Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage in Global Climate Policy: Examining the Issues

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Amos
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
And Storage

scholarly journals Making the subsurface political: How enhanced oil recovery techniques reshaped the energy transition

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-750
Author(s):  
Sébastien Chailleux
Keyword(s):  
Enhanced Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Energy Transition ◽  
Social Protest ◽  
Recovery Techniques ◽  
And Storage

Analyzing the case of France, this article aims to explain how the development of enhanced oil recovery techniques over the last decade contributed to politicizing the subsurface, that is putting underground resources at the center of social unrest and political debates. France faced a decline of its oil and gas activity in the 1990s, followed by a renewal with subsurface activity in the late 2000s using enhanced oil recovery techniques. An industrial demonstrator for carbon capture and storage was developed between 2010 and 2013 , while projects targeting unconventional oil and gas were pushed forward between 2008 and 2011 before eventually being canceled. We analyze how the credibility, legitimacy, and governance of those techniques were developed and how conflicts made the role of the subsurface for energy transition the target of political choices. The level of political and industrial support and social protest played a key role in building project legitimacy, while the types of narratives and their credibility determined the distinct trajectories of hydraulic fracturing and carbon capture and storage in France. The conflicts over enhanced oil recovery techniques are also explained through the critical assessment of the governance framework that tends to exclude civil society stakeholders. We suggest that these conflicts illustrated a new type of politicization of the subsurface by merging geostrategic concerns with social claims about governance, ecological demands about pollution, and linking local preoccupations to global climate change.

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.

Environmental Risk of Gas Hydrates Exploitation in Tibetan Plateau Permafrost

2014 ◽  
Vol 955-959 ◽  
pp. 2114-2117
Author(s):  
Rong Zhao ◽  
Hua Jin Chang ◽  
Ke Long Chen
Keyword(s):  
Tibetan Plateau ◽  
Gas Hydrate ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Middle Latitude ◽  
Qinghai Province ◽  
Engineering Process Control ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Important Significance

Gas hydrate samples were collected in Muli area (Qinghai Province, China) of Tibetan Plateau permafrost, which is the first discovery of gas hydrate in Chinese permafrost and in the low to middle latitude permafrost of the world. Although the exploitation of gas hydrate in Tibetan Plateau permafrost has lots of important significance, environmental risks including permafrost and alpine meadow ecosystem degeneration, global climate influence, and environmental pollution would take place in the exploitation process. In order to avoid or decrease the risk, safe and dependable exploitation technique, carbon capture and storage technology, engineering process control, legislation and emergency preparatory scheme should be put into practice.

The Decision-Making for Large-Scale Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in China and the U.S

2012 ◽  
Vol 616-618 ◽  
pp. 1573-1577
Author(s):  
Xian Jin Lai
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Adoption Process ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
Energy Projects ◽  
And Storage ◽  
The U.S

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be an important technological option for managing CO2 emission in the context of addressing global climate change. Launching large-scale CCS projects is an effective way to accelerate technology development and deployment. In order to draw lessons from large-scale energy projects adoption and implementation, this study compares decision-making for large-scale CCS projects in China and the U.S. It compares the project agenda-setting and adoption process based on case study. It is argued that both countries have different advantages in launching large-scale energy projects. And leadership could be a key element for project adoption and implementation successfully. This factor should be highly considered in the technological innovation research.

The Role of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) for Climate Policy

2015 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Kraxner ◽  
Sabine Fuss ◽  
Volker Krey ◽  
Dennis Best ◽  
Sylvain Leduc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
And Storage

scholarly journals The Role of Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in the Case of Delayed Climate Policy – Insights from Cost-Risk Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jana Mintenig ◽  
Mohammad M. Khabbazan ◽  
Hermann Held
Keyword(s):  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Integrated Assessment Model ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Welfare Losses ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Cost Risk

Abstract. Cost-Risk Analysis (CRA), a hybrid of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), has been proposed as an alternative to CEA as a decision criterion for evaluating climate policy. It weighs mitigation costs against associated risks of violating a predefined temperature guardrail, thereby enabling an analysis of otherwise infeasible temperature targets. Under CEA, delaying climate policy causes infeasibility of temperature targets which was resolved by the assessment under CRA. Indeed, CRA enables a quantitative evaluation of any delay scenario, thereby yielding information of the severeness of postponing climate policy. Alternatively, negative emission technologies have been included in CEA to enlarge the leeway in decision making and postpone infeasibility. This study closes the loop by evaluating the impact of the technology option BECCS (Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage) in light of delayed climate policy under CRA. The work is conducted using the Integrated Assessment Model MIND (Model of Investment and Technological Development). This interplay creates the following insights: An inclusion of BECCS avoids corner solutions that were previously identified for delay scenarios, yielding a larger window of opportunity for action to mitigate climate change. Moreover, it postpones mitigation efforts into the future and removes the pressure to shut down fossil fuel use immediately. Thereby, mitigation-induced welfare losses are reduced substantially. BECSS, when evaluated under CRA, has confirmed well-known results from CEA. However, in contrast to results derived from CEA, mitigation-induced welfare losses decline with delay, while climate risk-induced welfare losses increase with delay by approximately the same magnitude. Hence within CRA, BECCS reduces the welfare effect of delayed climate policy by an order of magnitude. This underlines the crucial role of BECCS for the case of delay, even if one changes the decision-analytic framework from CEA to CRA and thereby softened the temperature target.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document