fuels (CTL fuels) will likely lead to significantly increased life cycle GHG emissions, potentially 30–140% higher than petroleum-based gasoline. When CCS is utilized in the CTL plant, the CTL fueled vehicles emit roughly equal GHG emissions to petroleum-based gasoline vehicles from the life cycle perspective. The authors conclude that policies are therefore needed in China in order to accelerate battery technology and infrastructural improvements for EV charging, increased energy efficiency management, and deployment of low-carbon technologies such as CCS.     

A survey on the public perception of CCS in France

An awareness and opinion survey on carbon capture and storage (CCS) was conducted on a representative sample of French residents aged 15 years and above. About 6% of respondents were able to provide a satisfactory definition of the technology. The key question about ‘approval of or opposition to’ the use of CCS in France was asked twice, first after presenting the technology, then after explaining its potential adverse consequences. The approval rates, which were 59% and 38%, respectively, show that there is no a priori rejection of the technology. The sample was split in two to test for a semantic effect: half of the questionnaires used “Stockage” (English: storage), the other half “Sequestration”. Manipulating the vocabulary had no statistically significant effect on approval rates. Stockage is more meaningful, but does not convey the idea of permanent monitoring.     

Regulatory challenges and managing public perception in planning a geological storage pilot project in Australia

The implementation of geological storage of CO₂ requires not only further research and development but also the demonstration of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology as a viable option. A pilot program is an important first step towards building industry and community confidence in the application of CCS. The Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC), Australia's leading research organisation in CCS, has initiated a comprehensive research and demonstration program in the Otway Basin in South-West Victoria. As the first project of its kind in Australia, the Otway Basin Pilot Project (OBPP) has faced a number of regulatory and organisational challenges while having to concurrently address public perception. The Otway Basin site with its natural CO₂ accumulations and many depleted natural gas fields offers an appropriate CO₂ storage site to test scientific and regulatory concepts and evaluate public response through social research. The project aims to show that CO₂ can be safely captured, transported and stored deep underground under local conditions, and also monitored and verified. Planning has been ongoing for over a year, baseline studies are underway and the project is targeted to start injection in 2007.     

Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder involvement (SI) can include many activities, from providing information on a website to one-on-one conversations with people confronting an issue in their community. For carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), there are now quite a few surveys of public attitudes towards CCS that are being used to inform the design of SI efforts. These surveys, focused on the nascent commercial deployment of CCS technologies, have demonstrated that the general public has little knowledge about CCS—yet the surveys go on to collect what are known as “pseudo opinions” or “non-attitudes” of respondents who know little or nothing about CCS. Beyond establishing the lack of knowledge about CCS, the results of these surveys should not be relied upon by the larger CCS community and public and private decision makers to inform the critical task of implementing and executing SI activities. The paper discusses the issues involved in providing information as part of the survey, maintaining that such information is never unbiased and thus tends to produce pseudo opinions that reflect the pollster's or researcher's bias. Other content and methodological issues are discussed, leading to the conclusion that most of the survey results should be used neither as a gauge of public attitudes nor as an indication of public acceptance. Then the framing of SI in CCS is examined, including the assumptions that clear stakeholder acceptance is a realistic goal and that the public has a decisive say in choosing the energy technologies of the present and the future. Finally, a broader suite of SI activities is recommended as more suited to realistic and contextual goals.