Socio-economic impacts of future electricity generation scenarios in Europe: Potential costs and benefits of using CO 2 Capture and Storage (CCS)

Abstract

a b s t r a c tCarbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro-and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.

Socio-economic impacts of low-carbon power generation portfolios: Strategies with and without CCS for the Netherlands

“…Koelbl et al [31]). In Koelbl et al [31] the weighted average electricity cost is about 12% lower in the CCS scenario and the electricity production by about 3% higher. Consequently, the total monetary output of power production is around 9% higher in the NOCCS scenario.…”

“…However, in studies using energy system models to generate the scenarios, the electricity cost and the power production deviate more strongly between the two scenarios (see e.g. Koelbl et al [31]). In Koelbl et al [31] the weighted average electricity cost is about 12% lower in the CCS scenario and the electricity production by about 3% higher.…”

“…Projected technology specific investment, operation and maintenance (O&M) and performance values for power production in the Netherlands in 2030 are mostly based on Brouwer et al [45,46]. The assumed fuel prices are given in Table 4 and we took the projected employment coefficients for power production in the Netherlands from Koelbl et al [31] (which are provided in the supplementary material of this article).…”

“…It has been shown in simulation exercises (e.g. Koelbl et al [31]) that a scenario not allowing for CCS needs higher energy savings and thus more investments in energy saving measures. Because of the relatively high GVA and employment and low import intensity of such efficiency investments, the difference between the CCS and the NOCCS scenario would become larger if we include such measures, making the CCS portfolio an even less favorable strategy for the power sector in the Netherlands.…”

Potential of Russian Regions to Implement CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery

“…Besides scientific publications, forecasts are also developed by national and international agencies and corporations. Despite various forward-looking statements, many studies evince the prospects for reducing the cost of the technology, the long-term significant potential of CCS, and its impact on the socio-economic development of countries [34].…”