Zukünftige Energie- und Industriesysteme
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (35) (remove)
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (8)
- Conference Object (8)
- Contribution to Periodical (7)
- Report (6)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4)
- Habilitation (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Division
For the option of “carbon capture and storage”, an integrated assessment in the form of a life cycle analysis and a cost assessment combined with a systematic comparison with renewable energies regarding future conditions in the power plant market for the situation in Germany is done. The calculations along the whole process chain show that CCS technologies emit per kWh more than generally assumed in clean-coal concepts (total CO2 reduction by 72-90% and total greenhouse gas reduction by 65-79%) and considerable more if compared with renewable electricity. Nevertheless, CCS could lead to a significant absolute reduction of GHG-emissions within the electricity supply system. Furthermore, depending on the growth rates and the market development, renewables could develop faster and could be in the long term cheaper than CCS based plants. Especially, in Germany, CCS as a climate protection option is phasing a specific problem as a huge amount of fossil power plant has to be substituted in the next 15 years where CCS technologies might be not yet available. For a considerable contribution of CCS to climate protection, the energy structure in Germany requires the integration of capture ready plants into the current renewal programs. If CCS retrofit technologies could be applied at least from 2020, this would strongly decrease the expected CO2 emissions and would give a chance to reach the climate protection goal of minus 80% including the renewed fossil-fired power plants.
One of the factors decelerating a further diffusion of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is the public's negative perception of early pilot or demonstration activities in Germany as well as in other countries. This study examined the public perception of CCS in more detail by looking into different options within the CCS chain, i.e. for the three elements capture, transport and storage. This was analyzed using an experimental approach, realized in an online survey with a representative German sample of 1830 citizens. Each participant evaluated one of 18 different CCS scenarios created using three types of CO2 source (industry, biomass, coal), two transport options (pipeline vs. no specification), and three storage possibilities (saline aquifer, depleted gas field, enhanced gas recovery (EGR)).
Overall, we found that the ratings of CCS were neutral on average. However, if the CO2 is produced by a biomass power plant or industry, CCS is rated more positively than in a scenario with a coal-fired power plant. The specifications of transport and storage interacted with each other such that scenarios including EGR or a depleted gas field without mentioning a pipeline were evaluated better than storing it in a saline aquifer or a depleted gas field and mentioning a pipeline as means of transport. Exploratory regression analyses indicate the high relevance of the respective CO2 source in general as well as the perceived importance of this source for Germany.