Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Erschienen in: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6/2012

01.08.2012 | Original Article

Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions

verfasst von: Peter Stigson, Anders Hansson, Mårten Lind

Erschienen in: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change | Ausgabe 6/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

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.
Vorheriger Artikel Promising synergies to address water, sequestration, legal, and public acceptance issues associated with large-scale implementation of CO2 sequestration
Nächster Artikel Valuing power plant flexibility with CCS: the case of post-combustion capture retrofits
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
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)
 
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).
 
Literatur
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 223:299–304CrossRef
Bazilian M, Roques F (2008) Analytical methods for energy diversity & security. Elsevier, Oxford
Blyth W, Bradley R, Bunn D et al (2007) Investment risks under uncertain climate change policy. Energy Policy 35:5766–5773CrossRef
Brockett S (2009) The EU enabling legal framework for carbon capture and geological storage. 9th International conference on greenhouse gas control technologies. Energy Procedia 1:4433–4441CrossRef
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 1:4795–4802CrossRef
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 3:333–343CrossRef
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 37:2161–2165CrossRef
Dinica V (2006) Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies—an investor perspective. Energy Policy 34:461–480CrossRef
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.
Groenenberg H, de Coninck H (2008) Effective EU and member state policies for stimulating CCS. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2:653–664CrossRef
Grönkvist S, Bryngelsson M, Westermark M (2006) Oxygen efficiency with regard to carbon capture. Energy 31:3220–3226CrossRef
Ha-Duong M, Loisel R (2009) Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO2: an editorial comment. Clim Change 93:311–317CrossRef
Hansson A (2008) Kolets återkomst—Koldioxidavskiljning och lagring i vetenskap och politik. Linköping University, Dissertation
Hansson A, Bryngelsson M (2009) Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage—a framing of uncertainties and possibilities. Energy Policy 37:2273–2282CrossRef
IEA (2008) CO2 capture and storage. A key abatement option. International Energy Agency, Paris
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 4:410–1418CrossRef
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 2:448–467CrossRef
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.
Odeh NA, Cockerill TT (2008) Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy 36:367–380CrossRef
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
Otto VM, Löschel A, Reilly J (2008) Directed technical change and differentiation of climate policy. Energy Econ 30:2855–2878CrossRef
Pellizzoni L (2003) Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environ Value 12:195–224CrossRef
Rai V, Victor DG, Thurber MC (2010) Carbon capture and storage at scale: lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Energy Policy 38:4089–4098CrossRef
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 1:4535–4542CrossRef
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.
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 86:399–406CrossRef
van der Zwaan B, Gerlagh R (2009) Economics of geological CO2 storage and leakage. Clim Change 93:285–309CrossRef
Vangkilde-Pedersen T, Lyng Anthonsen K, Smith N et al (2009) Assessing European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide. Energy Procedia 1:2663–2670CrossRef
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 21:346–357CrossRef
Wallquist L, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M (2010) Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environ Sci Technol 44:6557–6562CrossRef
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
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 42:2718–2722CrossRef
ZEP (2011) The costs of CO2 capture, transport and storage. Zero Emissions Platform.
Metadaten
Titel
Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions
verfasst von
Peter Stigson
Anders Hansson
Mårten Lind
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2012
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change / Ausgabe 6/2012
Print ISSN: 1381-2386
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9353-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2012

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Embedding CCS infrastructure into the European electricity system: a policy coordination problem

BriefCommunication

Carbon dioxide capture and storage: Seven years after the IPCC special report

Original Article

Integrated assessment of CCS in the German power plant sector with special emphasis on the competition with renewable energy technologies

Original Article

Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective

Original Article

What will CCS demonstrations demonstrate?

Original Article

Valuing power plant flexibility with CCS: the case of post-combustion capture retrofits