Coordinating the Deployment of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage | Science and Technology for Energy Transition (STET)

The Role of Negative Emissions Technologies in 2050 Decarbonation Pathways

Open Access

Review

Table 2

CO₂ infrastructures.

Issue	Interdependencies/antagonisms	Stakeholders	Suboptimal market equilibrium	Policy recommendations in the literature	Sources
1. CO₂ transportation infrastructure deployment	Carbon capture, transport, and storage are complementary markets and face a typical “chicken and egg” dilemma: What comes first, the infrastructure or the capture technology?	Infrastructure operators Fossil energy with CCS (FECCS) and BECCS plants	Barriers to investment, both in carbon capture technologies and CO₂ infrastructures	Public support and subsidies to reduce risk and improve investor confidence	[18, 36, 56, 60, 61, 86]
	CO₂ transportation infrastructures are subject to economies of scale	Infrastructure operators Fossil energy with carbon capture (FECC) and BECC plants Countries	If there is no international coordination, CO₂ infrastructure will not benefit as much from economies of scale	International coordination of CO₂ infrastructure deployment	[83, 87]
	The optimal infrastructure deployment also depends on uncertain future demand for carbon capture (building ahead of demand)	Infrastructure operators FECCS and BECCS plants	Additional costs are borne by the infrastructure operators for an oversized infrastructure, making the technology less competitive in the initial stages	Polluter pays: spreading the costs of the infrastructure overall fossil-fueled power generators through a carbon tax or CCS obligation certificates	[18]
	There are political risks related to the lengthy time needed to develop a CCS project: The availability of funds by the time the project is ready for the final investment is uncertain	Investors BECCS plant Infrastructure operators Fund provider	Barriers to investment	Contract for Differences (CfD) allocation process	[18]
	Investment in CCS infrastructures has been mostly financed by fossil-fueled industries	CO₂ transportation operator CO₂ storage operator FECCS and BECCS plants	BECCS lock-out: BECCS projects could be de facto precluded by a CCS transportation design that does not anticipate their participation	Co-firing could pave the way for BECCS by forming a bridge between coal and biomass Storage sites should be situated close to large CO₂ emitters from biomass	[63, 64]
2. CO₂ storage infrastructure deployment	Post-decommissioning CO₂ storage risk	CO₂ storage operator	Barriers to investment	Public support and subsidies to reduce risk and improve investor confidence	[18]
2. CO₂ storage infrastructure deployment	CO₂ needs to be stored and monitored over generations	CO₂ storage operator Future generations	No guarantee that future generations will continue to monitor the storage site	Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) mechanisms	[20]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.