4.8 Article

Perceptions of opinion leaders towards CCS demonstration projects in China

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 88, Issue 5, Pages 1873-1885

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.034

Keywords

Carbon Capture and Storage; CCS; Demonstration projects; Opinion leaders; China

Funding

  1. UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) through the UK-EU-China
  2. ESRC [ES/H035613/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/H035613/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present results of a major survey of Chinese opinion leaders conducted from March to April 2009, supported by EU-UK-China near zero emissions coal (NZEC) initiative. Respondents were drawn from 27 provinces and regions using an online survey with follow-up face-to-face interviews. A total of 131 experts and decision-makers from 68 key institutions were consulted through online survey. This survey is the first to focus on demonstration projects in particular and is the most geographically diverse. We aim to understand perceptions of applying CCS technologies in the first large-scale CCS demonstration project in China. Though enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced coal bed methane recovery (ECBM) may not be long-term solutions for CO2 storage, they were viewed as the most attractive storage technologies for the first CCS demonstration project. With regard to CO2 capture technology, on the whole, post-combustion (which would be most applicable to the vast majority of existing power plants which are pulverised-coal) received slightly higher support than pre-combustion. More surprising, respondents from both the power and oil industries favoured pre-combustion. There was no consensus regarding the appropriate scale for the first demonstration. A large number of respondents were concerned about the energy penalty associated with CCS and its impact on the long-term sustainability of coal supply in China, although such concerns were much reduced compared with surveys in 2006 and 2008. (C) 2010 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available