1

Global Environmental Change, 2011

CCS, BECCS, and the escape from fossil-fuel lock-in

Philip J. Vergragt1*, Nils Markusson2, Henrik Karlsson3

* Corresponding author

1 Clark University, The George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610-1477,

USA. Tel: 508.751.4611, fax: 508.751.4600, email: philip.vergragt@clarku.edu.

2 University of Edinburgh, School of Geosciences, Grant Institute, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW,

UK. Email: nils.markusson@ed.ac.uk.

3 Biorecro, Box 3699, 103 59 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: henrik.karlsson@biorecro.se.

Abstract: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is increasingly depicted as an important element of the CO2

mitigation portfolio. However, critics have warned that CCS might lead to "reinforced fossil fuel lock-in", by

perpetuating a fossil-fuel based energy provision system. Due to large-scale investments in CCS infrastructure,

the fossil-fuel based 'regime' would be perpetuated to at least the end of this century.

In this paper we investigate if and how CCS could help to avoid reinforcing fossil fuel lock-in. First we develop

a set of criteria to estimate the degree of technological lock-in. We apply these criteria to assess the lock-in

reinforcement effect of adding CCS to the fossil fuel socio-technical regime (FFR). In principle, CO2 could be

captured from any CO2 point source. In the practice of present technological innovations, business strategies,

and policy developments, CCS is most often coupled to coal power plants. However, there are many point

sources of CO2 that are not directly related to coal or even fossil fuels. For instance, many forms of bio-energy

or biomass-based processes generate significant streams of CO2 emissions. Capturing this CO2 which was

originally sequestered in biomass could lead to negative CO2 emissions.

We use the functional approach of Technical Innovations Systems (TIS) to estimate in more detail the strengths

of the "niches" CCS and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS). We also assess the orientation of the CCS niche

towards the FFR and the risk of crowding out BECCS. Next we develop pathways for developing FECCS,

BECCS, and combinations of them, using transition pathways concepts. The outcome is that a large-scale

BECCS development could be feasible under certain conditions, thus largely avoiding the risk of reinforced

fossil fuel lock-in.

Keywords: Carbon capture and storage; biomass; BECCS; lock-in; technical innovation system; fossil

fuel regime.

2

1. Introduction

To advance a sustainable energy provision, society needs to move away from the present

socio-technical fossil fuel regime toward a low carbon regime. The key question, of course, is

which form such a low carbon socio-technical regime will take. Will it mainly consist of

renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaics, wind, tidal, waves and geothermal energy;

will it take the form of fossil fuel plus CCS? or perhaps nuclear energy? or could a combination of

all of these be employed? And, what will the transition pathways be? The answer to these

questions largely depends on the success of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

CCS has recently emerged as a new and promising technology that could help to achieve

CO2 reductions and thus reduce the threat of climate change. CCS is a combination of

technologies, some of which are mature (CO2 transportation) and others that are in a less mature

phase (large-scale storage and advanced capture technologies).

One of the most common arguments in favor of CCS is that CCS, although it is not a final

solution to the CO2 emissions problem, should be viewed as a bridge technology that would buy

time to make a transition to a sustainable economy based on energy conservation and renewable

energy sources. In this line of reasoning, conservation and renewables cannot be deployed fast

enough to avoid a climate disaster, and thus we need CCS in the meantime. To play its intended

role, the fossil energy CCS (FECCS) regime will need to eventually give way to renewables once

they become available. Here, we argue that once FECCS is in place, it will be difficult to remove

it. We call this phenomenon reinforced fossil fuel lock-in. In section two, we will introduce this

concept and apply it to the fossil fuel energy provision and to FECCS. In section two, we also

introduce a method to measure the strength of emerging socio-technical innovations, such as CCS,

biomass-based energy, and bio-energy CCS (BECCS), using a Technological Innovation System

3

(TIS) framework.

In section three, we introduce BECCS as a possible alternative scenario to FECCS. The

possible advantage of BECCS is that it would avoid the reinforced fossil fuel lock-in that would

result from the implementation of FECCS; however, there are many questions about the viability

and sustainability of BECCS. We will also show that the BECCS TIS is still very weak and we

discuss possibilities for strengthening it.

Throughout this paper, we will use some of the terminology of the Multi Level perspective

(MLP) on socio-technical transitions (Geels 2002, Geels and Schot 2007, Rotmans et al, 2001). In

this approach, the incumbent socio-technical system is referred to as a socio-technical regime and

new emerging technologies that may or may not transform this regime are thought to develop in

niches. The MLP combines the levels of niche and regime with that of the landscape, where

macro-developments occur that are beyond the reach of influence of niche or regime actors. This

terminology will be useful to unravel the interplay between the fossil-fuel regime, the CCS and

BECCS niches and the biomass niche-regime (Fig. 1).

2. CCS and reinforced fossil fuel lock-in

Several scholars have expressed a concern that CCS may lead to (reinforced) fossil fuel

lock-in (Unruh and Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006; Markusson and Haszeldine, 2008; Vergragt, 2009).

Technological lock-in has been developed as a concept to demonstrate why technologies often

develop along path-dependent trajectories (David, 1985; Arthur 1989, 1994, 2009). The standard

example of this is the QWERTY keyboard, which was developed based on analysis showing that

in a mechanical typewriter, this configuration resulted in the lowest chance of typebar clashes. Due

to a considerable barrier to change, the QWERTY keyboard persists in the electronic age, when

4

typebar clashes are no longer a problem and other keyboard layouts would be more efficient.

Among other causes, this barrier is due to the skills users have developed for typing using the

QWERTY keyboard and the time and effort required in learning to use a different keyboard layout.

Barriers to change can be economic (e.g., the sunk costs of typing training and economies of

scale), but they can also be due to cultural and other factors. An incumbent technological trajectory

often retains an advantage over competing newcomer technologies, even though they may be more

efficient.

Fossil fuel energy provision represents a mature socio-technical regime with a high

degree of technological lock-in. It has been developed and improved over a long period of time.

We use fossil fuels mostly in the form of liquid fuel for transportation, oil and gas for heating

houses and coal, oil and natural gas for conversion into electricity. This regime also consists of

components such as oil drilling, refining, coal mining, gas exploration and transportation, research

and development in coal, oil and gas, rules and regulations, international treaties, financial markets

and stock exchanges. It is clear that the dominant fossil fuel regime is a conglomerate of powerful

economic and political actors that has been very successful in fighting off challenges related to

renewable energy sources and energy conservation. Moreover, multiple innovations, such as

higher smoke stacks and scrubbing technology, have been adopted to defend the system against

major challenges that arose in reaction to environmental impacts such as smog and sulfur

emissions (Hansson and Bryngelsson 2009) and, hence, strengthened the lock-in. The positive side

of lock-in is that the system is optimized and efficient and that it is often able to address changes in

the selection environment by technological fixes. The negative side is that new and competing

technologies have a difficult time competing and eventually replacing the existing regime. Unruh

5

(2000) coined the term carbon lock-in to describe this situation.1

Several authors have attempted to develop criteria for technological lock-in. Shackley and

Thompson (2008) developed a set of technical and social criteria. The technical criteria are as

follows: capital intensity, long lead time, a large scale and reliance on infrastructure. These criteria

are fairly straightforward and we will use them in the development of our own set of criteria.

However, they are also highly interrelated, meaning that they most often go together. Therefore,

we will merge these criteria into one, which will be referred to as heaviness.

Shackley and Thompson’s social criteria are as follows: having a single mission and being

closed to criticism, hype and hubris. We propose to merge the last three of these under the heading

of legitimation. Having a single mission does not seem to be such an important criterion to us.

Knot et al. (2001) developed a somewhat different set of criteria: interrelatedness, learning effects

for producers, learning effects for users, externalities, expectations and interests and investments.

These criteria complement the technological criteria as developed by Shackley and Thompson well

and we use them in a slightly modified form: we merge the learning effects for producers and

users. Thus, we propose that socio-technical systems can be said to be strongly locked-in when

they score highly for the following criteria:

1. Heaviness (including scale, infrastructure, capital intensity and lead time)

2. Interrelatedness among/ between technologies

3. Legitimation (including hyping, hubris and being closed to criticism)

4. Learning effects of users, producers and other stakeholders (such as regulators and the

public)

1 We have opted for the term fossil fuel lock-in to avoid confusion with bio-energy, which of course, also

emits CO2, although it has low net CO2 emissions.

6

5. Expectations and interests

The fossil fuel energy provision system is heavily locked-in according to all of the criteria

above, although it is also the subject of criticism because of its CO2 emissions, other emissions

during mining and combustion and a high number of accidents. To estimate the lock-in

reinforcement effect of adding CCS to the fossil fuel system, we apply the above-developed

criteria:

1. CCS makes an already heavy fossil fuel system even heavier. Investments in

capture plants would be needed at the same scale as for power plants and have costs on the order of

a few billion Euros. Adding CCS also requires connecting power plants with storage sites through

an entirely new infrastructure of CO2 pipelines (complemented by ships). The lead time to build a

CCS system is not well known, but it may be long. Once the investments are in place, lifetimes of

many decades can be expected.

2. Adding CCS does not substantially change the interrelatedness of the fossil fuel

regime. It remains tightly linked with the centralized grid for power distribution and it thus

weakens the viability of distributed energy sources, which are favored by many renewable energy

options.

3 The weakest point of the fossil fuel regime is presently its legitimacy, which is

being challenged by the climate change imperative. Adding CCS promises (according to its

proponents) to resolve this problem. The legitimation of CCS has been underpinned by the efforts

of a part of the scientific establishment and this technology is being promoted by professional

lobbying organizations and by many NGOs. However, it has also been contested by other NGOs,

lead by Greenpeace, as well as by civil society in specific localities. CCS remains largely unknown

to the general public and is not well entrenched culturally. The emergence of protests and a recent

7

slowing down of CCS development suggest that a first peak of hype related to this technology may

be coming to an end and that its legitimacy has been somewhat challenged.

4. Learning effects would not appear to be considerably altered by adding CCS. The

promise of CCS is predicated exactly on not requiring any change of power consumers. And,

insofar as CCS can be seen as an add-on to the existing regime, it can also be absorbed relatively

easily by producers, regulators and other stakeholders. However, some capture approaches are

inherently integrated with power plants and therefore disrupt established practices and standards to

some degree.

5. The legitimation effect of CCS means that it is in the interest of the fossil fuel

industry actors to promote the concept. Here, a complication is that it is also expensive and that it

is unclear how the bill will be footed. Expectations related to the implementation and the efficacy

CCS have been high since 2005 but have recently somewhat weakened.

It thus seems that CCS is a technology that will likely reinforce the technological lock-in of

the fossil fuel system, primarily by adding heaviness and legitimation, leading to the possibility of

a future FECCS regime. A problem with this scenario is that even if CCS abatement works, fossil

fuel power will still emit CO2 through residual emissions from power plants due to limited capture

efficiency and through emissions from upstream operations made worse by the CCS energy

penalty (Meadowcroft et al, 2009). Therefore, even with CCS abatement, fossil-fuelled power is

not sustainable and further technical fixes would be required. However, the reinforced lock-in

effect means that CCS may make a transition to a more sustainable system more difficult, as will

be discussed further below.

How can a (reinforced) lock-in situation be overcome? In the Transition Management (TM)

literature, many case studies have described the transition from a previously locked-in system to an

8

entirely new and different system: for example, from sail ships to steam ships (Geels, 2002) or

from coal to gas heating of houses (Correlje and Verbong, 2004). In that approach, the emphasis is

on how to conceptualize and manage possible large-scale socio-technical transitions to a more

sustainable socio-technical regime. Radical new technologies are typically first developed in

technological niches, which are thought of as protected breeding spaces in which new technologies

develop and are nurtured. Modern biomass technologies, though they are varied, might be thought

of as such a niche that has recently become more prominent as a consequence of government

policies, such as renewable portfolio standards, which require a certain amount of renewable

energy in the fuel mix (we refer to this here a niche-regime). Other examples of promising

renewable energy niche-regimes are photovoltaics and wind energy (which are not considered in

this paper).

CCS has all of the characteristics of a socio-technical niche. It is a conglomerate of new

and existing technologies that have not yet been deployed on a large scale; it is supported by

multiple actors and constituencies that show increasing interactions and there are increasing

expectations. However, the organizational field is not yet stabilized; the technologies are still under

development; and their application domains are uncertain. It differs from most radical innovations

in that it is not fringe actors, but incumbents who are the main drivers of this niche. In contrast to

most examples from the TM literature, if successful, CCS will thus reinforce the incumbent Fossil

Fuel Regime (FFR) and lead to a reinforced fossil fuel lock-in of a FECCS regime.

**************Fig. 1 about here************

The MLP literature is very helpful for conceptualizing possible transitions from previously

locked-in systems (socio-technical regimes) to an entirely different regime. A typology of

9

pathways for transitions has also been developed in this field (Geels et al, 2008). However, it does

not provide us with many tools to measure the strength of an emerging socio-technical niche. For

this, we find it helpful to use the conceptual framework and tools provided by the functions

approach of the Technological Innovation System (TIS) framework (Bergek et al, 2008; Hekkert et

al, 2007). The TIS approach describes an emerging innovation system as consisting of a set of

functions; each of these functions must be addressed to make a TIS potentially successful, meaning

that an innovation will diffuse into wider society.

The TIS approach, which is applied to emerging new technologies that are often developed

in niches, thus complements the lock-in approach, which is applied to incumbent and future socio-

technical regimes. There are, therefore, some similarities, but also differences between the criteria

describing the strengths of a locked-in socio-technical a regime and those describing the strengths

and promises of a niche.

The functions of a TIS have been described as follows (Table 1).

****Table 1 about here****

The functions of the TIS approach has been applied to CCS previously by Van Alphen et

al. (2008), showing that knowledge development and diffusion are generally the best-developed

functions of the CCS TIS, with market formation being the weakest. Moreover, Van Alphen et al.

(2009) showed that Norway has a strong CCS TIS as compared to, for example, the US and

Australia. Zawadski (2009) compared the CCS TIS with those of wind and fuel cell technologies

in Canada and found that CCS was seen to perform better with regard to funding. In contrast to

previous studies, we have not operationalized the functions in the form of a questionnaire but have

developed indicators using data from publicly available documents. Moreover, we employed an

1

0

international scope, albeit with emphasis on the US and the EU. In relation to Van Alphen et al.,

we have brought the political aspects of innovation systems dynamics to the foreground, for

example, by placing the creation of legitimacy and the guidance of searches as the first functions,

rather than entrepreneurial activity.

Below, we will assess the strengths of the CCS TIS functions. Then, in section three, we

will assess the strengths of the BECCS TIS functions and compare the strengths of the CCS and

BECCS TISs.2 Throughout these sections, we will also analyze the links between the CCS niche

and the fossil fuel regime and the biomass niche-regime for each TIS function. Here, we are

extending the use of the TIS framework beyond what it was originally designed to do to enable

analysis of the risk of BECCS being locked out by a future FECCS regime.

a. Creation of legitimacy

The key proponents of the CCS TIS have been governments and multi-lateral organizations

such as the IEA, fossil fuel industries, parts of the scientific community and some environmental

NGOs (Stephens, 2006). Other parts of the environmental movement are opposed to this

technology, while the general public is largely oblivious to it.

CCS interest has been strong in the US and in Europe as well as in a few other rich

countries, such as Australia and Canada, with large fossil fuel resources (Tjernshaugen 2008;

Meadowcroft and Langhelle, 2009). Interest in CCS is also growing in China, with major plans for

the building of new fossil fuel plants, as well as in countries like Brazil and South Africa. In

parallel, international institutions such as the IEA-GHG (see Table 2) have been established and

have contributed to coordinating CCS efforts globally.

2 Data collection had been terminated by March 2010

1

1

A good indication of government faith in CCS is the ambition of building 12 CCS

demonstration plants in the EU and the G8 target of constructing 20 demonstration projects

worldwide announced in 2008 (G8, 2008; Euractive, 121208). We will discuss the resources that

governments are allocating towards CCS development below.

A key source of support for CCS has come from the backing of a segment of the scientific

community. The publication of the IPCC report on CCS in 2005 (Metz et al., 2005) marked a

major advance in the creation of legitimacy for CCS as a credible climate mitigation option and

this report has frequently been cited in support of this technology. Recently, CCS (and air capture)

was featured in a special issue of Science (2009).

There is a broad range of actors who promote CCS internationally. We have mapped the

organizations that present themselves as primarily lobbying for or promoting CCS. Table 2 lists the

main organizations involved in these activities from an international perspective, including both

global organizations, such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum and a few prominent

regional and nationally based organizations with international impact, such as the CCSa. All of

these organizations present their support for CCS in terms of dealing with fossil fuel emissions.

***********Table 2 about here**********

Of course, the creation of legitimacy also rests on substantive arguments. Hansson and

Bryngelsson (2009) have studied experts’ opinions about the potential and uncertainties relating to

CCS. They interviewed scientists as well as representatives from industry and government with a

professional interest in CCS. Three key arguments make up the case for this technology according

to these experts:

A. Solidarity with the developing world and peace: rich countries should help developing

1

2

countries by funding the development of CCS. Without CCS, global warming impacts may lead to

large-scale global migration and wars. CCS contributes to the security of supply and economic

growth, making society more resilient.

B. Bridge to a sustainable energy system: CCS will buy time for the further development of

renewables. CCS will not crowd out other technologies, but competition in the market will make

sure that many solutions are developed, all of which are needed. Some experts thought that CCS

might, in the longer term, break fossil fuel lock-in and represent a bridge to a hydrogen economy.

C. Sustaining the modern lifestyle and compatibility with current social structures: There is

ample coal remaining that can be accessed and humankind will not be able to abstain from using it.

CCS is a modern solution supporting our high-energy lifestyles and CCS is the only solution, as all

other solutions are likely to fail.

There is clear and strong connection between CCS and fossil fuels, with the understanding

that renewables may play a role, but only in the longer term.

b. Guidance of search

The arguments presented above, as put forth by credible experts, contribute to the

legitimacy of CCS. They also feed into more detailed narratives and scenarios about CCS futures,

which, in turn, serve to guide the development of the technology. In particular, the second

argument about the bridge to renewables in the short-to-medium-term and the longer-term vision

of CCS in a hydrogen economy can serve to provide such guidance.

More elaborate scenarios are produced in technology roadmaps, foresights and in formal

modeling work. We have identified six roadmaps for CCS, including two that are international, the

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF, 2004) and the International Energy Agency (IEA,

2009) and four that are national: Australia (CO2CRC, 2004), Canada (CETC, 2006), UK

1

3

(UKERC, 2007) and the US (NETL, 2007).

c. Knowledge creation

Here, we will use data on both R&D projects and academic publications as indicators of

knowledge creation. Below, we will also outline the volume of demonstration activity worldwide.

We have identified R&D projects from Europe-wide bodies and at the federal level in the

USA. Table 3 summarizes the findings for Europe.

********Table 3 about here************

Table 4 summarizes the findings for the US at the federal level. These data go back further,

until 1997 and explain some, but not all, of the difference in spending levels. Again, this spending

is oriented toward fossil fuels. Most of this spending is transferred through the Office of Fossil

Energy at the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL) and it is stated on the DOE website that the NETL “assures that U.S. fossil energy

resources can meet increasing demand for affordable energy without compromising the quality of

life for future generations of Americans“ (DOE, 2009).

*********Table 4 about here*************

Using Science Direct, we also searched for all papers that mentioned “carbon capture and

storage”. We estimate that there are 800-1,600 papers about CCS. Three samples of 100 articles

were scrutinized manually to estimate how many papers were actually about CCS and how many

mentioned fossil fuels and biomass respectively.

1

4

Of these 800-1,600 papers, 40-50% mentioned fossil fuels but not biomass. Approximately

10-15% mentioned both fossil fuels and biomass, mainly in the context of co-firing. This can be

compared with the 85 papers on BECCS identified (using a different method, as discussed below),

which correspond to 5-10% of all CCS papers. This leaves 35-50% that do not mention either

fossil fuels or biomass and are neutral in this sense.

These results point to a much stronger overlap of CCS with fossil fuels than with biomass.

The weaker biomass overlap is mostly related to co-firing and only to a very small extent about

dedicated BECCS.

d. Knowledge diffusion

Here, we will map internationally significant collaborative forums as an indication of the

mechanisms in place for knowledge diffusion within technology communities. We have identified

the main relevant forums (see Table 2) and classified them according to three key services that

they provide in relation to CCS: R&D, expert advice and lobbying and promotion.

Moreover, we mapped the stated scopes and objectives of the organizations to determine

how they relate their CCS-related activities to fossil or biomass fuels. Where this is not made

explicit at the level of such headline statements, we examined information related to how the

organizations present themselves in more detail. In this way, it was possible to assess the strength

of their commitment to fossil fuels.

The organizations that we judged to be most tightly committed to fossil fuels are those

whose entire raison d’être is related to fossil fuels, such as the World Coal Institute. In other cases,

e.g., ZEP (The Zero Emissions Platform) in Europe, the organizations presented themselves in

more fuel-neutral terms, but their activities were clearly strongly oriented towards fossil fuels.

Finally, there are a few organizations, such as the IEA GHG, which have also directed some of

1

5

their resources to supporting the storage of CO2 from other sources (algae capture, in this case, as

well as a not yet released study on CCS applied to a biomass-fuelled power station).

e. Entrepreneurial activity

We identified companies involved with CCS demonstration projects globally using the

demonstration project database of the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage, (SCCS, 2009) as well as

demonstration project websites and identified 288 companies engaged in 107 planned or ongoing

demonstration projects. This gives an estimate of the companies involved in CCS demonstration,

but the data may underestimate the participation of technology and service suppliers.

The vast majority of industry engagement with this technology is carried out through

existing companies such as fuel suppliers and power companies. There also exist a few CCS start-

ups, e.g., capture technology suppliers such as Sargas AS, or storage-oriented companies such as

CO2DeepStore Ltd.

Of course, companies may be involved in more than one demonstration project. The top 10

companies in terms of participating in multiple projects are listed in Table 5. Taken together, the

288 companies participated 425 times in 107 projects. The largest demonstration consortia in terms

of the number of companies involved is the Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership in the US, with 60

participating companies. However, not all of these may be very heavily involved.

***********Table 5 about here***************

These projects are explicitly related to CCS for fossil fuels. Only a handful of

demonstration projects globally involve the co-combustion of biomass.

1

6

f. Market creation

The emerging CCS market is very strongly driven by policy and relies heavily on

government subsidies. The EU decision to use revenue from auctioning emissions allowances from

phase three of its Emissions Trading Scheme to fund CCS is one of the major public subsidies

announced to date.

Table 6 lists the main support for CCS demonstration projects globally. We have not

included national level support for individual EU or US states here. Moreover, we have no data on

countries such as Australia, Norway and Japan.

***************Table 6 about here**********

The total amount of this support is uncertain because we do not yet know how much the

emission allowances from EU ETS will be worth. (Up to €7 bn is an estimate from the EU

Commission.) GCCSI (2009) claimed that there is $17-20 bn (€11.5-13.5 bn) available globally

through government schemes and voluntary industry levies, lending support to our rough estimate.

g. Resource mobilization

Above, we described the amounts of funding for R&D as well as demonstration. We may

also see the data on R&D as an indication of the human resources devoted to CCS development at

this stage. The company involvement in demonstration projects suggests a degree of development

of CCS-specific human resources in industry.

In summary, we have developed and applied a set of lock-in criteria and showed how large-

scale CCS adoption involves the risk of leading to a reinforced fossil fuel lock-in situation. We

1

7

then applied the functional TIS approach to assess the strength of the CCS niche. We found that

the CCS TIS is strong in the first four criteria (legitimacy, guidance of search and knowledge

creation and diffusion), but it is much weaker regarding the remaining three. The success of the

CCS TIS thus depends on the successful development of entrepreneurial activity, market creation

and resource mobilization. However, if this TIS is to be successful, it could lead to unwanted fossil

fuel lock-in. We have also shown the ways in which the CCS niche has become strongly oriented

towards the fossil fuel regime, as opposed to other application domains such as biomass.

3. CCS and biomass: escape from fossil fuel lock-in?

This section will first introduce the concept of Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and

Storage (BECCS) technology in more detail and briefly discuss the main potential benefits and

problems associated with the technology. Then, we will apply the TIS conceptual framework to

assess the strength of the emerging BECCS innovation system.

BECCS is the combination of biomass processing or combustion with Carbon Capture and

Storage (Fisher et al., 2007). To a large extent, BECCS uses identical technologies for the transport

and storage of CO2 to those used in FECCS. However, because the flue gas composition and

impurities as well as the scale of operations are different from FECCS facilities, the capture

technologies for BECCS are slightly different compared to FECCS.

There are a number of processing and combustion processes in which BECCS could be

applied to point sources where CO2 is derived from biomass: combustion gases from power plants

or combined heat and power plants, a range of flue gas streams from the pulp industry, such as

from recovery boilers and lime kilns, gasification of biomass, fermentation in ethanol production

and biogas upgrading processes. Thus, BECCS could be applied not only to biomass power plants,

1

8

but also in the biofuel and pulp industries. From a technical and economic perspective, pulp plants

may be of even greater interest to combine with CCS than biomass power plants in the early

deployment phase of this technology because of the scale of operations and of higher purity of the

associated CO2 streams (Möllersten and Westermark 2003; Grönkvist, Bryngelsson et al., 2006).

The typical scale of these biomass-based CO2 point sources varies considerably. Although a

biogas upgrading facility can produce as little as a few hundred tons of emitted CO2 annually, the

largest pulp plants emit more than a million tons of CO2 per year (Grönkvist et al., 2008). From a

global perspective, the potential of BECCS is in the gigaton range annually (Azar et al., 2006).

There exist no detailed cost assessments for BECCS, but most of this potential is predicted to cost

50-150 €/ton of CO2 stored. For countries with large biomass resources, BECCS has a larger

potential than FECCS. One such example is Sweden, where the annual emissions from fossil fuel

point sources are 17 million tons and from biomass-based sources, they are 32 million tons

(Grönkvist et al., 2008). Another promising example is Brazil, as described below.

The unique aspect of BECCS in comparison to other climate mitigation technologies is its

ability to achieve net negative CO2 emissions (Obersteiner et al., 2001). This is the result of

injecting CO2 deep underground following its being sequestered from the atmosphere during the

growth of biomass. Thus, BECCS combines the benefits of biological sequestration with the

benefits of geological sequestration.

The negative emissions property of BECCS has three main implications:

1. BECCS can mitigate emissions from any CO2 emission source. In this sense, BECCS could

be compared to direct air capture (Keith et al, 2005) because biomass sequesters CO2 that has been

emitted elsewhere. This means that BECCS can be used to abate the emissions that are the most

1

9

difficult and expensive to cut back on, such as from air transportation or fugitive emissions. When

mitigation costs rise and the easy to implement measures have already been taken, this ability

becomes increasingly important (Rhodes et al., 2003).

2. BECCS can mitigate emissions that have already occurred. In other words, BECCS can

heal the atmosphere from emissions inflicted earlier. This has been accounted for in a number of

long-term climate scenarios (see Fisher et al., 2007), in which emissions not only reach a peak

emissions point, but also reach a peak absolute CO2 level in the atmosphere. In some of these

scenarios, such a peak can be followed by a stabilization level several hundred ppm lower, where

the difference is the result of the utilization of BECCS over a period of several decades.

3. The healing aspect of BECCS renders the technology into a climate mitigation risk

management tool, which may be needed as a result of the uncertainties of climate scenario

modeling (Hare and Meinshausen, 2006).

Comparing FECCS with BECCS with regard to their environmental impacts is not easy. In

a scenario in which BECCS develops into a fully fledged socio-technical system, its CO2-

absorptive potential could, in principle, be compared with the residual CO2 emissions of a FECCS

regime. Other relevant criteria for comparison are, for example, other emissions during the product

lifecycle, landscape degradation, especially from mining, health and safety issues and water

management. However, the main concern with BECCS would be the sourcing of the biomass used,

as is the case for all biomass energy systems. Biomass is now often produced unsustainably and is

associated with a number of negative impacts, for example, carbon emissions, water depletion and

biodiversity losses. If the demand for biomass increases rapidly due to the pressure to produce

2

0

BECCS systems and if these factors are not accounted for, the negative effects may outweigh the

benefits of negative CO2 emissions (Rhodes et al., 2008). There are many opportunities to produce

biomass sustainably in the future at a considerable scale (Kraxner et al., 2003); however, they need

to be developed in conjunction with the development of the BECCS niche. This requires a high

degree of coordination between very different fields: CCS development and sustainable biomass

development.

Thus, it is impossible to make a final assessment of the relative (un)sustainabilities of

FECCS and BECCS. The capacity of BECCS to achieve negative CO2 emissions needs to be

compared to the lifecycle effects of large-scale biomass sourcing.

Under a number of different scenarios, the capacity of BECCS generated through

sustainable biomass is considered to be large on a long-term basis (Fisher et al., 2007). In climate

scenario modeling, there exists a number of projections related to the possible scale of BECCS in

the future, which give BECCS a very substantial role (Azar et al., 2006). Some authors have even

pointed to the possibility of massive deployment of BECCS at a level sufficient to counterbalance

all of the man-made greenhouse gas emissions to date within a time span of only half a century

(Read et al., 2005). However, the sustainability of the scale of biomass production proposed by

Read et al. has been questioned (Rhodes et al., 2008).

BECCS thus represents a new niche, which is emerging through overlap of the CCS niche

and the biomass niche-regime. It was first envisioned by scholars in the late 1990s (Herzog et al.,

1996; Williams, 1996a and b) and has since then mainly been discussed as a variation on the

FECCS theme. An indication of the immaturity of BECCS is given by the heterogeneous

terminology used. The IPCC used the acronym ’BECCS’ to describe this technology in its 4th

assessment report in 2007 (Fisher et al., 2007) (which is the reason that we use BECCS here).

Other authors use the acronym BECS (Royal Society, 2009; Azar et al., 2006; Metz et al., 2005),

2

1

biomass-based CCS (Metz et al., 2005) or biotic CCS (Grönkvist et al., 2006b).

The BECCS TIS (Technical Innovation System)

Because BECCS is a small, diverse and emergent niche, it is difficult to assess and analyze.

There are few ready-made datasets and analyses to draw on. Actors commenting on the technology

in the media frequently confuse it with FECCS (for example, Bojs, 2009). This implies that they

do not recognize it being part of a distinct BECCS TIS. Thus, the organizational field of BECCS is

clearly not well formed (Scott, 1995).

The key actors in the BECCS TIS are mainly academics, foremost among which are those

who work with long-term climate scenario modeling, such as in the IPCC and IIASA. However,

there are a small number of NGOs, such as Norwegian Bellona and ZERO and a few companies,

such as Norwegian Tel-Tek and Swedish Biorecro, that are working in this field. Previously, the

Belgium-based consultancy firm Biopact was involved in analyses of BECCS and the US-based

Kansas Geological Survey at the University of Kansas performed a small-scale EOR-BECCS

demonstration in the beginning of the 2000s (Dubois et al., 2002).

There are no industry associations, no international or national official networks, or other

institutionalized networks dedicated to BECCS. However, there are some CCS networks that have

started to address BECCS issues, such as the IEA GHG (a report on bio-power co-firing is under

production). Because BECCS is a combination of biomass and CCS, which are both considered

here to be niches rather than established regimes, it tends to be overlooked by most potentially

relevant actors within both the CCS and biomass niches.

a. Creation of legitimacy

Very few actors are aware of the possibilities of BECCS. There are no governments,

2

2

international bodies, multinational companies or other resource-rich institutions that have thus far

committed rhetorically to BECCS deployment. This implies that the legitimacy of the BECCS TIS

is at present mainly coming from a select number of climate academics and NGOs (Musaefendic et

al, 2009, unpublished).

Interestingly, biomass actors have not yet responded to the call to develop and implement

BECCS, even though it could be argued that BECCS could serve to strengthen and reinforce the

biomass niche in the same manner as CCS could reinforce the fossil fuel regime.

b. Guidance of search

In addition to overall legitimacy and credibility, there is a need for more detailed visions to

guide the actors engaging with this technology. The need for BECCS deployment is emphasized to

meet low stabilization targets in both IPCC and IIASA long-term models (Fisher et al., 2007).

Biopact, Bellona and Biorecro have all published visions for the technology on their websites, but

these visions are not nearly as elaborate or detailed as existing CCS roadmaps.

The unique aspects of BECCS, such as the possibility of achieving negative emissions, are

sometimes left out from these analyses. Instead, BECCS is only considered as a variant of CCS, as

in the IEA roadmap (IEA, 2009). This kind of trivialization of context implies less guidance for

deployment scenarios where BECCS could be considered in its own right.

c. Knowledge creation

Through discussions with leading experts on BECCS identified using a snowballing

method, we produced a list of all of the published articles with a focus on BECCS since the first

articles on the subject were published in the late nineties. There are approximately 85 such articles

analyzing a range of different BECCS aspects, but with a focus on modeling of long-term (100

2

3

years) deployment scenarios. As mentioned in section 2, this corresponds to approximately 5-10%

of all of the papers published related to CCS. In our search, we did not find any dedicated funding

for research activities in any call or program, including the EU. The research that has been carried

out on BECCS has thus been as side-lines of other research areas and foci.

d. Knowledge diffusion

There are presently no official networks or research groups solely dedicated to BECCS,

which is a surprising fact when considering the prominence of BECCS in climate scenario

modeling and the possible importance of BECCS in the relatively near future. Recently, a first

workshop on BECCS was held in Edinburgh, UK, where an earlier version of this paper was

presented (Vergragt et al, 2009). The unofficial networks also seem quite weak, as actors are often

unaware of each other.

In our discussions, very few of the academics or NGOs who are active within the BECCS

field knew about the BECCS demonstration activities that are being planned in the US DOE CCS

effort and vice versa. One of the largest BECCS demonstrations underway does not mention

BECCS in any way in its official material, having framed its activities as a CCS project (MGSC,

2009).

A survey among prominent global NGOs and R&D organizations who work with climate

change issues confirmed that BECCS has received limited attention, especially in comparison with

CCS. Half of the respondents did not know about BECCS at all (51 of 103), whereas only a quarter

were unaware of CCS (25 of 103). Of these organizations, 66 out of 103 had a position (positive,

neutral or negative) on CCS, but only 28 out of 103 had a position on BECCS (Musaefendic et al,

2009, unpublished).

2

4

e. Entrepreneurial activity

Most of the BECCS activities that are planned are actually inadvertently conducted as part

of CCS or EOR (enhanced oil recovery) efforts. To date, only one BECCS project has been carried

out, by the Kansas Geological Survey at the University of Kansas. It was a small pilot project

using CO2 from an ethanol plant for injection into a nearby oil field for the purposes of EOR

(Dubois et al., 2002). This project did not present itself as a BECCS trial and it has been completed

and is now closed.

There are only a very few BECCS demonstrations underway if proposals for biomass co-

firing in planned CCS projects are not taken into account. One BECCS project is planned to begin

the injection of CO2 in 2010 in Illinois, managed by the Midwest Geological Sequestration

Consortium (MGSC), which is one of the US DOE regional carbon sequestration partnerships. A

similar project in Ohio, managed by the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

(MRCSP), was cancelled in 2009, partly because of local resistance to coal plants (sic!). A Spanish

consortium is planning to apply CCS to a biomass gasification unit as part of a larger fossil fuel

CCS project planned to start operating in 2015. These one and a half, formerly two and a half

projects, can be compared to the >100 projects underway focusing on CCS.

The only company found in this search that began with a focus on BECCS is presently

Swedish Biorecro, with Norwegian companies Aker Clean Carbon and Tel-Tek having expanded

their activities into BECCS solutions and product offers, such as the Just Catch Bio capture

facility.

f. Market creation

Other than revenue from enhanced oil recovery, a high CO2 price or government subsidies

are the only possible financial incentives for undertaking BECCS projects. The legal state of

2

5

BECCS inclusion into various trading schemes, such as the EU-ETS, is unclear (see Grönkvist,

Möllersten, et al., 2006). As with CCS, BECCS is presently not included in the CDM structure,

although this has also been suggested (UNFCCC, 2009)

There are no directed incentive programs or tailored market mechanisms to promote

BECCS, as there are for many other technologies such as wind, biomass and solar energy as well

as for CCS. The focus in discussions and reports related to BECCS has so far been on the inclusion

of BECCS into existing mechanisms, such as EU-ETS, but this may not be enough for rapid

deployment. In fact, the constraints for certain megawatt capacities and system set-ups effectively

exclude BECCS options from CCS, as well as other innovative concept, RD&D funding (EC,

2009).

g. Resource mobilization

Although there is no dedicated human resource base for BECCS, a substantial portion of

the skills developed in R&D could probably be deployed in BECCS projects. The transfer of these

skills is probably easier for that part of R&D taking place in academia and government labs. As we

move from R&D to demonstration and the amount of private sector R&D grows, such knowledge

transfer may become less easy and likely.

In summary, we have described the rather poor status of the BECCS TIS. Its strongest

functions so far are knowledge creation and entrepreneurial activity (demonstration). Even in these

cases, the activities are sometimes framed as CCS and the participants themselves may be unaware

of the relevance of their work to BECCS. This suggests that a key problem for BECCS is at the

cultural level. The technology lacks a community of supporters and awareness and credibility

amongst key stakeholders.

2

6

This analysis points to many areas of possible intervention that might strengthen the

BECCS niche. Key actions would include developing roadmaps; establishing research groups,

centers and networks; hosting seminars and workshops for scientists, the public and potential

stakeholders; directing dedicated BECCS R&D; and arranging demonstration support

programmes, as well as dedicated incentive programs.

Table 7 summarizes the comparison between the CCS and BECCS TISs. Drawing on the

TIS approach, we have shown that the CCS TIS is generally much stronger than that of the

BECCS. CCS is, of course, not a mature technology and market creation is still a weak function of

this technology. In comparison to BECCS, however, it is strong. Even when assessing the BECCS

TIS for this paper, we had problems collecting and measuring the TIS because of the weaknesses

described here, such as lack of a shared terminology.

Given that BECCS may benefit from some of the knowledge creation and possibly

diffusion taking place in the name of CCS and that some CCS demonstration projects are even, in

effect, performing BECCS, BECCS is surprisingly strong regarding knowledge creation, albeit as

an unintentional effect of fossil fuel-motivated initiatives. However, BECCS seriously lacks

legitimacy, guidance and market creation dynamics.

*********Table 7 about here************

We have also shown that there is currently a much stronger overlap between CCS and

fossil fuels than between CCS and biomass. This is true across the TIS functions, but for the

knowledge creation from R&D, there is a particularly substantial overlap between CCS and

BECCS. The CCS niche is thus strongly oriented towards FFR application.

There is an ambiguity in the relationship between BECCS and CCS. CCS R&D supports

2

7

BECCS efforts by producing essential knowledge and gathering experience on issues relevant to

BECCS deployment. However, the mobilization and massive efforts surrounding CCS as a means

of mitigating emissions from fossil fuel plants largely obscure BECCS in the flow of information

and attention.

Although much of the knowledge in the CCS niche can be applied to either fossil fuels or

biomass, there are institutional factors that may make this difficult. The strong orientation of the

CCS niche towards fossil fuel applications has led to the neglect of the possible biomass

applications. Moreover, funding rules, for example, even shut out biomass oriented activities.

Together with a hesitant attitude to CCS in the biomass niche-regime, this means that there is a

risk that CCS may lock out BECCS.

4. Conclusions: Pathways and Policies

In this paper, we first developed a set of criteria to measure the strength of technology lock-

in and showed how large-scale CCS adoption would create a risk of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in.

This could become increasingly likely as fossil fuel-oriented companies invest more in this

technology and its demonstration. We have also shown how much stronger the CCS niche is

compared to the BECCS niche. While a great deal of the CCS knowledge produced is applicable to

both CCS and BECCS, the current structures for the diffusion and deployment of that knowledge

are geared towards fossil fuel applications. There is thus a risk of locking out BECCS.

It might be argued that co-firing of coal and biomass would be a way to combine FECCS

and BECCS and thus enhance the implementation of BECCS. However, co-firing is presently

mainly applied to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and it is mainly driven by

regulations and policies (Fig. 1, overlap C). It is mainly applied to make coal-fired power plants

2

8

more acceptable and thus acts as an instrument for reinforced fossil-fuel lock-in. Currently, co-

firing of biomass is limited to approximately 10-15% of the fuel mix for safe operation (Hansson

et al, 2009). In the future, polygeneration technology (Williams, 2009; Meerman et al, 2009) could

remove technical barriers to implementing higher biomass fractions. Thus, co-firing could

potentially be applied to pave the way for BECCS by forming a bridge between coal and biomass

(Fig. 1, overlap D).

To develop CCS in such a way that it would enhance the BECCS niche, storage sites

should be situated close to large CO2 emitters from biomass operations. There are opportunities in

Scandinavia and Brazil to demonstrate this. In Scandinavia, large biomass CO2-emitting sources,

for instance, the pulp and paper industry in Sweden, are within shipping distance from potential

CO2 storage sites in the North Sea on the Norwegian part of the continental shelf (Grönkvist et al,

2008). The situation in Brazil is similar.

Potential for low-cost BECCS in Brazil:

Brazil has more than 370 active ethanol plants, producing over 7 billion gallons/year of biofuel

and emitting 20 million tons of pure CO2 annually. National units are located over the

country’s northeast, central-west and south-east regions, some of which are located close to

potential storage sites in deep saline aquifers. However, there is currently little economic

potential for BECCS activities without financial incentives, as oil and gas fields and coal seams

are not close enough to the majority of ethanol plants.

In the terminology of Transition Management, there will be a choice between three

2

9

pathways. The first is strong overlap between the FFR and the CCS niche, leading to FECCS,

reinforced fossil fuel lock-in and a marginalization of BECCS (shown as A in Fig. 1). Over time,

this would lead to an adaptation of the fossil fuel regime to a regime with massive CCS and

possibly lower carbon emissions than the present system.

The second pathway would be strong overlap between the biomass niche-regime and the

CCS niche (shown as B in Fig. 1), leading to large-scale implementation of BECCS. Over time,

this could lead to a diminished chance of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in because in this scenario,

fossil fuels would be replaced by biomass on a large scale. A necessary condition for this pathway

to occur would be a form of coexistence between the biomass TIS and the CCS TIS; such an

interaction is not yet feasible, but it should be fostered if this scenario is preferred.

A possible third pathway would be an enhanced degree of co-firing of coal and biomass,

with more than marginal addition of biomass, leading to a combination of BECCS and FECCS

(shown as D in picture 1). If this becomes technologically feasible, it would create a real

possibility of a bridge from fossil fuels to a biomass-based energy provision with CCS. For this to

happen, the technological barriers for co-firing need to be overcome (Williams, 2009). Both this

pathway and pathway B also depend on making the right decisions related to the locations of

power plants and capture installations.

This paper aimed to demonstrate that Carbon Capture and Storage might lead to reinforced

fossil fuel lock-in unless CCS were to be coupled to bio-energy rather than to fossil fuel power

plants. To demonstrate this, we first developed criteria for technological lock-in and showed that

CCS would lead to a greater degree of fossil fuel lock-in. Second, we measured and compared the

strengths (and weaknesses) of the TISs of CCS and BECCS; the data convincingly show that the

CCS TIS is much stronger than the BECCS TIS, although the CCS TIS also has its weaknesses.

Thus, to overcome reinforced fossil fuel lock-in, the BECCS TIS will need to be reinforced by

3

0

policy measures, especially to overcome the risk that CCS locks out BECCS. We showed that

there are promising geographical potential niches in Scandinavia and Brazil and more research is

necessary to assess their viability. Additionally, it is far from certain whether successful

developments in these geographical areas will be able to diffuse to other regions with less biomass

potential.

Finally, in this paper, we used concepts from transition management to demonstrate three

potential pathways for CCS, leading to a FECCS regime with reinforced fossil fuel lock-in, a

BECCS regime and finally a combination of the two that could bridge the gap towards a low fossil

fuel energy system. We have shown that improved cofiring, leading to polygeneration technology,

could foster such a combination. We considered the use of the typology as developed by Geels and

Schot, (2007), but we found this typology to be not well developed enough to be applicable to this

case. It remains a challenge to develop an improved general typology that could not only be

successfully applied to this case but could also demonstrate explanatory power.

In theoretical terms, we have combined and used the concepts from technological lock-in,

technological innovation systems and a multi-level perspective on transition management to

elaborate the issue of potential pathways for CCS development. The challenge of combining these

frameworks into a unified approach remains; see Markard et al. (2008) for a first attempt.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank John McKenzie for his help in making responsible estimates on the

numbers and content of articles about CCS and BECCS; Alen Musaefendic, Felix Meissner,

Alexander Brunner and Zdaněk Fous for the NGO and R&D organization survey and Ariff Munshi

3

1

for producing pictures and graphs; Rafael Valdetaro Bianchini and Fábio Saraiva Schott for their

data on Brazil; and Yasmin Bushby for data on demonstration projects.

Previous versions of this paper have been presented at the Tyndall Centre workshop Bio-CCS

(BECCS) as a geo-engineering option: furthering the debate, Edinburgh, UK, December, 2009, the

Sussex Energy Group Conference, Brighton, UK, February, 2010 and the 35th

Society for the

Social Studies of Science annual meeting STS in Global Contexts, Tokyo, August, 2010. This

research has been supported by MISTRA, the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, in

Sweden.

References

Arthur, W. Brian (1989), ‘Competing technologies and lock-in by historical small events,

Economic Journal, 99 (March): 116-31.

Arthur, W. Brian (1994), Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Arthur, B. (2009) The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Penguin Group. New

York, US. (p 138)

Azar, C., Lindgren, K., Larson, E.D. and Möllersten, K (2006), Carbon capture and storage from

fossil fuels and biomass ― Costs and potential role in stabilising the atmosphere. Climatic

Change, Vol 74, 47-79.

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. (2008), Analyzing the

functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis, Research

3

2

Policy 37 (2008) 407–429.

Bojs, Karin (2009) Sista halmstråt att hejda den globala uppvärmningen (Last chance to stop global

warming), September 1, Dagens Nyheter.

CETC, CANMET Energy Technology Centre(2006) Canada’s CO2 capture & storage technology

roadmap, www.co2trm.gc.ca .

CO2CRC (2004) Carbon Capture & Storage. Research Development and Demonstration in

Australia. A Technology roadmap, Canberra, Australia.

CORDIS, Community Research and Development Information Service (2009) research Funding,

http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html .

Correlje, Aad and Verbong, Geert, (2004), The transition from coal to gas: radical change of the

Dutch gas system, in: Boelie Elzen et al, System Innovation and the Transition to

Sustainability, Theory, Practice and Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 114-136

CSLF, Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (2004) CSLF Technology Roadmap.

David, Paul A. (1985), ‘Clio and the economics of QWERTY’, American Economic Review, 75

(2), May.

DOE, US Department of Energy (2009) National Laboratories and Technology Centers,

http://www.energy.gov/organization/labs-techcenters.htm.

Dubois, K., White, S., Carr, T. and Byrnes, A. (2002), CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, Co-

generation, Ethanol Production Linked, The Class Act (2002), volume 8/2.

EC, European Commission (2009) Work Programme 2010. Cooperation. Theme 6. Environment

(Including Climate Change), European Commission C(2009) 5893 of 29 July 2009),

3

3

Brussels, Belgium.

Euractive (12-12-2008) EU leaders clinch deal on CO2 storage financing.

Fisher, B.S., N. Nakicenovic, K. Alfsen, J. Corfee Morlot, F. de la Chesnaye, J.-Ch. Hourcade, K.

Jiang, M. Kainuma, E. La Rovere, A. Matysek, A. Rana, K. Riahi, R. Richels, S. Rose, D.

van Vuuren, R. Warren, (2007) “Issues related to mitigation in the long term context”, In

Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R.

Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)].

Geels, F.W., (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi

level perspective and a case study, Research Policy 31 8/9, 1257-1274.

Geels, F. and J. Schot (2007), Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy 36,

399-417.

Grönkvist, S., Bryngelsson, M. and Westermark, M. (2006a). Oxygen efficiency with regard to

carbon capture. Energy, Vol. 31 (15), 3220-3226.

Grönkvist, Stefan, Möllersten, Kenneth and Kim Pingoud

(2006b) Equal Opportunity for Biomass

in Greenhouse Gas Accounting of CO2 Capture and Storage: A Step Towards More Cost-

Effective Climate Change Mitigation Regimes, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for

Global Change, 11 (5-6):1083-1096

Grönkvist, Stefan, Grundfelt, Ellenor, Sjögren, Helena (2008) CO2-avskiljning i Sverige (Capture

of CO2 in Sweden), Naturvårdsverket and Ångpanneföreningens Forskningsstiftelse.

G8 (2008) G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit Leaders Declaration, Hokkaido Toyako, Japan,

/www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2008/doc/doc080714__en.html.

3

4

Hansson, A and M. Bryngelsson (2009), Expert opinions on Carbon dioxide capture and storage -

A framing of uncertainties and possibilities, Energy Policy 37 2273-2282.

Hansson, J., Berndes, G., Johnsson, F. and Kjärstad, J., 2009. Co-firing biomass with coal for

electricity generation – An assessment of the potential in EU27. Energy Policy 37: 1444-

1455.

Hare, B., Meinshausen, M., (2006), How much warming are we committed to and how much can

be avoided?, Climatic Change 75, 111-149.

Hekkert M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negor, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and R.E.H.M. Smits, (2007), Functions

of innovation systems: A new approach for analyzing technological change, Technological

Forecasting & Social Change 74 (2007) 413–432.

Herzog H.J., Drake E.M., (1996), Carbon dioxide recovery and disposal from large energy

systems, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21: 145-166.

IEA (2009), Technology Roadmap - Carbon capture and storage, Paris, France.

Keith DW, Ha-Duong M, Stolaroff JK (2005) Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air.

Climatic Change 74(1–3):17–45.

Knot, J. Marjolijn C., Jan C.M. van den Ende and Philip J. Vergragt (2001) Flexibility strategies

for sustainable technology development, Technovation 21: 335–343.

Kraxner, Florian, Nilsson, Sten, Obersteiner, Michael, (2003), Negative emissions from BioEnergy

use, carbon capture and sequestration (BECS)—the case of biomass production by

sustainable forest management from semi-natural temperate forests, Biomass and

Bioenergy 24 (2003) 285-296.

Markard, Jochen and Truffer, Bernhard (2008), Technological Innovation Systems and the multi-

3

5

lecvel perspective: towards an integrated framework, Research Policy 37, 596-615

Markusson, N. and S. Haszeldine (2008), ‘Capture readiness’- Lock-in problems for CCS

governance, Presented at the GHGT9 conference in Washington D.C., US.

Meadowcroft, J. and O. Langhelle (2009) Caching the Carbon: The Politics and Policy of Carbon

Capture and Storage (eds. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing

Meerman, J.C., Faaij, A.P.C, Turkenburg, W.C., 2009. Flexible integrated gasification co-

generation facilities. A technical and energy analysis. Energy Procedia 1: 4241–4248.

Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Meyer. L. (Eds.), (2005) IPCC Special Report on Carbon

Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and

New York, NY, USA.

MGSC, Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (2009), www.sequestration.org.

Mohr, S.H. and G.G. Evans (2009) Forecasting coal production until 2100, Fuel 88: 2059–2067.

Möllersten, K.,Yan, J. and Westermark, M. (2003). Potential and cost-effectiveness of CO2

reductions through energy measures in Swedish pulp and paper mills, Energy 28(7), 691–

710.

Musaefendic, A., Meissner, F., Brunner, A., Fous, Z., (2009, unpublished), BECCS on the

international agenda, accessed by contact with authors.

NETL, National Energy Technology Laboratory (2007), Carbon Sequestration technology

Roadmap and Program Plan.

NETL, National Energy Technology Laboratory (2009) Update on U.S. DOE’s Sequestration

3

6

Program, Presented at APEC EGCFE Clean Fossil Energy Technical and Policy Seminar,

Incheon, Korea, 12-14 October 2009. Retrieved on 16 November 2009 from the World

Wide Web:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/project%20portfolio/2009/index.html

Obersteiner, M., Azar, C., Kauppi, P., Möllersten, K., Moreira, J., Nilsson, S., Read, P., Riahi, K.,

Schlamadinger, B., Yamagata, Y., Yan, J. and van Ypersele, J.P. (2001). Managing

Climate Risk, Science 294 (5543), 786–787.

Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.

Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Read, Peter and Jonathan Lermit (2005) Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage (BECS): A Sequential

Decision Approach to the threat of Abrupt Climate Change, Energy 30 (2005) 2654–2671.

RFCS, Research Fund for Coal and Steel (2009) http://cordis.europa.eu/coal-steel-

rtd/home_en.html.

Rhodes, James S., Keith, David W., (2003) Biomass energy with geological sequestration of CO2:

Two for the price of one? Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume II: 1371-1376.

Rhodes, James S., Keith, David W., (2008) Biomass with capture: negative emissions within social

and environmental constraints: an editorial comment, Climatic Change 87:321-328.

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. and M. van Asselt (2001), More evolution than revolution: transition

management in public policy, Foresight 3 (1), 15-31.

Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate. Science, governance and uncertainty, London,

UK.

3

7

SCCS (2009) CCS World Map, http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/storage/storageSitesFree.html .

Science (2009), Carbon Capture and Sequestration, 325, 1641-1659.

Scott, W.R., (1995), Institutions and Organizations, London, Sage.

Shackley, S. and M. Thompson (unpublished, 2008). Lost in the Mix: Will the Technologies of

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Provide us with a Breathing Space as we Strive to

make the Transition from Fossil Fuels to Renewables?, accessed by contact with authors.

Stephens, J. C. (2006), "Growing interest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) for climate change

mitigation." Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2(2).

Tjernshaugen andreas (2008) Political commitment to CO2 capture and storage: evidence from

government RD&D budgets, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,

13:1–21.

UKERC, UK Energy Research Centre (2007) The UKERC/UKCCSC Carbon Capture and Storage

Roadmap.

UKCCSC, UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium (2009) UKCCSC News,

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/ccs/UKCCSC/News/.

UNFCCC, CDM Executive Board, (2009), EB 50, Annex 1, Implications of the Inclusion of

Geological Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage as CDM Project Activities: An

assessment.

Unruh, G.C. (2000), Understanding Carbon lock-in, Energy Policy 28, 817-830.

Unruh, Gregory C. and Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006. Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy

Policy 34: 1185–1197.

3

8

Van Alphen, K., Hekkert, M.P. and W.C. Turkenburg. (2008), Comparing the development and

deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies in Norway, the Netherlands,

Australia, Canada and the United States – An innovation system perspective”, Presented at

the GHGT9 conference in Washington D.C., US.

Van Alphen, K., Van Ruijven, J., Kasa, S., Hekkert, M.P. and W.C. Turkenburg. (2009), The

performance of the Norwegian carbon dioxide, capture and storage innovation system,

Energy Policy 37 (2009) 43–55.

Vergragt, Ph. J.(2009). CCS in the Netherlands: Glass Half Empty or Half Full? In Caching the

Carbon: The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage (eds.) J. Meadowcroft and

O. Langhelle. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Vergragt, Ph. J.; Markusson, N.; Karlsson, H.; (2009), CCS, BECCS and the escape from carbon

lock-in; Presentation for Bio-CCS workshop, Tyndall Centre, Edinburgh, Dec 4th, 2009

Williams, R.H. (1996 a) Fuel decarbonization for fuel cell applications and sequestration of the

separated CO2. In R.U. Ayres and P.M. Weaver (eds.) Eco-restructuring: Implications for

Sustainable Development, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp. 180-222.

Williams R.H. (1996 b) Fuel decarbonization for fuel cell applications and sequestration of the

separated CO2. PU/CEES Rep. No.295, Cent. Energy Environ. Stud., Princeton Univ.,

Princeton, NJ.

Williams, R, 2009. Hydrogen from coal + ccs with energy penalty just 7 per cent. Presented at the

workshop Which Technologies to Diversify Transportation Fuels, Paris, December 2009.

Zawadski, C. (2009) CCS and carbon lock-in. An integrated innovation systems and multi-level

perspective assessment. MSc thesis, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

3

9

Figure 1: Fossil Fuel regime, CCS Niche, Biomass niche-regime and their overlaps

4

0

Table 1 Functions of Technological Innovation Systems

a Creation of legitimacy Any new technology needs to gain legitimacy to attract

interest and resources. This is sometimes followed by

resistance from established parties, or the wider society,

challenging the new technology.

b Guidance of search This function represents the selection process that is

necessary to facilitate a convergence in technology

development, involving policy targets and expectations

about technological options.

c Knowledge

development

R&D stimulates technological innovation by providing

new options for technology development.

d Knowledge diffusion Diffusion of new knowledge within R&D communities,

among users and in the wider society is important for

technology development and adoption.

e Entrepreneurial

activity

Entrepreneurs commercialize the technology. They

perform commercial experiments, finding and exploiting

business opportunities.

f Market formation This function comprises the formation of new (niche)

market(s) by creating temporary competitive advantages

through favorable tax regimes, consumption quotas, or

other public policy activities.

g Resource mobilization Financial and human resources are necessary inputs for

all innovative activities (and can be enacted through e.g.,

investments by venture capitalists or governmental

support).

Adapted from Van Alphen 2008

4

1

Table 2: International Organizations supporting CCS

Activity scope Commitment to fossil fuels

R&D Advice Lobbying Very

strong

<-> Strong

1 EU R&D x X

2 RFCS x X

3 NETL x X

4 NZEC x X

5 GHGT x X

6 IEA GHG x x X

7 IEA Clean Coal x x X

8 ZEP x x X

9 GCCSI x x X

10 CSLF x x X

11 CCSa x X

12 NACCSA x X

13 WCI x X

Note.

EU R&D – EU RD&D Framework Programmes;

RFCS – Research Fund for Coal and Steel;

NETL – National Energy Technology Laboratory;

NZEC – The UK-China Near Zero Emission Coal initiative;

4

2

GHGT – The Greenhouse Gas Technologies conferences;

IEA GHG – The International Energy Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Programme;

IEA Clean Coal – The International Energy Agency’s Clean Coal Programme;

ZEP – Zero Emissions Platform;

GCCSI – Global CCS Institute;

CSLF – Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum;

CCSa – Carbon Capture and Storage Association;

NACCSA – North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association; WCI – World Coal Institute.

Table 3 European R&D funding for CCS

Funding source Projects Amount (M

Euro)

EU 6th Framework Programme for R&D, 2004-

2007

18 64.5

EU 7th Framework Programme for R&D, 2007- 10 34.1

Research Fund for Coal and Steel, 2004- 11 22.0

European Strategy Forum on Research

Infrastructures

15 (labs) 81.0

TOTAL 39 projects and

15 labs

201.6

Sources: CORDIS (2009), RFCS (2009), UKCCSC (2009)

4

3

Table 4 US federal R&D funding for CCS

Funding source Projects Amount

(M US$)

DOE Carbon Sequestration Program for 1997-2008 82 481

DOE Carbon Sequestration Program for 2009 - 28 150

American Recovery and Funding Act (ARRA) Funding (2.4 B US$

allocated but not yet approved) 2009-

21 120.6

TOTAL 131 751.6

Note: Projects include only completed and approved projects

Source: NETL (2009)

4

4

Table 5: Company involvement in CCS projects

Company

Number of demonstration

projects the company is

involved in

Shell 14

Schlumberger 8

RWE 7

Statoil 7

BP 6

E.ON 6

Siemens 6

Praxair 5

Vattenfall 5

Alstom 4

Source: Compiled from SCCS (2009) as well as individual demonstration project webpages.

4

5

Table 6: Government funding for CCS projects

€ bn Comment

EU 1.05 Economic recovery stimulus package

<=7 EU ETS, <=300 m emission allowances

US 2.93 DoE

Canada 1.26 The state of Alberta

Total <=12.1

Source: Compiled from UKCCSC (2009).

4

6

Table 7: Comparison of TIS strength between CCS and BECCS

Function Indicators used CCS BECCS BECCS strength

(relative to CCS)

Legitimacy Scientific

establishment,

lobbyists,

arguments

Strong Small/none Weak

Guidance of

search

Targets, roadmaps Strong Weak Weak

Knowledge

creation

Publications and

projects

Strong

(rhetorically)

Strong re R&D,

but less re

users

Weak explicitly

(inadvertently

strong)

Knowledge

diffusion

Collaborative

forums, NGO

knowledge

Strong Small Weak

Entrepreneurship Companies in

demonstrations

Strong Small Weak

Market creation Demonstration

subsidies

Strong Some Inadvertently some

(Resource

mobilization)

(Money for R&D and

demos)

(Strong) (Strong/some,

but inadvertent)

(Inadvertent)

Note: parentheses denote that the Resource Mobilization function indicators are derived from the information gathered

for the other functions and so do not contribute anything new.