4.7 Article

Hype among low-carbon technologies: Carbon capture and storage in comparison

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.09.001

Keywords

Carbon capture and storage; Hype; R&D; Climate policy; Technology policy; Solar thermal power

Funding

  1. Taiwan Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology has become a crucial part of climate change mitigation strategies around the world; yet its progress has been slow. Some have criticised CCS as a distracting hype, even as mainstream support continues. This article adapts the literature on technological hypes to develop a framework suitable for technologies with limited media/public exposure, such as CCS. It provides a qualitative context and analyses seven quantitative indicators of hype that are largely internal to the CCS technology regime. Throughout, the article contrasts results for CCS with those of comparable technologies. The main findings, which support the view that CCS has been hyped, are as follows. Expectations mounted rapidly in the form of project announcements for electricity applications of CCS and deployment forecasts in influential reports. However, announcements soon plummeted. Commitments remained high, nonetheless, judging by allocations in public budgets and number of peer-reviewed publications. Meanwhile, outcomes in terms of patents, prototypes and estimated costs reveal few if any improvements for CCS. Considering these findings and the characteristics of CCS, its development is likely to be more difficult than initially expected. Accordingly, this article calls for decisively prioritising CCS for industrial and, potentially, bioenergy uses. Coal- and gas-fired power plants may be replaced by non-CCS technologies, so power CCS development is far less pressing. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available