• Energy Research

Abstract Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plays a central role in scenario pathways that limit global warming in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Yet deliberate policy efforts to incentivise BECCS—whether through amending existing climate policies or introducing entirely new ones—remain rare. In this paper, we contend that BECCS must be incentivised responsibly, through policy-making processes which account for diverse and geographically varying societal values and interests. More specifically, we make the case for responsible incentivisation by undertaking a comparative analysis of stakeholder attitudes to four idealised policy scenarios for BECCS, including representatives of government, business, nongovernmental and academic communities, in the UK and Sweden. The scenarios were: business as usual; international policy reform; national BECCS policy; and national policy for negative emissions technologies. Based on our findings, we recommend that policymakers 1) recognise the need to develop new incentives and make enabling reforms to existing policy instruments; 2) consider the risk of mitigation deterrence in their real world (and not abstracted) contexts; 3) employ multi-instrument approaches to incentivisation that do not overly rely on carbon pricing or 4) force a choice between technology specific or technology neutral policies; and 5) attend to the diversity of stakeholder and wider public perspectives that will ultimately determine the success—or failure—of their policy designs.

An increase in carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, including bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), has led to an urgent demand for storage sites, and Norway stands out for its ongoing and planned geological storage sites in a European context. Even though there are no commercial carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) projects in Norway and the North Sea, there is scientific literature linking CO2-EOR and CCS in this geographical region. CO2-EOR utilizes CO2 to extract additional oil, counteracting the climate change mitigation purpose of geological storage. This review article explores how CCS is represented in the scientific literature on CO2-EOR in the North Sea and Norway, with a focus on system synergies and contradictions in relation to climate change mitigation. The main themes in the scientific literature on CO2-EOR in the North Sea are climate change, economics, and geological feasibility. Monitoring, safety, and leakage in addition to transportation of CO2 are less salient. The results show that there are contrasting framings in the literature. One framing is that CO2-EOR is a gateway to large-scale storage which maintains, or even expands, the extraction of fossil fuels and contributes to a sustainable transition in the long run through knowledge building and shared infrastructure. In contrast, another framing is that CO2-EOR combined with CCS have goal conflicts and are therefore not compatible, illustrating complexities with geological storage. Finally, this study reflects on how techno-economic research on CO2 storage in the North Sea and Norway is furthered through critical social science perspectives.

Abstract Sweden and Finland have national goals to reach net negative greenhouse gas emissions before mid-century. Achieving these ambitious goals could employ negative emission technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, but it is unclear how this technology could be realized in an energy transition. Sweden and Finland stand out for having a large share of substantial point source emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide, in the production of pulp, heat and power. In the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, Sweden and Finland reported 64% and 51% biogenic emissions, respectively, in facilities emitting over 100 kt of carbon dioxide in 2017, while the corresponding collective figure for all European states in the database is 6%. This qualitative study highlights company actors’ perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage within a Nordic regional context and explores their perspective on emerging tensions in the energy transition. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 of the 24 companies with the largest point sources of biogenic emissions. The results are framed around four emerging tensions regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage from companies’ perspectives in this study: (1) absence of reliable long-term policies; (2) limits to companies’ climate change responsibility; (3) technical trade-offs of carbon capture; and (4) lack of customer demands for negative emissions. According to most of the companies, it is technically feasible to capture carbon dioxide, but it could be a challenge to determine who is responsible to create a financially viable business case, to enact supporting policies, and to build transport and storage infrastructure. Company representatives argue that they already contribute to a sustainable society, therefore bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is not their priority without government collaboration. However, they are willing to contribute more and could have an increasing role towards an energy transition in an international context.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), could contribute to climate change mitigation strategies. However, the 2020s is not the first time that CCS is high on the agenda. This study explores the differences between the past and current developments of CCS and discusses how incumbent actors' experiences can inform the understanding of potential future energy system transitions in Sweden. For this purpose, a multi-level perspective (MLP) analysis was conducted based on documents, in- terviews and focus groups with key actors. Since the 2000s, increased urgency of climate change has further pushed policy makers into action. In addition, there is a new framing of CCS that underscores the potential of BECCS to provide negative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as prospects for offshore storage of CO2 in Norway and other territories. As such, this study shows that Sweden could be on a transformation pathway towards implementing CCS alongside other mitigation measures. Funding: Swedish Energy AgencySwedish Energy AgencyMaterials & Energy Research Center (MERC) [46036-1]; Swedish Energy Agency research program "Humans, energy systems and society" (MESAM) [46222-1]; Industrial Leap Fund [51569-1]; Swedish Research Council FormasSwedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council Formas [2016-00958]; Swedish governmental initiative StandUp for Energy