IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v18y2014i3p445-458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Carbon Capture and Storage Assessment Methods

Author

Listed:
  • John Michael Humphries Choptiany
  • Ron Pelot
  • Kate Sherren

Abstract

type="main"> Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humankind. Mitigating climate change will require a suite of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a new technology aimed at mitigating climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, typically in deep geological reservoirs. CCS has risks characteristic of new technologies, as well as risks unique to this technology and its application. Large-scale CCS decision making is complex, encompassing environmental, social, and economic considerations and requiring the risks to be taken into consideration. CCS projects have been cancelled as a result of inadequate assessments of risks. To date, studies assessing CCS have been limited mostly to environmental, social, and economic fields in isolation from each other, predominantly using life cycle assessments (LCAs), cost benefit analyses (CBAs), or surveys of public perception. LCAs, CBAs, and surveys of public perception all have limitations for assessing difficult multifaceted problems. Incompatibilities across CCS assessment methods have hindered the comparison of the results across these single-discipline studies and limited the possibility of drawing broader conclusions about CCS development. More standardization across assessment methods, study assumptions, functional units, and assessment criteria for CCS could be beneficial to the integration of multiple study results. We propose a set of criteria, which decision analysts could use to develop CCS-project–specific criteria lists in order to comprehensively assess a CCS project's viability. This list was created by determining the frequency of use of each criterion in recent studies, with a focus on their use across disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • John Michael Humphries Choptiany & Ron Pelot & Kate Sherren, 2014. "An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Carbon Capture and Storage Assessment Methods," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 445-458, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:18:y:2014:i:3:p:445-458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/jiec.12121
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cavallaro, Fausto, 2009. "Multi-criteria decision aid to assess concentrated solar thermal technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1678-1685.
    2. Markusson, Nils & Chalmers, Hannah, 2013. "Characterising CCS learning: The role of quantitative methods and alternative approaches," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(7), pages 1409-1417.
    3. Rubin, Edward S. & Chen, Chao & Rao, Anand B., 2007. "Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4444-4454, September.
    4. Sathre, Roger & Chester, Mikhail & Cain, Jennifer & Masanet, Eric, 2012. "A framework for environmental assessment of CO2 capture and storage systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 540-548.
    5. Giovanni, Emily & Richards, Kenneth R., 2010. "Determinants of the costs of carbon capture and sequestration for expanding electricity generation capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6026-6035, October.
    6. Di Lorenzo, Giuseppina & Pilidis, Pericles & Witton, John & Probert, Douglas, 2012. "Monte-Carlo simulation of investment integrity and value for power-plants with carbon-capture," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 467-478.
    7. Rubin, Edward S & Taylor, Margaret R & Yeh, Sonia & Hounshell, David A, 2004. "Learning curves for environmental technology and their importance for climate policy analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1551-1559.
    8. Odeh, Naser A. & Cockerill, Timothy T., 2008. "Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 367-380, January.
    9. Minh Ha-Duong & Rodica Loisel, 2011. "Actuarial risk assessment of expected fatalities attributable to carbon capture and storage in 2050," Post-Print halshs-00487175, HAL.
    10. Lampreia, João & de Araújo, Maria Silvia Muylaert & de Campos, Christiano Pires & Freitas, Marcos Aurélio V. & Rosa, Luiz Pinguelli & Solari, Renzo & Gesteira, Cláudio & Ribas, Rodrigo & Silva, Neílto, 2011. "Analyses and perspectives for Brazilian low carbon technological development in the energy sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(7), pages 3432-3444, September.
    11. Minh Ha-Duong & Rodica Loisel, 2009. "Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO2: an editorial comment," Post-Print hal-00348128, HAL.
    12. Haroon Kheshgi & Heleen Coninck & John Kessels, 2012. "Carbon dioxide capture and storage: Seven years after the IPCC special report," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 563-567, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Wei & Li, Huaizhan & Chen, Yanpeng & Guo, Guangli & Chen, Fu & Tang, Chao & Zha, Jianfeng & Yuan, Yafei & Huo, Wenqi, 2024. "Risk analysis and production safety design of supercritical carbon dioxide storage in gasification combustion cavity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    2. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    3. Axel Lindfors & Roozbeh Feiz & Mats Eklund & Jonas Ammenberg, 2019. "Assessing the Potential, Performance and Feasibility of Urban Solutions: Methodological Considerations and Learnings from Biogas Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-20, July.
    4. McLaughlin, Hope & Littlefield, Anna A. & Menefee, Maia & Kinzer, Austin & Hull, Tobias & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Bazilian, Morgan D. & Kim, Jinsoo & Griffiths, Steven, 2023. "Carbon capture utilization and storage in review: Sociotechnical implications for a carbon reliant world," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Hurlbert, Margot & Osazuwa-Peters, Mac, 2023. "Carbon capture and storage in Saskatchewan: An analysis of communicative practices in a contested technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Lerche, Nils & Wilkens, Ines & Schmehl, Meike & Eigner-Thiel, Swantje & Geldermann, Jutta, 2019. "Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leung, Dennis Y.C. & Caramanna, Giorgio & Maroto-Valer, M. Mercedes, 2014. "An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 426-443.
    2. Marie Renner, 2014. "Carbon prices and CCS investment: comparative study between the European Union and China," Working Papers 1402, Chaire Economie du climat.
    3. Moura, Maria Cecilia P. & Branco, David A. Castelo & Peters, Glen P. & Szklo, Alexandre Salem & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2013. "How the choice of multi-gas equivalency metrics affects mitigation options: The case of CO2 capture in a Brazilian coal-fired power plant," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1357-1366.
    4. Singh, Bhawna & Strømman, Anders H. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2012. "Scenarios for the environmental impact of fossil fuel power: Co-benefits and trade-offs of carbon capture and storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 762-770.
    5. Zhou, Wenji & Zhu, Bing & Fuss, Sabine & Szolgayová, Jana & Obersteiner, Michael & Fei, Weiyang, 2010. "Uncertainty modeling of CCS investment strategy in China's power sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(7), pages 2392-2400, July.
    6. Meleesa Naughton & Richard C. Darton & Fai Fung, 2012. "Could Climate Change Limit Water Availability for Coal-Fired Electricity Generation with Carbon Capture and Storage? A UK Case Study," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 265-282, May.
    7. Zaijing Gong & Dapeng Liang, 2017. "A resilience framework for safety management of fossil fuel power plant," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 89(3), pages 1081-1095, December.
    8. Renner, Marie, 2014. "Carbon prices and CCS investment: A comparative study between the European Union and China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 327-340.
    9. Nadine Heitmann & Christine Bertram & Daiju Narita, 2012. "Embedding CCS infrastructure into the European electricity system: a policy coordination problem," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 669-686, August.
    10. Schreiber, A. & Zapp, P. & Markewitz, P. & Vögele, S., 2010. "Environmental analysis of a German strategy for carbon capture and storage of coal power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7873-7883, December.
    11. Manfred Lenzen & Roberto Schaeffer, 2012. "Historical and potential future contributions of power technologies to global warming," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 601-632, June.
    12. Carlo Strazza & Adriana Del Borghi & Michela Gallo, 2013. "Development of Specific Rules for the Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Carbon Capture and Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Lee, Suh-Young & Lee, In-Beum & Han, Jeehoon, 2019. "Design under uncertainty of carbon capture, utilization and storage infrastructure considering profit, environmental impact, and risk preference," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 34-44.
    14. Nduagu, Experience & Romão, Inês & Fagerlund, Johan & Zevenhoven, Ron, 2013. "Performance assessment of producing Mg(OH)2 for CO2 mineral sequestration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 116-126.
    15. Peter Stigson & Anders Hansson & Mårten Lind, 2012. "Obstacles for CCS deployment: an analysis of discrepancies of perceptions," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 601-619, August.
    16. Bhumika Gupta & Salil K. Sen, 2019. "Carbon Capture Usage and Storage with Scale-up: Energy Finance through Bricolage Deploying the Co-integration Methodology," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(6), pages 146-153.
    17. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    18. Lai, N.Y.G. & Yap, E.H. & Lee, C.W., 2011. "Viability of CCS: A broad-based assessment for Malaysia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3608-3616.
    19. Qian, Yuan & Scherer, Laura & Tukker, Arnold & Behrens, Paul, 2020. "China's potential SO2 emissions from coal by 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Gunasekaran, S. & Mancini, N.D. & El-Khaja, R. & Sheu, E.J. & Mitsos, A., 2014. "Solar–thermal hybridization of advanced zero emissions power cycle," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 152-165.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:18:y:2014:i:3:p:445-458. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.