Stakeholder attitudes on carbon capture and storage -- An international comparison
Name
Johnsson-2009-Stakeholder attitude.pdf
Size
344.65 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
3e85c411c6f63f7ff3d38628fc4b09a8
Author(s)
Johnsson, Filip
Reiner, David
Itaoka, Kenshi
Herzog, Howard J.
Date Issued
February 2009
Journal
Energy Procedia
Publisher
Elsevier B.V.
Citation
Johnsson, Filip, David Reiner, Kenshi Itaoka, and Howard Herzog. “Stakeholder Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage — An International Comparison.” Energy Procedia 1, no. 1 (February 2009): 4819–4826. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd.
Version
Final published version
Abstract
This paper presents results from a survey on stakeholder attitudes towards Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The survey is the first to make a global comparison across three major regions; USA, Japan, and Europe. The 30-question survey targeted individuals working at stakeholder organizations that seek to shape, and will need to respond to, policy on CCS, including electric utilities, oil & gas companies, CO2-intensive industries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The results show generally small differences across the regions and between the different groups of stakeholders. All believed that the challenge of significant reductions in emissions using only current technologies was severe. There is a widespread belief both that renewable technologies such as solar power and CCS will achieve major market entry into the electricity sector within the next 10 to 20 years, whereas there is more skepticism about the role of hydrogen and especially nuclear fusion in the next 50 years. All groups were generally positive towards renewable energy. Yet, there were some notable areas of disagreement in the responses, for example, as expected, NGOs considered the threat of climate change to be more serious than the other groups. North Americans respondents were more likely to downplay the threat compared to those of the other regions. The Japanese were more concerned about the burden that would be placed on industry in the coming decade as a result of emissions constraints and NGOs were more likely to believe that the burden would be light or very light. NGOs believed CCS to be far more attractive than nuclear fusion power but much less than renewables. As expected, the risk for leakage from reservoirs was ranked number one of the risk options given.
MIT Department
MIT Energy Initiative
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.309
