Tensions in the energy transition: Swedish and Finnish company perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Emily Rodriguez,Adrian Lefvert,Mathias Fridahl,Stefan Grönkvist,Simon Haikola,Anders Hansson

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124527

Emily Rodriguez, Adrian Lefvert + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124527

Copy DOI

Abstract

Sweden and Finland have national goals to reach net negative greenhouse gas emissions before mid-century. Achieving these ambitious goals could employ negative emission technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, but it is unclear how this technology could be realized in an energy transition. Sweden and Finland stand out for having a large share of substantial point source emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide, in the production of pulp, heat and power. In the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, Sweden and Finland reported 64% and 51% biogenic emissions, respectively, in facilities emitting over 100 kt of carbon dioxide in 2017, while the corresponding collective figure for all European states in the database is 6%. This qualitative study highlights company actors’ perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage within a Nordic regional context and explores their perspective on emerging tensions in the energy transition. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 of the 24 companies with the largest point sources of biogenic emissions. The results are framed around four emerging tensions regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage from companies’ perspectives in this study: (1) absence of reliable long-term policies; (2) limits to companies’ climate change responsibility; (3) technical trade-offs of carbon capture; and (4) lack of customer demands for negative emissions. According to most of the companies, it is technically feasible to capture carbon dioxide, but it could be a challenge to determine who is responsible to create a financially viable business case, to enact supporting policies, and to build transport and storage infrastructure. Company representatives argue that they already contribute to a sustainable society, therefore bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is not their priority without government collaboration. However, they are willing to contribute more and could have an increasing role towards an energy transition in an international context.

Highlights

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is increasingly seen as a key, but contested, technology in mitigating climate change (IEA, 2018; Rogelj et al, 2018)
There is a lack of policies around negative emissions and BECCS, both internationally and nationally, so there is no incentive to invest in BECCS
Even though BECCS is considered to be an economically attractive climate change mitigation option according to top down modelling studies (e.g. Azar et al, 2006; Mandova et al, 2019; Rogelj et al, 2018), BECCS is not seen as an economical option among interviewed companies, unless there are enabling policies

Summary

Introduction

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is increasingly seen as a key, but contested, technology in mitigating climate change (IEA, 2018; Rogelj et al, 2018). Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is potentially a powerful climate change mitigation tool, but it is difficult to find company strategies about carbon capture (Wennersten et al, 2015) This could be because taking decisions about carbon management, such as investing in carbon capture at industrial facilities, is a multifaceted challenge for companies requiring a structured decisionmaking approach (Campbell-Arvai et al, 2019). In business models of CCS projects, the factors contributing to their success include regulatory frameworks, infrastructure, permitting processes and public acceptance (Kapetaki and Scowcroft, 2017; Kefford et al, 2018) This emphasis on the agency of policies is evident; even though upstream and downstream oil and gas companies are investing in CCS development, they are not willing to invest in commercial scale CCS without the possibility to receive payback for taking the financial risk (Braunreiter and Bennett, 2017). These companies are often positive to CCS as an economical solution to maintain the status quo without considering other alternative futures (Gunderson et al, 2020)

Methods

Results

Conclusion