Comparative socio-cultural analysis of risk perception of Carbon Capture and Storage in the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 114-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farid Karimi ◽  
Arho Toikka ◽  
Janne I. Hukkinen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Cultural Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
And Storage

scholarly journals Integrating Carbon Dioxide Removal Into European Emissions Trading

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfried Rickels ◽  
Alexander Proelß ◽  
Oliver Geden ◽  
Julian Burhenne ◽  
Mathias Fridahl
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Emissions Trading ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Direct Interaction ◽  
Eu Ets ◽  
The European Union ◽  
And Storage ◽  
The Eu

In one of the central scenarios for meeting an European Union-wide net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target by 2050, the emissions cap in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) becomes net negative. Despite this ambition, no mechanism allows for the inclusion of CO2 removal credits (CRCs) in the EU ETS to date. Amending the EU ETS legislation is required to create enabling conditions for a net negative cap. Here, we conceptually discuss various economic, legal, and political challenges surrounding the integration of CRCs into the EU ETS. To analyze cap-and-trade systems encompassing negative emissions, we introduce the effective (elastic) cap resulting from the integration of CRCs in addition to the regulatory (inelastic) cap, the latter now being binding for the net emissions only. Given current cost estimates for BECCS and DACCS, minimum quantities for the use of removals, as opposed to ceilings as currently discussed, would be required to promote the near-term integration of such technologies. Instead of direct interaction between the companies involved in emissions trading and the providers of CRCs, the regulatory authority could also transitionally act as an intermediary by buying CRCs and supplying them in turn conditional upon observed allowances prices, for example, by supporting a (soft) price collar. Contrary to a price collar without dedicated support from CRCs, in this case (net) compliance with the overall cap is maintained. EU legislation already provides safeguards for physical carbon leakage concerning CCS, making Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Capture and Storage prioritized for inclusion in the EU ETS. Furthermore, a special opportunity might apply for the inclusion of BECCS installations. Repealing the provision that installations exclusively using biomass are not covered by the ETS Directive, combined with freely allocated allowances to these installations, would allow operators of biomass installations to sell allowances made available through the use of BECCS. Achieving GHG neutrality in the EU by 2050 requires designing suitable incentive systems for CO2 removal, which includes the option to open up EU emissions trading to CRCs.

Carbon capture and storage: Pulling down the barriers in the European Union

2009 ◽  
Vol 223 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Tysoe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
European Union ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Point Sources ◽  
Total Carbon ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
And Storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the number of approaches to mitigating climate change by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. It involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large point sources such as power plants, prior to compressing, transporting, and storing it securely in geological formations. The CO2 emitted is thus prevented from entering the atmosphere. CCS is believed, by many, to have massive potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions, with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggesting that CCS could contribute between 10 and 55 per cent of the world's total carbon mitigation effort until 2100. This article considers the principal impediments to the development of CCS projects and the steps taken in the European Union (EU) to overcome them. The development of CCS requires not only the establishment of adequate funding mechanisms and, most likely, the existence of consistently higher carbon prices than those prevail today, but also the settlement of a number of key legal issues. Although much further work is required on the part of legislators, a regulatory framework for CCS is slowly growing in various jurisdictions, especially in the EU where a large step forward was taken in December 2008 with the passing of a CCS Directive.

Carbon Capture and Storage: Developments under European Union and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 353-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Havercroft ◽  
Ray Purdy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Climate Mitigation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mitigation Option ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
And Storage

AbstractRecent amendments to key international legal regimes and the proposed introduction of an enabling legislative framework within Europe, have highlighted the importance of CCS as a climate mitigation option for the European Union and its Member States. This paper seeks to analyse these developments and provide an up-to-date examination of the issue of regulatory options for CCS and further proposals for the resolution of legal ambiguity.

scholarly journals The Role of BECCS in Achieving Climate Neutrality in the European Union

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (23) ◽  
pp. 7842
Author(s):  
Igor Tatarewicz ◽  
Michał Lewarski ◽  
Sławomir Skwierz ◽  
Vitaliy Krupin ◽  
Robert Jeszke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Electricity Production ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Climate Neutrality ◽  
And Storage ◽  
The Eu

The achievement of climate neutrality in the European Union by 2050 will not be possible solely through a reduction in fossil fuels and the development of energy generation from renewable sources. Large-scale implementation of various technologies is necessary, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU), as well as industrial electrification, the use of hydrogen, the expansion of electromobility, low-emission agricultural practices, and afforestation. This research is devoted to an analysis of BECCS as a negative emissions technology (NET) and the assessment of its implementation impact upon the possibility of achieving climate neutrality in the EU. The modelling approach utilises tools developed within the LIFE Climate CAKE PL project and includes the MEESA energy model and the d-PLACE CGE economic model. This article identifies the scope of the required investment in generation capacity and the amount of electricity production from BECCS necessary to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets in the EU, examining the technology’s impact on the overall system costs and marginal abatement costs (MACs). The modelling results confirm the key role of BECCS technology in achieving EU climate goals by 2050.

scholarly journals Ownership, risk and the law for a CO2 transport network for carbon capture and storage in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-462
Author(s):  
Raphael J Heffron ◽  
Lauren Downes ◽  
Marie Bysveen ◽  
Elisabeth V Brakstad ◽  
Tom Mikunda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Transport Network ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Co2 Transport ◽  
The Law ◽  
And Storage

scholarly journals Holistic Assessment of Carbon Capture and Utilization Value Chains

Environments ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tryfonas Pieri ◽  
Alexandros Nikitas ◽  
Arturo Castillo-Castillo ◽  
Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis
Keyword(s):  
Value Chain ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Value Chains ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Carbon Capture And Utilization ◽  
Holistic Assessment ◽  
The Individual ◽  
And Storage

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) is recognized by the European Union, along with carbon, capture and storage (CCS), as one of the main tools towards global warming mitigation. It has, thus, been extensively studied by various researchers around the world. The majority of the papers published so far focus on the individual stages of a CCU value chain (carbon capture, separation, purification, transportation, and transformation/utilization). However, a holistic approach, taking into account the matching and the interaction between these stages, is also necessary in order to optimize and develop technically and economically feasible CCU value chains. The objective of this contribution is to present the most important studies that are related to the individual stages of CCU and to perform a critical review of the major existing methods, algorithms and tools that focus on the simulation or optimization of CCU value chains. The key research gaps will be identified and examined in order to lay the foundation for the development of a methodology towards the holistic assessment of CCU value chains.

Deploying Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 343-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Gibbons ◽  
Elizabeth JI. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Term Care ◽  
And Storage ◽  
The U.S

AbstractCarbon capture and storage could play an important role as a near-term bridging technology, enabling deep reductions from greenhouse gas emissions while still allowing use of inexpensive fossil fuels. However, filling this technological promise requires resolution of key regulatory and legal uncertainties surrounding both human and ecological health, integration within a larger climate policy, and clear assignment of responsibility and liability for long-term care. Deployment of CCS projects in the European Union (E.U.) and the United States (U.S.) may be technologically similar, but will be contextually different. In this paper, we explore the existing energy, policy, regulatory and legal climates that will necessitate different approaches for deployment. The high U.S. dependence on coal makes CCS very important if the U.S. is to achieve deep emissions reductions, while in the E.U. an established climate policy, the importance of off shore projects, and a supportive political climate are favorable to CCS deployment. Additionally, in Europe, regulators must clarify the classification of CO2 within E.U. and international regulations governing on and offshore projects, whereas in the U.S. subsurface property rights, abandoned wells, and state-level jurisdictional difference will play important roles.

Recent developments and current position of underground coal gasification

2017 ◽  
Vol 232 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Green
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Extraction Process ◽  
Pilot Scale ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification ◽  
Product Gas ◽  
And Storage

Underground coal gasification is a conversion and extraction process, for the production of useful synthetic product gas from an in-situ coal seam, to use in power generation, heat production or as a chemical feedstock. While many variants of the underground coal gasification process have been considered and over 75 trials performed throughout the world, the recent work has tended to focus on the control of the process, its environmental impact on underground and surface conditions and its potential for carbon capture and storage. Academic research has produced a set of mathematical models of underground coal gasification, and the European Union-supported programme has addressed the production of a decarbonised product gas for carbon capture and storage. In recent years, significant progress has been made into the modelling of tar formation, spalling, flows within the cavity and the control of minor gasification components, like BTEX and phenols, from underground coal gasification cavities (BTEX refers to the chemicals benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene). The paper reviews the most recent underground coal gasification field trial and modelling experience and refers to the pubic concern and caution by regulators that arise when a commercial or pilot-scale project seeks approval. It will propose solutions for the next generation of underground coal gasification projects. These include the need to access deeper coal seams and the use of new techniques for modelling the process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document