TY - JOUR
TI - The importance of CO2 capture and storage: A geopolitical discussion
AU - Johnsson Filip
AU - Kjärstad Jan
AU - Odenberger Mikael
JN - Thermal Science
PY - 2012
VL - 16
IS - 3
SP - 655
EP - 668
PT - Article
AB - The CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology is since more than ten years  considered one of the key options for the future climate change mitigation.  This paper discusses the implications for the further development of CCS,  particularly with respect to climate change policy in an international  geopolitics context. The rationale for developing CCS should be the  over-abundance of fossil fuel reserves (and resources) in a climate change  context. From a geopolitical point, it can be argued that the most important  outcome from the successful commercialisation of CCS will be that fossil  fuel-dependent economies with large fossil fuel resources will find it easier  to comply with stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets (i.e. to  attach a price to CO2 emissions). This should be of great importance since,  from a geopolitical view, the curbing on GHG emissions cannot be isolated  from security of supply and economic competition between regions. Thus,  successful application of CCS may moderate geopolitical risks related to  regional differences in the possibilities and thereby willingness to comply  with large emission cuts. In Europe, application of CCS will enhance security  of supply by fuel diversification from continued use of coal, especially  domestic lignite. Introduction of CCS will also make possible negative  emissions when using biomass as a fuel, i.e. in so called Biomass Energy CCS  (BECCS). Yet, the development of BECCS relies on the successful development  of fossil fuelled CCS since BECCS in itself is unlikely to be sufficient for  establishing a cost efficient CCS infrastructure for transport and storage  and because BECCS does not solve the problem with the abundant resources of  fossil fuels. Results from research and development of capture, transport and  storage of CO2 indicate that the barriers for commercialization of CCS should  not be technical. Instead, the main barriers for implementation of CCS seem  to be how to reach public acceptance, to reduce cost and to establish a high  enough price on CO2 emissions. Failure to implement CCS will require that the  global community, including Europe, agrees to almost immediately to start  phasing out the use of fossil fuels, an agreement which seems rather  unlikely, especially considering the abundant coal reserves in developing  economies such as China and India. [Acknowledgements. The research on which  the current work is based is funded by the project “Pathways to Sustainable  European Energy Systems” and by the PLANETS project of the EU 7th Framework  Program.]