“Trojan horse or horn of plenty”? Integrative technology assessment to analyse impacts, benefits and trade-offs of Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS

Science and society recognise the climate crisis as a serious problem; humankind is, nevertheless, still pursuing a path with high greenhouse gas, esp. carbon dioxide, CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere. Barriers to effective reductions exist at political, institutional and individual levels. Incentives, trading and enforcement mechanisms are weak or not in place, and large-scale lifestyle changes towards sustainable development are out of sight. In such a wicked situation, the characteristics of carbon capture and storage, CCS seem attractive, negative emission paths even seem indispensable to reach the 1.5°C goal. In their “Special report on global warming of 1.5˚C”, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC found that three out of the four pathways to reaching net-zero by 2050 involve the use of CCS (IPCC 2018). It promises a – relatively – quick and technical, narrowly located but high-potential solution with no need for extensive efficiency improvement in dispersed facilities, equipment, appliances or “software” such as institutions and behaviour. The involved dimensions are manifold – there is no “one” method for analysis. Instead, cross-disciplinary investigations allow drawing lessons from various controversial long-term environmental issues – vital before fully embarking on this route. IPCC themselves admitted in their recent mitigation report in climate change that the “[i]mplementation of CCS currently faces technological, economic, institutional, ecological-environmental and socio-cultural barriers” (IPCC 2022, 28).

In order to become an efficient, effective and sustainable jigsaw piece of a low-carbon system transition, CCS has to prove its suitability. CCS embodies the tension between the advantage of a short-term “quick fix” and the disadvantages posed by the risk of long-term leakage and, from a technology policy perspective, the danger of perpetuating carbon lock-in. The present approach to scrutinise this question, laid out in Flüeler 2023, is a combination of disciplines and perspectives from systems theory, risk assessment, technology assessment and management. Six criteria address issues proven to be crucial in technology policy debates: 1. Need for deployment and benefits compared to competing technological options, 2. Total-system analysis and safety concept, 3. Internationally harmonised regulation and control, 4. Economic aspects, 5. Implementation along technology readiness levels, and 6. Societal issues. It conceptually and analytically serves to tackle the question raised 16 years ago whether CCS indeed is a “Trojan horse or a horn of plenty” (de Coninck 2008).

____________________

IPCC, 2018. Summary for policymakers [Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds.)]. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY, USA. 24 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001.

IPCC 2022. Summary for policymakers [Shukla, P.R. et al. (eds.)]. In: Climate change 2022. Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY, USA. 48 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001.

Flüeler, T. 2023. Governance of radioactive waste, special waste and carbon storage. Literacy in dealing with long-term controversial sociotechnical issues. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham. 145 pp. Chapter 2: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03902-7_2.

de Coninck, H. 2008. Trojan horse or horn of plenty? Reflections on allowing CCS in the CDM. Energy Policy. 36/3. 929-936 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.013.