Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions

Abstract

The potential for CO 2 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.

Determining the success of carbon capture and storage projects

“…Second, capture technologies post-and oxyfuel combustion are less likely to succeed than pre-combustion, natural gas processing or industrial separation capture processes. This result is in contrast with Stigson et al (2012) who find no differences in the success of projects with pre-, post-or oxyfuel combustion capture technologies. Third, we find that CCS projects located in areas with an explicit carbon price is negatively correlated to CCS project success.…”

“…The specific storage site characteristics are relevant in so far as saline reservoirs are negatively linked to project success compared to enhanced oil and gas reservoirs, probably due to the lack of commercial benefit of CO2 storage in saline reservoirs. These results confirm the Stigson et al (2012) finding that storage solutions are crucial for facilitating a viable business case for CCS. Second, capture technologies post-and oxyfuel combustion are less likely to succeed than pre-combustion, natural gas processing or industrial separation capture processes.…”

“…Most important appears therefore the finding that storage site selection, despite usually being considered to only account for a small part of the overall CCS upfront costs, is vital for project success 1 . This finding is in line with Stigson et al (2012) […] pre-competitive exploration" (ibid: 30). This call for an enhanced role of government activity can further be supported by the finding that non-commercial storage of CO2 and public funding are negatively linked to project success.…”

“…Despite much effort into the development and demonstration of the technology in recent years, the number of CCS projects that are currently operational has fallen short of the "[…] breadth and depth [necessary] to allow it to play its full part" (The Global CCS Institute, 2013:15). Globally, over a quarter of CCS projects, including "vanguard projects" (Stigson et al, 2012), have been postponed, put on hold or cancelled altogether. A lack of economic viability of CCS is often suggested as the main reason behind these project halts.…”

“…The high capital intensity of large-scale CCS deployment paired with high technology risk are believed to be the main constraints to the technology's deployment (Lohwasser and Madlener, 2012;Stigson et al, 2012;Van Alphen et al, 2009). It is argued that CCS demonstration projects are heavily reliant on government support to prevent the technology from falling into the "valley of death", where the funding gap at commercialisation stage is too large to be surmounted (De Coninck et al, 2008;Ghosh and Nanda, 2010).…”