CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE: PUBLIC PERCEPTION, POLICY AND REGULATORY ISSUES IN THE NETHERLANDS H.C. de Conincka and N.M.A. Huijtsa, b a
Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), Unit Policy Studies, P.O. Box 37154, 1030 AD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail:
[email protected]; bEindhoven University of Technology (TUE), sub-department Human technology interactions, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Abstract While CO2 capture and storage (CCS) projects are quickly emerging all over the world, uncertainty is prevailing on the public acceptance, a legal framework, and the policy incentives for CCS. Fulfilment of these requirements is essential for CCS deployment. This paper discusses the state of affairs in the Netherlands. The reported public perception study highlights the results of an inquiry on the perception of CCS with 112 people in Alkmaar and surroundings in the Northwest of the Netherlands. Alkmaar is located above a gas storage field, which in the past has caused several small earthquakes. It can be concluded that the average attitude towards CO2 capture and storage is not positive but also not rejecting, although the drawbacks of the technology were regarded greater than the benefits, and significant NIMBY feelings could be distinguished. The public’s feelings associated with storage of CO2 seem to be dominated by concern. Besides public perception of CCS, the legal and policy framework are key to implementation of CCS. The legal framework in the Netherlands is developing with a big step taken by the coming into force of a Mining Act allowing storage of CO2 in the underground under conditions for safety and environmental impacts. Policy incentives include the European Union Emissions Trading System, Joint Implementation, and an electricity subsidy of 7 €ct/kWh for a Zero Emission Power Plant. All things combined, CCS appears to have good chances, even of short-term commercial implementation in the Netherlands. The occurrence of NIMBY feelings, however, should be taken into account when CCS is planned in populated areas. Introduction CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly seen as a viable option to mitigate climate change. In the Netherlands, though it was mentioned as a relatively cost-effective option in the 1998 Option Document [1], it was not included in the 1999 Climate Change Action Plan [2] as a measure to achieve the Netherlands Kyoto Protocol target of 6% greenhouse gas emission reduction in the 2008 - 2012 period with regard to 1990. A Dutch research programme aiming at the identification and feasibility of CCS projects, the CRUST project (CO2 reuse through underground storage), identifies a number of threats to the implementation of geological CCS in the Netherlands [3]. The threats include lack of public acceptance, unplanned seepage of CO2 from the reservoir, and undefined or lengthy legal and regulatory procedures. This paper aims to look at three conditions: public acceptance, the legal situation, and the policy framework for CCS in the Netherlands. First, an introduction and a brief literature review is given for public perception of CCS. Secondly, some summarised results from a joint TUE and ECN study are given. The relevant contents of the legal framework, established by the recent Mijnbouwwet (Mining Act), will be given, and an indication of the policy framework in the Netherlands. The paper ends with some conclusions on the chances, money-, legal- and acceptance-wise, for CCS in the Netherlands. Public perception The limited amount of scientific literature on public perception of CCS in the Netherlands concludes that CCS was rated more favourable for deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear, intensive energy savings, or maintaining coal [4]. This resembles indicative results of a study in the UK, which concludes that CCS “is
generally recognised as a potentially important carbon mitigation option for the UK” [5]. In the United States, CCS was considered less favourable, even than nuclear, after giving information on the technology [6]. The results could be related to the awareness or the sense of urgency for climate change, which is generally lower in the United States than in the Netherlands or the UK. The perceived risks of the technology are also of influence on the acceptance of technologies that comprise some level of risks [7]. Perception of risk could be dependent on trust in the actors and stakeholders (industry, government, environmental non-governmental organisations) and the affect that people feel with the technology [8]. This paper will look into the aspects of trust, affect, and the general opinion on CCS. An inquiry on carbon dioxide capture and storage in the Netherlands: Alkmaar and surroundings An inquiry on public perception of CCS has been performed by the TUE and ECN [8]. The inquiry was done in and around Alkmaar, a town of about 100 000 inhabitants located in the Northwest of the Netherlands. 112 People were interviewed on their perception of CO2 capture and storage by giving them a one-pager of information on the technology of CO 2 capture and storage, and asking a number of questions afterwards. The locations are situated above a gas storage field, which in the past has caused several small earthquakes with limited damage (but sufficient to make it into the local newspapers). The interviewees therefore had a relatively good awareness of the “underground”: 84% of the interviewees were aware of the fact that they are living above a field where gas is stored. The information that was given aimed to be unbiased and contained statements on climate change, possibility of storage in depleted gas fields, the possibility of CO2 storage in the Alkmaar underground, and the risks [8]. The health impacts of CO2 escapes are outlined, but natural analogues are used to argue that storage can be done safely. Based on earlier statements given by the relevant actors in the Netherlands (simplified to industry, government, and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs)), the participants are informed on the views of these actors. The level of subjective knowledge with the interviewees on both the technology and the legitimacy of CO2 capture and storage was very low. It has been suggested that when people cannot rely on their own judgments, they will rely on trusted institutions and on the feelings (“affect”) they associate with, in this case, CCS. ENGOs enjoyed the most trust in intentions and competence, then government, followed by industry. Affect was investigated by asking to what extent emotions were felt with CCS in their living area. The results in figure 1 indicate concern (“worries”) more than anything else, but hardly more than “a bit” (scoring of 3 in the graph). All other signs of affect are lower, which indicates relative neutrality in the other feelings of the interviewees regarding CCS. The participants in the inquiry were also asked to give their opinion on the desirability of CCS and on the benefits and the drawbacks for society, the risks, and the benefits for the environment and the interviewee himself. The desirability of the option was evaluated for CCS locally or elsewhere, which showed a significant difference in favour of “elsewhere”. The usefulness and suitability of CCS for mitigating climate change were rated averagely, but slightly more suitable/useful than unsuitable/not useful. Drawbacks and risks were rated slightly larger than the benefits for society or the environment, and significantly higher than the benefits for oneself. The difference distinguished when comparing desirability elsewhere with local desirability could demonstrate that CO2 storage is subject to NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) feelings. The ambivalence for suitability, usefulness and desirability elsewhere contrasts with the relatively negative outcome for drawbacks and risks with regard to benefits. Figures 2a and 2b depict the results. Legal framework A trustworthy legal framework for CCS, acknowledged by the relevant stakeholders and institutions, is conditional for CCS deployment and could also influence the public perception. In the Netherlands, a new mining act entered into force in January 2003. This Mining Act explicitly considers storage of CO2 as an option for storage of gases [9] and arranges the liability and refers to the environmental requirements that a CCS project should live up to. According to the Act, for storage of CO 2 deeper than 100 meter underground, in the Netherlands, a licence from the Ministry of Economic Affairs is required. Such a licence can be refused on six grounds [9]: 1. Technical or financial capabilities of the applicant 2. The way the applicant plans to execute the activity
3.
Lack of efficiency or sense of responsibility of the applicant (based on earlier activities for which a licence has been allowed) 4. In the interest of safety 5. In the interest of national defence 6. In the interest of planned maintenance of natural resources or geothermal heat. In addition, the Mining Act states that the last holder of the licence should take all measures that can reasonably be asked from him to (a/o) prevent damage to the environment, damage due to underground movements and safety risks. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and an agency especially suited for monitoring of mines will ensure that all conditions for the licence are and remain fulfilled [10]. With this, is appears that the condition of a legal framework for CCS in the Netherlands is largely fulfilled, though it should still be demonstrated in practice. Policy for CCS in the Netherlands Policy incentives, designed to make CCS into a commercially viable technology, are the third pillar to support CCS deployment. In the Netherlands (and the European Union), there is structural policy in place, which could enable the implementation of CCS projects. This includes: − The European Union Emission Trading System (ETS) for CO2 will take off on January 1st, 2005. Though CCS is currently not included, it can be, provided member governments supply useable accounting methodologies [11]. The price for CO2 credits in the ETS, which includes a/o the electricity sector and large industries and refineries (potential suppliers of CO2 to a CCS project), is currently projected to amount up to 10 €/tCO2 in the 2008 - 2012 period. − Joint Implementation (JI) under the Kyoto Protocol. The Netherlands being an Annex B country and having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it is thinkable that a project developer sells the CO2 credits from a CCS project on the JI market, especially if CCS under the ETS remains uncertain [12]. Prices for JI are currently ca. 4 €/tCO 2. − The Dutch government has an electricity price subsidy in place for electricity production from climateneutral fossil energy carriers. A Zero Emissions Power Plant (ZEPP) could be subsidised with 0,07 €/kWh [13]. Current costs for CCS technology in the power sector (see e.g. [14] and references therein) indicates that the stacking up subsidies and carbon credits revenues in the Dutch schemes could be sufficient for deployment of CCS in certain sectors, especially when capture costs can be kept at a low level. Conclusions This study evaluated the CCS feasibility in the Netherlands based on three pillars: public acceptance, legal regulation, and the existence of policy incentives. The Dutch public is not well informed on CCS. After some information is given, the average general attitude towards CCS in the interviewed group was not positive but also not rejecting, although the drawbacks of the technology were regarded greater than the benefits, and significant NIMBY feelings could be distinguished. The public’s feelings associated with nearby storage of CO2 seem to be dominated by concern. The legal framework for CCS has been established but needs concrete precedents to demonstrate effectiveness. Policy incentives are in place, and could even present sufficient incentive to provide a viable ZEPP, especially when income from electricity subsidies is combined with revenues from carbon credits. The economic conditions for CCS in the Netherlands are improving rapidly and could in the near future (given the current costs of CCS) already lead to commercially viable CCS projects taking advantage of structural price incentives. References 1. 2. 3. 4.
ECN and RIVM, 1998. Option Document for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction. Ministerie van VROM. 1999. Uitvoeringsnota Klimaatbeleid deel II. Dijk, J.W., and P.J. Stollwerk. 2002. CO2 Reuse through Underground Storage, by J.W. Dijk, and P.J. Stollwerk. CO 2 reduction plan. Turkenburg, W., and C. Hendriks, 1999. Fossil Fuels in a Sustainable Energy Supply. A Memorandum at the Request of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, shortened version for the COOL project, 1999.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Shackley, S., C. McLachlan, and C. Gough. The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44. Palmgren, C.R., M. Granger Morgan, W. Bruine de Bruin, and D.W. Keith. 2004. Initial Public Perception of deep Geological and Oceanic Disposal of Carbon Dioxide. Submitted to Environmental Science and Technology Viklund, M. 2004. Energy Policy Options - from the Perspective of Public Attitudes and Risk Perceptions. Energy Policy 32: 1159-1171. Huijts, N.M.A. 2003. Public Perception of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, The role of Trust and Affect in Attitude Formation, Master Thesis at the Eindhoven University of Technology. Supervisors: C.J.H. Midden (TUE), H. Jeeninga (ECN), C.Daey Ouwens (TUE). Minister of Economic Affairs, 2002. Besluit van 6 december 2002, houdende regels ter uitvoering van de Mijnbouwwet (Mijnbouwbesluit). Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 604. Minister of Economic Affairs, 2002. Wet van 31 oktober 2002, behoudende Regels met Betrekking tot het Onderzoek naar en het Winnen van Delfstoffen, en met Betrekking tot aan de Mijnbouw Verwante Activiteiten. Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 542, Art. 27. European Commission, 2003. Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. Coninck, H.C., de. 2004. Geological Storage of CO 2 in the emissions trading market. Presentation held at the VIIIth EU Clean Fossil Technology Industry Forum, organised by SESEMCFT. Brussels, June 8th. Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003. Beleidsnotitie Schoon Fossiel. Freund, P., 2002. General overview of costs. Proceedings of the IPCC Workshop on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage. Regina, Canada, 19-21 November 2002. 6,0
Figure 1: Indicators of affect with CCS. 0: not at all; 6:very much[8]
5,0
4,0
3,0
Average rating
5.
2,0
1,0
0,0
y jo e id pr ss re st pe ion ho act f tis sa ar fe st s tru es n lm ca n sio e r ce av an ss y e no sn an rles e w po s rie or
w
7,0
5,0
a
b 6,0 4,0
5,0
3,0
4,0
Average rating
Average rating
3,0
2,0
1,0 draw backs society risks
benefits society
benefits oneself
benefits environment
2,0
1,0 desirability local
suitability solution
usefullness storage
desirability elsewhe
Figure 2: Risks and benefits, and desirability and suitability of CCS. 2a: Average Rating of the drawbacks and benefits of CCS for society, the environment and oneself. Risk was also evaluated. The scale is: 7: drawbacks/benefits/risks: very large; 1: very small. 2b: The desirability, usefulness and suitability of CCS on a scale from 5 (very large) to 1 (very small). [8].
