IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i8p4089-4098.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon capture and storage at scale: Lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Rai, Varun
  • Victor, David G.
  • Thurber, Mark C.

Abstract

At present carbon capture and storage (CCS) is very expensive and its performance is highly uncertain at the scale of commercial power plants. Such challenges to deployment, though, are not new to students of technological change. Several successful technologies, including energy technologies, have faced similar challenges as CCS faces now. To draw lessons for the CCS industry from the history of other energy technologies that, as with CCS today, were risky and expensive early in their commercial development, we have analyzed the development of the US nuclear-power industry, the US SO2-scrubber industry, and the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. Through analyzing the development of the analogous industries we arrive at three principal observations. First, government played a decisive role in the development of all of these analogous technologies. Second, diffusion of these technologies beyond the early demonstration and niche projects hinged on the credibility of incentives for industry to invest in commercial-scale projects. Third, the conventional wisdom that experience with technologies inevitably reduces costs does not necessarily hold. Risky and capital-intensive technologies may be particularly vulnerable to diffusion without accompanying reductions in cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Rai, Varun & Victor, David G. & Thurber, Mark C., 2010. "Carbon capture and storage at scale: Lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4089-4098, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:8:p:4089-4098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(10)00198-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    2. Greaker, Mads & Lund Sagen, Eirik, 2008. "Explaining experience curves for new energy technologies: A case study of liquefied natural gas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2899-2911, November.
    3. MacKerron, Gordon, 1992. "Nuclear costs : Why do they keep rising?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 641-652, July.
    4. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Isoard, Stephane & Soria, Antonio, 2001. "Technical change dynamics: evidence from the emerging renewable energy technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 619-636, November.
    6. Karsten Neuhoff, 2008. "Learning by Doing with Constrained Growth Rates:An Application to Energy Technology Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 165-182.
    7. 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.
    8. Marvin B. Lieberman, 1984. "The Learning Curve and Pricing in the Chemical Processing Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 213-228, Summer.
    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. Bartha, Zoltán & Sáfrányné Gubik, Andrea & Tóthné Szita, Klára, 2013. "Intézményi megoldások, fejlődési modellek [Institutional solutions, development models]," MPRA Paper 50901, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Bobo Zheng & Jiuping Xu, 2014. "Carbon Capture and Storage Development Trends from a Techno-Paradigm Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-30, August.
    3. Asbjørn Torvanger & Marianne Lund & Nathan Rive, 2013. "Carbon capture and storage deployment rates: needs and feasibility," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 187-205, February.
    4. Sascha Samadi, 2016. "A Review of Factors Influencing the Cost Development of Electricity Generation Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    5. Bistline, John E., 2014. "Energy technology expert elicitations: An application to natural gas turbine efficiencies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 177-187.
    6. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    7. Selosse, Sandrine & Ricci, Olivia, 2017. "Carbon capture and storage: Lessons from a storage potential and localization analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 32-44.
    8. Yuan, Jia-Hai & Lyon, Thomas P., 2012. "Promoting global CCS RDD&D by stronger U.S.–China collaboration," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6746-6769.
    9. Ming, Zeng & Shaojie, Ouyang & Yingjie, Zhang & Hui, Shi, 2014. "CCS technology development in China: Status, problems and countermeasures—Based on SWOT analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 604-616.
    10. Elia, A. & Kamidelivand, M. & Rogan, F. & Ó Gallachóir, B., 2021. "Impacts of innovation on renewable energy technology cost reductions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Nicodemus, Julia Haltiwanger, 2018. "Technological learning and the future of solar H2: A component learning comparison of solar thermochemical cycles and electrolysis with solar PV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 100-109.
    13. John Bistline & John Weyant, 2013. "Electric sector investments under technological and policy-related uncertainties: a stochastic programming approach," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 143-160, November.
    14. Stewart Russell & Nils Markusson & Vivian Scott, 2012. "What will CCS demonstrations demonstrate?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 651-668, August.
    15. Holly Jean Buck, 2016. "Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 155-167, November.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Jonathan Paul Marshall, 2022. "A Social Exploration of the West Australian Gorgon Gas, Carbon Capture and Storage Project," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, February.
    19. Haas, Christian & Kempa, Karol & Moslener, Ulf, 2023. "Dealing with deep uncertainty in the energy transition: What we can learn from the electricity and transportation sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    20. Hughes, Larry & Chaudhry, Nikhil, 2011. "The challenge of meeting Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1352-1362, March.
    21. Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi & Mohammad Dehghani Madvar & Milad Sadeghzadeh & Mohammad Hossein Rezaei & Manuel Herrera & Shahaboddin Shamshirband, 2019. "Current Status Investigation and Predicting Carbon Dioxide Emission in Latin American Countries by Connectionist Models," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.

    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. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    2. Sue Wing, Ian, 2006. "Representing induced technological change in models for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 539-562, November.
    3. Greaker, Mads & Lund Sagen, Eirik, 2008. "Explaining experience curves for new energy technologies: A case study of liquefied natural gas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2899-2911, November.
    4. Papineau, Maya, 2006. "An economic perspective on experience curves and dynamic economies in renewable energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 422-432, March.
    5. Lehmann, Paul, 2009. "Climate policies with pollution externalities and learning spillovers," UFZ Discussion Papers 10/2009, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    6. Rout, Ullash K. & Fahl, Ulrich & Remme, Uwe & Blesl, Markus & Voß, Alfred, 2009. "Endogenous implementation of technology gap in energy optimization models--a systematic analysis within TIMES G5 model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2814-2830, July.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni & Grazzi, Marco & Mathew, Nanditha, 2017. "The cost-quantity relations and the diverse patterns of “learning by doing”: Evidence from India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1873-1886.
    8. Harashima, Taiji, 2012. "A Theory of Intelligence and Total Factor Productivity: Value Added Reflects the Fruits of Fluid Intelligence," MPRA Paper 43151, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Farmer, J. Doyne & Lafond, François, 2016. "How predictable is technological progress?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 647-665.
    10. Lehmann, Paul, 2013. "Supplementing an emissions tax by a feed-in tariff for renewable electricity to address learning spillovers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 635-641.
    11. Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2009. "Testing for the presence of some features of increasing returns to adoption factors in energy system dynamics: An analysis via the learning curve approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1195-1212, February.
    12. Lehmann, Paul & Gawel, Erik, 2013. "Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 597-607.
    13. Lindman, Åsa & Söderholm, Patrik, 2012. "Wind power learning rates: A conceptual review and meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 754-761.
    14. Harashima, Taiji, 2009. "A Theory of Total Factor Productivity and the Convergence Hypothesis: Workers’ Innovations as an Essential Element," MPRA Paper 15508, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. van Blommestein, Kevin & Daim, Tugrul U. & Cho, Yonghee & Sklar, Paul, 2018. "Structuring financial incentives for residential solar electric systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 28-40.
    16. Harashima, Taiji, 2011. "A Model of Total Factor Productivity Built on Hayek’s View of Knowledge: What Really Went Wrong with Socialist Planned Economies?," MPRA Paper 29107, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Klaassen, Ger & Miketa, Asami & Larsen, Katarina & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2005. "The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 227-240, August.
    18. Li, Sheng & Zhang, Xiaosong & Gao, Lin & Jin, Hongguang, 2012. "Learning rates and future cost curves for fossil fuel energy systems with CO2 capture: Methodology and case studies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 348-356.
    19. Wu, X.D. & Yang, Q. & Chen, G.Q. & Hayat, T. & Alsaedi, A., 2016. "Progress and prospect of CCS in China: Using learning curve to assess the cost-viability of a 2×600MW retrofitted oxyfuel power plant as a case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1274-1285.
    20. Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2008. "Technological learning in energy-environment-economy modelling: A survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 138-162, January.

    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:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:8:p:4089-4098. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.