I. Introduction -- 2. Underground storage of carbon dioxide -- 3. Engineering feasibility of carbon dioxide capture and storage -- 4. Geological carbon dioxide storage and the law -- 5. The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK -- 6. A regional integrated assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage : north west of England case study -- 7. A regional integrated assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage : East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside case study -- 8. The implementation of carbon capture and storage in the UK and comparison with nuclear power -- 9. Conclusions and recommendations.
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
The UK is the first major economy to legislate the reduction of all GHG emissions to net-zero. Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) approaches are likely to be required to support the 2050 net-zero target by offsetting residual emissions from 'hard-to-abate' sectors. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is investigated as one technical solution for GGR. This research used process modelling and lifecycle assessment to identify the GGR potential of three BECCS supply chains. Results show that the BECCS supply chains have significant GGR potential with net-negative emissions as CO2e between −647 and −1137 kg MWh−1. Emissions were compared per unit energy output, biomass and area required for each supply chain to assess the GGR potential and BECCS sustainability implications. The large-scale BECCS supply chain features robust technologies with high capacity factor. It produces the greatest electricity generation and annual GGR, however, demands large amounts of biomass raising potential sustainability issues. The medium-scale (CHP) BECCS provides the greatest GGR potential per energy due to its higher energy efficiency. Limitations are a low capacity factor, energy demand-supply balance and non-existent decentralised CCS infrastructure. The (hydrogen) BECCS supply chain is more versatile, producing hydrogen with the potential to support the decarbonisation of not just power, but heat and transport sectors. The GGR potential sits in the middle and has greater benefits from a biomass sustainability perspective, yet, hydrogen infrastructure is not established, and costs remain uncertain. The relative performance of alternative BECCS supply chains should consider direct links between CO2 removal and sustainable biomass and land use, as well as GGR potential.
Greenhouse gas removal technologies and practices are essential to bring emissions to net zero and limit global warming to 1.5°C. To achieve this, the majority of integrated assessment models (IAMs), that generate future emissions scenarios and inform the international policy process, use large-scale afforestation and biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The feasibility of these technologies and practices has only so far been considered from a relatively narrow techno-economic or biophysical perspective. Here, we present one of the first studies to elicit perspectives through an expert mapping process to open up and broaden the discussion around feasibility of afforestation and BECCS. Our stakeholders included business and industry, non-governmental organisations and policy makers, spanning expertise in bioenergy, forestry, CCS and climate change. Perspectives were elicited on 1) issues relating to BECCS with large-scale afforestation, and 2) specific criteria for assessing feasibility. Participants identified 12 main themes with 61 sub-themes around issues, and 11 main themes with 33 sub-themes around feasibility criteria. Our findings show important societal and governance aspects of feasibility that are currently under-represented, specifically issues around real-world complexity, competing human needs, justice and ethics. Unique to the use of these technologies for greenhouse gas removal are issues around temporal and spatial scale, and greenhouse gas accounting. Using these expert insights, we highlight where IAMs currently poorly capture these concerns. These broader, often more qualitative perspectives, issues and uncertainties must be recognised and accounted for, in order to understand the real-world feasibility of large-scale afforestation and BECCS and the role they play in limiting climate change. These considerations enable widening the scope to broader and deeper discussions about possible and desirable futures, beyond a focus on achieving net-zero emissions, attentive to the effects such decisions may have. We outline approaches that can be used to attend to the complex social and political dimensions that IAMs do not render. By complementing IAMs in this way opportunities can be created to open up considerations of future options and alternatives beyond those framings proposed by IAMs, creating opportunities for inclusion of knowledges, reflexivity and responsibility.
Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) approaches are considered essential in several projections to meet the climate mitigation ambition of the Paris Agreement. Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and afforestation are included extensively in mitigation scenarios but there are concerns about the feasibility of these approaches. This was explored with stakeholders from industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and policy who were involved in interviews and a one-day participatory workshop. Multicriteria mapping (MCM) methodology was used to appraise the 'real-world' feasibility of four specific greenhouse gas removal supply chains at a granular level in the UK context. The MCM analysis shows that afforestation performs better in comparison to three BECCS supply chains, on criteria such as business model, social acceptability, and environmental sustainability. This innovative application of the MCM methodology enables the abstract representations of GGR in integrated assessment models to be explored at a more granular level through a supply chain analysis and thus gain a deeper understanding of the issues facing these approaches. The data gathered allows a wide range of technical, environmental, social and political criteria to be systematically applied in appraising the practical performance of different future implementation options for afforestation and BECCS. If these GGR supply chains are to become a reality on the scale required for 1.5 °C global warming, factors such as global cooperation, land availability, and the longevity of policies and incentives were found to be major challenges.
Prospective approaches for large‐scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post‐2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large‐scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer‐reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large‐scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno‐economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures.
"Governments, big business and communities are coming under increased pressure to develop low carbon energy supply technologies. Within the context of the climate change debate a delicate balance has to be reached between local environmental protection and our need for reliable low carbon energy. This books brings together ten years of research conducted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and uses a range of case studies from carbon capture and storage to on-shore wind farms to explore the complex nature of disputes between a wide variety of stakeholder groups. Topics covered include: the importance of context, the relationship between risk and trust, sense of place, role of the media. An invaluable resource for researchers and readers in local or national government, industry or community groups who wish to deepen their understanding of controversy around low carbon technology and how to overcome it"--
The purpose of this brief is to summarise for policy and other stakeholder audiences the extensive empirical research which informed the Res-AGorA team's understanding of 'RRI-in-the-making', highlighting the key lessons and policy implications of our work. It was clear from the outset that the notion of responsibility in Research and Innovation (R&I) is a contested phenomenon that is continually evolving and is historically and geographically situated. Developing a deep understanding of how the concept of RRI has emerged was critical in enabling the co-construction of a framework to assist and guide strategic decision makers and practitioners in Europe. The goal is to make R&I systems more responsible: responsive, inclusive and sustainable in the contemporary moment, with reference to the societal, technological, political and economic challenges and opportunities facing Europe currently.
