1,721,058 research outputs found
Multilevel Policy Incentives for BECCS in Sweden
Get PDFChapter 6 (“Multilevel Policy Incentives for BECCS in Sweden”) builds on the high potential for BECCS in Sweden identified in chapter 4, summarizing the current policy incentives for BECCS research, development, demonstration,and diffusion (RDD&D). It examines the given policy drivers and obstacles at multiple scales (e.g., international, supranational, and national) and in terms of various forms of instruments (e.g., economic, regulatory, and informational). The chapter concludes that current policy instruments mostly fail to incentivize BECCS RDD&D in Sweden. The instruments partly favor R&D yet fail to provide incentives covering operational costs. Under current circumstances, BECCS is unlikely to reach demonstration scale in Sweden
Multilevel Policy Incentives for BECCS in Sweden
Get PDFChapter 6 (“Multilevel Policy Incentives for BECCS in Sweden”) builds on the high potential for BECCS in Sweden identified in chapter 4, summarizing the current policy incentives for BECCS research, development, demonstration,and diffusion (RDD&D). It examines the given policy drivers and obstacles at multiple scales (e.g., international, supranational, and national) and in terms of various forms of instruments (e.g., economic, regulatory, and informational). The chapter concludes that current policy instruments mostly fail to incentivize BECCS RDD&D in Sweden. The instruments partly favor R&D yet fail to provide incentives covering operational costs. Under current circumstances, BECCS is unlikely to reach demonstration scale in Sweden
Multilevel Policy Incentives for BECCS in Sweden
Get PDFChapter 6 (“Multilevel Policy Incentives for BECCS in Sweden”) builds on the high potential for BECCS in Sweden identified in chapter 4, summarizing the current policy incentives for BECCS research, development, demonstration,and diffusion (RDD&D). It examines the given policy drivers and obstacles at multiple scales (e.g., international, supranational, and national) and in terms of various forms of instruments (e.g., economic, regulatory, and informational). The chapter concludes that current policy instruments mostly fail to incentivize BECCS RDD&D in Sweden. The instruments partly favor R&D yet fail to provide incentives covering operational costs. Under current circumstances, BECCS is unlikely to reach demonstration scale in Sweden
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage : From global potentials to domestic realities
No full textThis book explores the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in climate governance. It starts by discussing BECCS’ global mitigation potential, as depicted in the idealized world of climate scenarios. Chapter 2 shows that almost all climate scenarios compatible with the high likelihood of limiting global warming to 2°C deploy BECCS. While excluding BECCS from these models’ technology portfolios does not necessarily make 2°C compatible scenarios impossible, it does mean that the projected cost of meeting that goal increases. In this context, based on interviews with integrated assessment modelers, chapter 3 illustrates how the use of the word “projected” is deliberate and significant. The modelers insist that they are dealing with projections, not predictions. At the same time, this modesty is contrasted to a core willingness to wield political influence. Chapter 4, which applies a crude method to map European point sources of biogenic CO2, indicates that the scenarios for Europe can be associated with factual potentials. The European pulp and paper industry emitted approximately 60–66 Mt of biogenic CO2 in 2015. To a lesser extent, there is also potential to capture biogenic CO2 from the production of electricity, heat, and biofuels. While R&D into BECCS has previously been framed as a “slippery slope” triggering objectionable consequences, for example, concerning food security, chapter 5 argues that realizing BECCS should instead be seen as an uphill struggle. This conclusion gains support in chapter 6, which maps existing policy incentives for BECCS. This exercise reveals an almost complete lack of political initiatives to deploy BECCS, indicating that the climate scenarios’ large-scale xi deployment of BECCS could be seen as detached from reality. The book ends with chapter 7, which illustrates how UN and Swedish climate policy objectives have indeed influenced companies to get involved in planning for negative emissions, but also shows how the lack of policy incentives has put “sticks in the wheel” when it comes to affirmative investment decisions. While some funding sources for R&D and capital expenditures are highlighted, the primary concern is the lack of market pull that would provide revenues to cover operational expenditures. This book highlights the many caveats involved in moving from the theoretical potentials identified at the global scale to economically viable potentials facing investors at the business scale. It concludes that overcoming the challenges associated with realizing the theoretical potentials will be daunting, a true uphill struggle. Yet, with appropriate policy incentives, BECCS may still come to play an important role in the struggle to limit global warming to well below 2°C
Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
No full textLimiting global warming to well below 2 °C requires the transformation of the global energy system at a scale unprecedented since the industrial revolution. To meet this 2 °C goal, 87% of integrated assessment models opt for using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Without BECCS, the models predict that the goal will be either unachievable or substantially more costly to meet. While the modeling literature is extensive, studies of how key climate policy actors perceive and prioritize BECCS are sparse. This article provides a unique intercontinental mapping of the prioritization of BECCS for the long term transition of the electricity supply sector. Based on survey responses from 711 UN climate change conference delegates, the article reports the low prioritization of BECCS relative to alternative technologies, indicating an urgent need for studies of the socio-political preconditions for large-scale BECCS deployment.Funding agencies: Swedish Energy Agency [42390-1]; Swedish Research Council VR [2016-06359]; Swedish Research Council Formas [2012-725, 2016-00958]Premises for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the global response to climate chang
Governing BECCS: “Slippery Slope” or “Uphill Struggle”?
Get PDFChapter 5 (“Governing BECCS: “Slippery Slope” or “Uphill Struggle”?”) highlightshow BECCS and other large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system,proposed to moderate anthropogenic global warming, are commonly portrayedas threatening to initiate a “slippery slope” from research to deployment.The argument suggests that governance should constrain or even proscriberesearch into BECCS on the grounds that allowing it to proceed uncheckedcould lead to a chain of events resulting in deployment and the undesirableconsequences that this might bring. This chapter begins by critically examiningthe slippery slope argument as articulated in relation to BECCS. It then drawson the empirical findings of an expert scenario method designed to explore howfar BECCS might develop in the future and under what governance arrangements.Rather than a slippery slope, the scenarios instead illustrate what mightbest be described as an “uphill struggle,” in which BECCS innovators confrontmanifold technical, political, and societal challenges to deployment. The chapterconcludes by seeking to reframe the governance task as one of responsibleincentivization, rather than one of constraint or proscription
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage : From global potentials to domestic realities
No full textThis book explores the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in climate governance. It starts by discussing BECCS’ global mitigation potential, as depicted in the idealized world of climate scenarios. Chapter 2 shows that almost all climate scenarios compatible with the high likelihood of limiting global warming to 2°C deploy BECCS. While excluding BECCS from these models’ technology portfolios does not necessarily make 2°C compatible scenarios impossible, it does mean that the projected cost of meeting that goal increases. In this context, based on interviews with integrated assessment modelers, chapter 3 illustrates how the use of the word “projected” is deliberate and significant. The modelers insist that they are dealing with projections, not predictions. At the same time, this modesty is contrasted to a core willingness to wield political influence. Chapter 4, which applies a crude method to map European point sources of biogenic CO2, indicates that the scenarios for Europe can be associated with factual potentials. The European pulp and paper industry emitted approximately 60–66 Mt of biogenic CO2 in 2015. To a lesser extent, there is also potential to capture biogenic CO2 from the production of electricity, heat, and biofuels. While R&D into BECCS has previously been framed as a “slippery slope” triggering objectionable consequences, for example, concerning food security, chapter 5 argues that realizing BECCS should instead be seen as an uphill struggle. This conclusion gains support in chapter 6, which maps existing policy incentives for BECCS. This exercise reveals an almost complete lack of political initiatives to deploy BECCS, indicating that the climate scenarios’ large-scale xi deployment of BECCS could be seen as detached from reality. The book ends with chapter 7, which illustrates how UN and Swedish climate policy objectives have indeed influenced companies to get involved in planning for negative emissions, but also shows how the lack of policy incentives has put “sticks in the wheel” when it comes to affirmative investment decisions. While some funding sources for R&D and capital expenditures are highlighted, the primary concern is the lack of market pull that would provide revenues to cover operational expenditures. This book highlights the many caveats involved in moving from the theoretical potentials identified at the global scale to economically viable potentials facing investors at the business scale. It concludes that overcoming the challenges associated with realizing the theoretical potentials will be daunting, a true uphill struggle. Yet, with appropriate policy incentives, BECCS may still come to play an important role in the struggle to limit global warming to well below 2°C
Governing BECCS: “Slippery Slope” or “Uphill Struggle”?
Get PDFChapter 5 (“Governing BECCS: “Slippery Slope” or “Uphill Struggle”?”) highlightshow BECCS and other large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system,proposed to moderate anthropogenic global warming, are commonly portrayedas threatening to initiate a “slippery slope” from research to deployment.The argument suggests that governance should constrain or even proscriberesearch into BECCS on the grounds that allowing it to proceed uncheckedcould lead to a chain of events resulting in deployment and the undesirableconsequences that this might bring. This chapter begins by critically examiningthe slippery slope argument as articulated in relation to BECCS. It then drawson the empirical findings of an expert scenario method designed to explore howfar BECCS might develop in the future and under what governance arrangements.Rather than a slippery slope, the scenarios instead illustrate what mightbest be described as an “uphill struggle,” in which BECCS innovators confrontmanifold technical, political, and societal challenges to deployment. The chapterconcludes by seeking to reframe the governance task as one of responsibleincentivization, rather than one of constraint or proscription
Governing BECCS: “Slippery Slope” or “Uphill Struggle”?
Get PDFChapter 5 (“Governing BECCS: “Slippery Slope” or “Uphill Struggle”?”) highlightshow BECCS and other large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system,proposed to moderate anthropogenic global warming, are commonly portrayedas threatening to initiate a “slippery slope” from research to deployment.The argument suggests that governance should constrain or even proscriberesearch into BECCS on the grounds that allowing it to proceed uncheckedcould lead to a chain of events resulting in deployment and the undesirableconsequences that this might bring. This chapter begins by critically examiningthe slippery slope argument as articulated in relation to BECCS. It then drawson the empirical findings of an expert scenario method designed to explore howfar BECCS might develop in the future and under what governance arrangements.Rather than a slippery slope, the scenarios instead illustrate what mightbest be described as an “uphill struggle,” in which BECCS innovators confrontmanifold technical, political, and societal challenges to deployment. The chapterconcludes by seeking to reframe the governance task as one of responsibleincentivization, rather than one of constraint or proscription
Incitamentsstrukturer för bioenergi med koldioxidavskiljning och ‑lagring i Sverige och Europeiska unionen : Underlagsrapport till Klimatpolitiska vägvalsutredningen (M 2018:07)
No full text- …
