CO2 capture and storage is necessary technology with barriers
CO2 capture and storage (CCS) has received a great deal of media attention in recent weeks. ECN-researcher Heleen de Coninck featured in an interview in the Dutch national newspaper “De Volkskrant” on March 20th and on Dutch public television programme Zembla dedicated an item to CCS on March 28th. ECN takes the position that CCS can improve the technical, economic and political feasibility of deep emission reductions and that policy and research support for the technology remains necessary. However, safe deployment of the technology, engagement of local residents near CCS projects and constructive differences in views within the expert community are also needed to overcome the barriers for CCS.
CO2 capture and storage is a technology that separates CO2 from other exhaust gases at industrial plants, subsequently compresses the gas, and transports and stores it in underground reservoirs such as depleted gas fields. The only reason for using CCS is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to other mitigation options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, CCS has hardly any additional benefits: it does not reduce emissions of air pollutants and it does not improve security of energy supply. Nevertheless, the emission reduction costs of CCS are lower than the costs of several renewable energy options and, as an end-of-pipe technology, CCS facilitates the integration of deep emission reductions in the industry and the electricity system that is still mainly fuelled by coal and gas. CCS thus enables a more realistic and cost-effective climate policy and offers businesses and countries more time to evolve to a sustainable energy system in a cost-effective manner.
Several barriers still need to be addressed before CCS can be implemented on a commercial scale. Often mentioned are high investment costs, up-scaling of the technology in power plants, the energy use of capture installations, uncertainty about the availability of storage reservoirs and resistance among local residents near CCS projects. All of these barriers are more or less addressed by government subsidies for demonstration, research into more efficient methods of CO2 capture, and storage capacity assessments. As for public perception, research is done on how citizens judge information about the technology and on ways to conduct public consultation and engagement. Considerable steps need to be taken in all of these areas before we can find out exactly what contribution CCS can make to global emission reduction.
Heleen de Coninck has pointed out that one particular barrier is not normally discussed: the group think that can be perceived in the community of CCS experts. This common group process in expert communities, be it in the banking world or among medical specialists, may result in a less critical view towards the dominant line of thinking, even among academics. As a consequence, the disadvantages and risks may not be sufficiently acknowledged and communicated in a transparent manner, or they may not even be addressed at all. The danger this group think may pose to technological progress is reason enough to take the doubts of independent experts and environmental organisations very seriously.
As CCS is a technology with public perception risks, it is important to have a sufficient supply of independent experts for non-expert audiences to turn to. Laymen often lack the ability to judge whether technical information is correct, and therefore form their opinions based on the credibility of the person or institution providing the information. If local residents near a potential storage reservoir are unable to find experts who are perceived as independent and critical, they may use informants they think will better represent their interests. If all experts have become technology advocates, residents start relying on non-experts and may end up with incorrect or even misleading information. The success of CCS therefore depends on the presence of an expert community that is not suspicious in the eyes of a layman. Up to now there has been little attention for this issue in the CCS community.
De Coninck’s attempts to raise a more balanced and critical debate on CCS both inside and outside the academic community seem to have had an opposite effect as well. Statements have used for different purposes, and people have felt personally targeted, even though De Volkskrant specifically stated “it is not about individuals; it is about the process”. The main message of De Coninck, fully supported by ECN, is that the group think barrier to CCS should be better addressed. Only then can CCS make its contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.
