Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) at Scale Only Happens with Public Buy-In
The global community is on a path to exceed its carbon budget[1]. Increasing levels of GHG in the atmosphere is resulting in more extreme weather events that have a negative impact on our communities and the economy[2]. The primary reason for exceeding this budget is the continued use of fossil fuels. The transformation of our energy system to include less fossil fuels is underway, but will not happen rapidly, requiring deployment of carbon removal technologies.
Although there is significant impetus to rapidly move away from fossil fuels, large, legacy infrastructure cannot be transitioned quickly. It took around 50 years to largely transition from horse and buggy to the automobile.[3] Horses have not gone away, they are just utilize in a more sustainable manner.
While there is a call for complete eradication of fossil fuels from our economy, it is unlikely. Fortunately, it is not necessary for the planet to be carbon neutral by 2050. Most projections are pointing to carbon neutrality by 2050. The carbon neutrality scenarios include a variety of technologies to get there. One key technology is carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS), including direct air capture and point source. If this is the technology that will get us to carbon neutral, it is important it is developed and deployed in a manner that does not result in negative impacts to communities, solving one problem, but exasperating other environmental harms will not allow for a scalable technology deployment.
To deploy CCUS at scale requires trust in the technology not generating negative environmental impacts. Trust by communities in the companies deploying this technology improves company reputation, reduces financial risk, and ensures project quality.
Public Concerns
Although CCUS has been around for decades, its rise as a key technology to meet carbon neutrality has garnered the attention of communities and environmental groups. Community concerns have a direct impact on the viability of a project moving forward, with several projects halted due to public opposition due to lack of transparency into the project and lack of engagement by the developers.
For communities, much of their attention is on the potential negative outcomes of having CCUS in their communities. This includes negative impacts on local air quality through carbon capture; CO2 pipeline leaks and plume migration to aquifers in underground storage. These concerns must be addressed for the CCUS industry to see significant expansion. Without public support, regardless of the efficacy of the technology to reduce carbon pollution, the technology will not scale and reaching a carbon neutral planet will not happen.
The public are rightfully concerned about the deployment of large CCUS projects. If not done right, there is much that can go wrong. The communities demonstrating the greatest opposition are those that have experienced negative consequences of large infrastructure projects. For example, fence line communities that directly experience the negative externalities that come with living next to a large refining or manufacturing plant. Further, carbon dioxide is a waste product. In general, communities look for opportunities for economic growth and development, not to be a dumping ground. Communities that have already had experience this negative experience are even less willing to be further subjected to other’s waste. Different stakeholders have specific concerns. This includes:
- Landowners, particularly rural, are concerned with imminent domain, proper compensation for use of land, and the impact of construction on land. A key question is whether the land can be used or as productive with transportation and storage infrastructure in place.
- Community Developers are concerned about impact to property values, particularly for projects that are proximate to urban locations or suburban areas that may limit attractiveness of development or concerns for safety.
- Environmental and Community groups are concerned of environmental carbon capture technologies that may exasperate air quality in the community, as well as require significant use of water to cool the plant, impacting water availability. Further, environmental impacts with CO2 leakage in transportation and storage. CO2 is an asphyxiant and intoxicant and if leaked in large quantities can result in significant public health impacts. If wells are not properly drilled and reservoirs not appropriately understood, CO2 could leak into groundwater, surface water, and the soil.
Getting to Yes with Communities
Having a project reach final investment decision (FID) is quite the accomplishment for the burgeoning CCUS industry. There is significant focus on making the technology and economics work, but taking a very narrow view and potentially overlooking the context where the project will be sited. Industry must broaden its development view, to not only include making the economics work, to also making sure the community is on board. This will make the regulatory permitting process go more smoothly, as well as improve an organizations overall reputation and license to operate. Ultimately saving money over time as projects face less regulatory and legal resistance.
To get to this point, industry must respect the communities and their position in the project. They should engage early with communities for the entire project development cycle, project installation and operations.
Companies that are looking to deploy CCUS technologies must gain public support by providing transparency, acknowledging uncertainties, and encouraging collaboration. The public is more concerned with the uncertainty on how this technology will impact the community and public health, rather than understanding the technology itself. A lack of transparency leads to greater uncertainty; lack of collaboration results in less transparency, that increases pushback on the project.
Recommended by LinkedIn
If communities are not sure of these projects and feel they are not being given the full story, regulators and policy makers are engaged by the community more directly, resulting in regulations and policies that will limit development.
Be Transparent and Collaborative
Why is transparency important? Transparency results in accountability across all stakeholders. It leads to open decision-making, reduces concerns about corruption and lessens concerns about government or organization not being fully forthcoming on project. For example, sharing with the community the findings from exploration and well testing activity for a storage project. Developing a set of diverse communication platforms can significantly increase transparency, such as digital platforms, newsletters, education workshops, etc. Further, having a diversity of stakeholders from industry, academia, government communicating to the public via independently facilitated consultative local meetings, increases trustworthiness around the project.
Stakeholders engaging with the public should not play down or disregard public concerns. Rather the approach should develop mutual respect, via an open dialogue among community and industry stakeholders recognizing there are uncertainties and working to find solutions to resolve them. International Conventions, including the Aarhus Convention and Paris Agreement emphasize the importance of participatory approaches that leverage input from local knowledge systems. This can be a done in a collaborative manner, working with the community to design and engage in collaborative activities, promoting acceptance of CCUS. This collaboration results in social learning opportunities and increases social justice. Engaging collaboratively with communities increases the likelihood of project success compared to not doing so.
Although the project development is done in a collaborative environmental, there will still be disagreements. However, research demonstrates that communities that feel empowered by their capacity to influence projects and mitigate any potential risks are more likely to accept pilot projects[4].
Engagement Beyond Project Start
Having a robust community engagement plan and executing on it takes time and resources, but is an investment that must happen for CCUS to scale. The importance of transparency and community engagement does not stop at project commissioning. As part of the community engagement process, ongoing community trust and acceptance requires robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). These systems allow for accurate tracking and monitoring of CO2 captures, transported, and stored. The ability of MRV systems to collect data for real time monitoring and reporting, improves transparency and accountability. MRV done right brings significant community assurance as they are aware of how the system is operating as well as any potential issues that need addressing.
Communities witnessing and participating in the successful implementation and operation of a CCUS project, brings credibility to future projects. Communities will more likely promote or at least be less likely to pushback on future projects. This lessens time, resources, and risks with implementation of new projects.
[4] Netto ALA, Camara G, Rocha E, Silva AL, Andrade JCS, Peyerl D, et al. A first look at social factors driving CCS perception in Brazil: A case study in the Reconcavo Basin. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2020 Jul; 98:103053.
Ex-Yale Sustainability Leader|Ex-Tiss fellow |Leveraging data to solve big and complex problems.
4moGreat article Gavin Dillingham, PhD, CCP thanks for sharing it.
Supporting the transition to clean energy
4moLet’s catch up soon Gavin - on this topic!