Nuclear energy as a way of electricity generation took several decades to get from the

initial idea to its first commercial operation. Today, we are witnessing a similar story
with the CCS technology. While individual technologies of CCS have been present
for decades (i.e. removal of CO2 from flue gases; EOR), CCS process as a whole is
still in its early stages of development. While initially CCS was perceived with some
skepticism, the 2005 IPCC Special Report created a positive light for CCS as a
potential significant mitigation option (IPCC, 2005), and one of the key options in the
portfolio of technologies that will be required. However, the report also identified that
significant knowledge and experience is necessary to reduce uncertainties and thus
facilitate CCS deployment. Today, the literature in general holds a very optimistic
view about CCS. Nonetheless, it continues to be cautious and recognizes some of its
challenges, and barriers to development and deployment.
A study by van Alphen et. al (2007) shows that the society, stakeholders (i.e.
government, industry, environmental NGOs) and the public, base their support for
CCS on several conditions: safety, temporality and partiality, financial stimuli,
simplicity, cooperation and commitment, and open communication (p. 4371). Their
analysis of these conditions is interesting as well as correct, in a sense that it
highlights the fact that societies’ support for CCS technologies is a crucial
precondition for its actual deployment, as it dictates the direction and effectiveness of
the public policy for this technology (Praetorious and Schumacher, 2009: 5085;
Dietrich and Schibeci, 2004; in Alphen et. al 2007: 4368). Similarly, Sharp et al.
(2009) also argue that large-scale CCS development will depend on societal
acceptance of the technology. Their study finds that at present CCS can be both
politically and publicly acceptable, however communication and management of CCS
will have an influence of whether it is supported or opposed (p. 649). The study is
good and can be considered valid, as it uses a large and representative sample in its
methodology (e.g. focus groups and a national (Canada) survey). Its main drawback
however is that it only considers the general public attitude, which Bachu (2008)
warns should not be confused with the attitude of the local population around a CCS
project.
The main point, as far as social acceptability is concerned, is that public awareness
invariably influences the decisions made by the policy makers. Thus, with low public
awareness, development and deployment of any CCS project is slowed down.
Increasing awareness however, as Reiner et al. (2007) point out, does not necessarily
lead to the support for the technology. Though with greater awareness, there is a
greater chance of acceptability. Thus, initial projects will be particularly important
(Logan, 2005).
While CCS is currently considered to be technologically feasible, many legal and
regulatory issues remain. The lack of a legal and regulatory framework for the
transport and storage of CO2 is also one of the principal barriers to the deployment of
the technology, and as Gibbins and Chalmers (2008) state, the technological
advancement needs to be complemented by policy development as well. Praetorius
and Schumacher (2009) offer a more interesting analysis of the issue, by arguing that
a clear and reliable framework needs to be taken into consideration at the national as
well as the international level. They are also correct to point out issues such as storage
safety standards, long-term monitoring, reporting and liability, which need to be
addressed (p. 5086).
Another important piece of literature has been the EU Directive on CO2 storage
(2009/31/EC). While the Directive does not make CCS mandatory, it makes CO2
storage legal, and makes several important requirements for the Member States in
terms of operation, closure and post-closure obligations of storage sites (EC, 2011). It
can thus be seen as a crucial document in terms of the removal of the regulatory
barrier to a European deployment of CCS. If CCS is to be effective however, as
mentioned earlier, its deployment will have to occur in emerging and developing
countries as well. Chalmers and Gibbins (2007) offer a valuable prediction on what is
required, and when a global rollout can occur. They correctly argue that it will be up
to the developed countries to go through two tranches of initial demonstration
projects, and inspire confidence in the technology from the developing countries.
The fate of CCS however is not solely depended on the social acceptability and a
solid legal and regulatory framework. Another prerequisite for a large-scale
deployment of CCS technology is its commercial availability and competitiveness. To
a large extent, the majority of the costs of CCS will be capture costs. Power plant
operators, until they are mandated by law to do so, will have little incentive to invest
into CCS technologies, as for the most part, it will only impose on them additional
capital costs of new equipment and losses due to energy penalties associated with
efficiency loss. As Gibbins and Chalmers explain, legal and regulatory frameworks
(i.e. cap and trade schemes, carbon tax, performance standards) need to be put in
place, which make it possible for CCS project developers to recover their costs, if
CCS is to be commercially viable in the long term (in Hester and Harrison, 2009: 47).
This also shows the invariable impacts of politics on the economics. Their conclusion
is correct, and applies in particular for the first movers of the CCS technologies,
which will face higher costs than those in subsequent generations, who will benefit
from technological progress, learning by doing and experience (Hansson and
Bryngelsson, 2009: 2275). While Praetorious and Schumacher (2009) are correct in
saying that the costs of CCS will decline over time, they fail to point out that since
CCS is still in its early stages of development, future costs are estimated by different
energy models and assumptions. This however is referred to by Hansson and
Bryngelsson (2009), who also explain that there is a difficulty in assessing future
costs, and point to the fact that several demonstration projects have already been
halted due to the higher than initially estimated capture costs.
While majority of the literature focuses on the capture process in their analysis of
CCS costs, Hendricks (2007) also conducts a study on the cost of transportation and
storage, which he correctly suggests will differ geographically and with different
capture methods. While optimistic in the future fall in costs for all three CCS
processes (capture, transport, storage), he still warns that substantial research and
development will be required to reach or surpass the reductions required to make CCS
commercially viable and enable its large-scale deployment.
Despite the fact that for the most part the technologies for capture, transport and
storage already exists today, many technical challenges remain. Riley (2010)
identifies these as largely due to the scale and permanence required for storage, as
well as the uncertainties associated with the performance of saline aquifers.
Nonetheless, he paints a fairly optimistic painting of CCS and its technological
capabilities to store the CO2. In particular he highlights the importance of depleted oil
and gas fields as a quickest route to rolling out significant storage deployment, until
storage in deep saline aquifers is developed (in Hester and Harrison, 2009: 174).
While still optimistic about CCS technologies, Haszeldine (2009) however,
portrays a rather cautious picture. He presents both advantages and disadvantages of
the three capture methods, however argues that for all three, “the road to rapid
commercial deployment is much less certain” (p. 1648), and at least two learning
cycles will be needed before the technologies can be globally deployed. He is correct
in being cautious, as issues such as retrofitting, partial capture, and capture ready, will
be crucial in determining which of the three technologies is ultimately used in a
particular case.
A critical review of the literature would indicate a widespread perception of CCS
as an important component of the portfolio of mitigation technologies that will be
required in order to significantly reduce the atmospheric CO2 emissions. Nonetheless,
a wide variety of skepticism and caution also exists. In light of research discussed in
this section, I will now continue onto a more in depth analysis of the various
economic, political, and scientific and technological barriers that are holding back the
large-scale development and deployment of CCS technologies.