PLANETS Project Home PLANETS Project - Probabilistic Long-Term Assessment of New Energy Technology Scenarios
Login
PLANETS Third E-Conference: Climate Policy in the EU and The Future of Carbon Capture and Storage.
08 February 2010

This short poll was designed to investigate the climate policy in the EU and the future of Carbon Capture and Storage.
Questions from 1 to 5 dealt with “Climate Policy in the EU”, while questions from 6 to 11 dealt with “The Future of Carbon Capture and Storage”. The poll has had roughly twenty respondants.

Main results and analysis



1.The high volatility of carbon price observed in the European Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) has raised questions about whether it sends credible signals to investments. Do you think that a price floor on CO2 under the EU-ETS scheme is a “must” to stimulate investments in low carbon technologies?

A) No floor : 31.25 % - 5 vote(s)
B) Floor up to 10 euro/tCO2 : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)
C) Floor between 10 and 20 euro/tCO2 : 56.25 % - 9 vote(s)

2. During the third phase of the EU-ETS (2012-2020) the EU Commission proposed to auction a share of total allowances, about 60% in 2013. How do you think the proceedings from the EU-ETS auctioning should be used?

A) To reduce income taxes : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
B) To subsidize CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
C) To subsidize R&D in low carbon technologies : 66.67 % - 10 vote(s)

3. Present arrangements of the EU-ETS may not create sufficient long-term certainty to stimulate the necessary investment. Do you think that emission performance standards (EPS) should be added on top of the EU-ETS?

A) Yes - in the power sector only : 6.25 % - 1 vote(s)
B) Yes - in the power and non-power (e.g. transport, building) sectors : 75 % - 12 vote(s)
C) No : 18.75 % - 3 vote(s)

4. The EU Commission decided to set aside 300 million of ETS allowances to help demonstration of Capture Carbon and Sequestration (CCS), which has been considered a “non emitting” source. Differently from other low carbon technologies (e.g. solar, wind), and similarly to forest mitigation, stored CO2 emissions might not be permanent, given the risk of future emission leakage. Compared to permanent emission reductions, what kind of emission credit do you think should CCS receive?

A) Full rebate - 100% : 14.29 % - 2 vote(s)
B) High rebate - between 70%-100% : 35.71 % - 5 vote(s)
C) Low rebate – less than 70% : 50 % - 7 vote(s)

5. Unrestricted access to emission credits from third countries (international offsets) maximizes economic efficiency, but it may reduce domestic abatement effort, with negative implications on carbon price and on innovation. Are you in favor of restricting the purchase of emission credits from third countries in the EU-ETS?

A) No : 37.5 % - 6 vote(s)
B) Yes - allow only 10% of abatement from international offsets : 25 % - 4 vote(s)
C) Yes - allow only 20% of abatement from international offsets : 37.5 % - 6 vote(s)

6. Which of the following statements coincides best with your view of the relationship between development of CCS and regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?

A) Advances in CCS will allow for more stringent regulation : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)
B) Tough regulation will lead to greater reliance on CCS : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)
C) Greater emphasis on CCS will distract from efforts to regulate greenhouse gases : 53.33 % - 8 vote(s)
D) Unsure : 20 % - 3 vote(s)

7. How would you characterize the role that CCS plays in the current national climate change debate in your country?

A) Major : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
B) Significant : 37.5 % - 6 vote(s)
C) Minor : 25 % - 4 vote(s)
D) Negligible : 25 % - 4 vote(s)
E) Non-existent : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 0 % - 0 vote(s)

8. Do you believe that the role of CCS is increasing or decreasing in the national climate change debate in your country?

A) Increasing substantially : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)
B) Increasing slightly : 31.25 % - 5 vote(s)
C) Staying the same : 43.75 % - 7 vote(s)
D) Decreasing slightly : 6.25 % - 1 vote(s)
E) Decreasing substantially : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 6.25 % - 1 vote(s)

9. When do you think that it will be possible to receive credits for CCS in national accounting systems and/or emissions trading systems?

A) During the first Kyoto commitment period (2008-2012) : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
B) In the following commitment period (2013-2016) : 31.25 % - 5 vote(s)
C) 10-20 years from now : 56.25 % - 9 vote(s)
D) More than 20 years from now : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
E) Will never receive credit for CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)

10. In general terms, how would you compare the following electric power sector technologies to fossil-fired plants with carbon capture and storage?

10.1. Natural gas turbines

A) Much more : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 26.67 % - 4 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 0 % - 0 vote(s)

10.2. Conventional coal power

A) Much more : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 20 % - 3 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 73.33 % - 11 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 0 % - 0 vote(s)

10.3. Hydropower

A) Much more : 35.71 % - 5 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 42.86 % - 6 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 14.29 % - 2 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 7.14 % - 1 vote(s)

10.4. Wind turbines

A) Much more : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 53.33 % - 8 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 0 % - 0 vote(s)

10.5. Nuclear power

A) Much more : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 26.67 % - 4 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)

10.6. Biomass/bioenergy

A) Much more : 20 % - 3 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 26.67 % - 4 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)

10.7. Solar power

A) Much more : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 46.67 % - 7 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 0 % - 0 vote(s)

10.8. Nuclear fusion

A) Much more : 26.67 % - 4 vote(s)
B) More preferable than CCS : 33.33 % - 5 vote(s)
C) Similar to CCS : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
D) Less preferable than CCS : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
E) Much less preferable than CCS : 0 % - 0 vote(s)
F) Unsure : 26.67 % - 4 vote(s)

11. When do you think that large-scale entry of the following technologies in the electric power sector is likely?

11.1. Carbon Capture and Storage

A) Within the next 10 years : 18.75 % - 3 vote(s)
B) In 20 years : 56.25 % - 9 vote(s)
C) In 50 years : 25 % - 4 vote(s)
D) Never : 0 % - 0 vote(s)

11.2. Solar energy

A) Within the next 10 years : 50 % - 8 vote(s)
B) In 20 years : 37.5 % - 6 vote(s)
C) In 50 years : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)
D) Never : 0 % - 0 vote(s)

11.3. Fuel cells

A) Within the next 10 years : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)
B) In 20 years : 62.5 % - 10 vote(s)
C) In 50 years : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)
D) Never : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)

11.4. Hydrogen power

A) Within the next 10 years : 12.5 % - 2 vote(s)
B) In 20 years : 43.75 % - 7 vote(s)
C) In 50 years : 18.75 % - 3 vote(s)
D) Never : 25 % - 4 vote(s)

11.5. Nuclear fusion

A) Within the next 10 years : 13.33 % - 2 vote(s)
B) In 20 years : 6.67 % - 1 vote(s)
C) In 50 years : 53.33 % - 8 vote(s)
D) Never : 26.67 % - 4 vote(s)

11.6. Tidal power

A) Within the next 10 years : 18.75 % - 3 vote(s)
B) In 20 years : 50 % - 8 vote(s)
C) In 50 years : 25 % - 4 vote(s)
D) Never : 6.25 % - 1 vote(s)

This e-conference is closed.
Seventh Framework Programme

This website reflects only the views of the PLANETS Consortium and does not represent the opinion of the European Community.
The European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.