On the Organisation of Translation—An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing Design Options for CO2 Storage Monitoring Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Description
2.2. Assessment of CCS and CO2 Storage Monitoring Perception
- We conducted semi-structured interviews to gain insights into the perspective of local and national stakeholders on the CO2 storage projects. The semi-structured interviews enable dialogue with participants and follow whatever angles are deemed important by interviewees, while retaining focus on a particular topic and purpose [39]. The interview protocol (Supplementary Materials S1) is based on the “Societal Embeddedness Level” Framework, which was developed by TNO and tailored to CCS in the DigiMon project and entails the following dimensions: impact on the environment, stakeholder involvement, policy and regulations, market and financial resources [40,41]. The protocol includes questions on how the interviewees perceive the role of CCS in the respective countries, which challenges they see for the development of CCS and how the interviewees see the relevance of a CO2 storage monitoring system for addressing these challenges.
- The selection of interviewees was based on stakeholder mappings in the four countries and focused on politicians, governmental administration, industry representatives, environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs) and scientists. The interviewees either had a direct connection to local cases or were experts with knowledge on CCS or CO2 storage monitoring that could speak to at least one of the aforementioned dimensions (see overview Table 2). Interviews were conducted online (mostly because of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic) between June and November 2021 and lasted 20 to 90 min. In order to ensure confidentiality and enable an open interview atmosphere the institutions, interviewees and their answers were anonymized in the reports and results. Interviewees gave their consent according to the GDPR rules, either by signing a consent form before or during the interview or by being informed of their rights and giving their consent verbally. Processing and evaluation of the interview material was performed using thematic analysis [42,43].
Norway | The Netherlands | Germany | Greece | |||||
Semi-structured Interviews | ||||||||
Sample | National and local level, N = 10 | National and local level, N = 18 | National and local level, N = 15 | National level, N = 2 | ||||
Politics/Governmental authorities | 4 | 8 | 4 | 1 | ||||
Industry representatives | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | ||||
NGOs | 3 | 1 | 3 | - | ||||
Scientists | - | 6 | 3 | - | ||||
Surveys | ||||||||
Survey institute | Kantar AS | I&O Research + Panel Clix | Forsa-Politik-und Sozialforschung GmbH | Metron Analysis | ||||
Descriptive statistics (percentage) | National (N = 1003) | Local (N = 400) | National (N = 1206) | Local (N = 319) | National (N = 1001) | Local (N = 200) | National (N = 1004) | |
Gender | Male | 53.0 | 51.3 | 52.9 | 58.6 | 53.7 | 53.6 | 51.4 |
Female | 46.0 | 48.7 | 47.1 | 41.1 | 46.3 | 46.4 | 46.9 | |
non-binary | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 1.7 | |
Age | 18–29 | 13.3 | 8.3 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 9.7 | 11.6 | 20.6 |
30–39 | 15.6 | 20.0 | 13.4 | 6.9 | 10.9 | 9.2 | 18.4 | |
40–49 | 15.4 | 15.8 | 9.1 | 11.0 | 18.6 | 19.3 | 22.0 | |
50–64 | 25.3 | 28.0 | 38.7 | 32.6 | 29.9 | 28.5 | 25.7 | |
65–79 | 27.8 | 24.7 | 25.5 | 41.7 | 27.2 | 22.7 | 13.2 | |
80+ | 2.6 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 8.7 | 0.1 |
- 2.
- For a comparative assessment on the perception of CCS and especially the monitoring of CCS amongst the general public in The Netherlands, Norway, Germany and Greece, we conducted quantitative surveys. Established survey companies were commissioned to program the online questionnaire, compile the samples and collect the data. Each country aimed for a representative sample of a minimum of 1000 respondents on the national level. The countries with a local case aimed for a minimum of an additional 200 respondents in a coastal area near the off-shore CO2 storage site or an area with connection to the transhipment and transport of CO2 to off-shore storage facilities (see Table 2).
2.3. Organisation of Translation
- The first and fundamental step in this process was the regularly exchange on preliminary research results in the technical and social scientific work packages of DigiMon in an interdisciplinary task force. It was set up in July 2021 to develop a shared understanding of the tasks and timelines in the different work packages and to find a common language to arrive at design options for a monitoring system.
- The task force developed a first set of design options based on this long-running collaboration and the final social scientific research results in January 2022. To structure and organise our debates, we used the four dimensions established in the “Societal Embeddedness Framework”: impact on the environment, stakeholder involvement, policy and regulations, market and financial resources [40,41].
- This set of design options was presented and discussed at a large interdisciplinary online workshop with all parties involved in the DigiMon project. This includes a broad range of social, natural and technical scientists working in the project as well as members of the advisory board including industry representatives, scientists from other EU projects on CCS and professional networks on CO2 storage (e.g., CO2-GEONET, Global CCS institute). A total of 25 persons participated in this event. It consisted of three short presentations and a longer interactive phase of work in break-out groups. At first the social scientific work package presented the final results of the qualitative and quantitative research on CCS and monitoring perception to the whole group. Secondly, a technical work package provided an overview of the analytical hierarchical process used to incorporate multiple criteria in the monitoring technology development. The third presentation illustrated the first set of design options for a human centred monitoring system. This set of design options was discussed in the break-out groups. Participants were asked to comment on the design options in an online whiteboard tool. These comments were used for a first adjustment to the design options.
- The adjusted set of design options was presented in online workshops to heterogeneous stakeholders in Norway, Greece, The Netherlands and Germany in order to collect feedback from actors in different contexts. All persons interviewed to determine CCS perceptions and monitoring preferences in the four countries (see above) were invited to participate in the workshop. In addition, the invited persons could suggest other persons to be invited to the workshop. This resulted in four national workshops that took place in April and May 2022.
- While each country team conducted the workshop in their respective national languages, the invitations and presentations were coordinated for comparability between the different countries. During the workshop, participants were introduced to the monitoring technologies studied in the DigiMon project and to the design options that should complement the further technology development. At least one technical expert and one social science expert was present at the meeting for these presentations and to answer questions. After the presentations the participants had the chance to comment on the design options and add more feedback after the workshop session.
- The outcomes of this second round of validation of the design options were compared across the four country cases. This resulted in a second set of adjusted and validated design options that were used to inform the ongoing monitoring technology development (6).
3. Results
3.1. Exploring CCS Perception and Monitoring Preferences
- cheap, cost efficient and easy to maintain over a long time
- measure and predict leakages and plume movement
- allowing real-time access to publicly available monitoring data
- reliable access to experts for questions on the data
- external supervision by impartial institutions
- security concept in case of malfunctions
- Based on the survey results there is a strong argument for the external and independent supervision of the monitoring by actors that are considered trustworthy.
- There is strong evidence for the importance of the connection of monitoring to a warning system and a security concept in case of unexpected monitoring data or malfunctions.
- Transparency and access to the monitoring data (if possible real-time) are seen as relevant factors for a monitoring system in the interviews and the survey.
- Enabling meaningful public participation in the development of a monitoring system could strengthen trust and support. While most of the respondents in all four countries leaned towards expert responsibility for the set up and configuration of the monitoring system there is also a considerable group that wishes for public participation in these processes.
- Although the costs of monitoring were not rated as important as reliability and safety, they remain a relevant factor for stakeholders (even though the costs for monitoring are rather small compared to the overall CCS deployment costs).
3.2. Translation into Design Options
3.3. Validation of Translations
4. Discussion
4.1. Design Options for a Monitoring System
4.2. Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research Methodologies
4.3. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J. Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science: Practice, Principles, and Challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, M.; Stauffacher, M. Transdisciplinary Environmental Science: Problem-Oriented Projects and Strategic Research Programs. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2014, 39, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Compagna, D. Lost in Translation? The Dilemma of Alignment within Participatory Technology Developments. Poiesis Prax. 2012, 9, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Callon, M. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociol. Rev. 1984, 32, 196–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fam, D.; O’Rourke, M. Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Failures: Lessons Learned from Cautionary Tales; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-429-55241-0. [Google Scholar]
- Archibald, M.M.; Lawless, M.; Harvey, G.; Kitson, A.L. Transdisciplinary Research for Impact: Protocol for a Realist Evaluation of the Relationship between Transdisciplinary Research Collaboration and Knowledge Translation. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e021775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- Ringrose, P. How to Store CO2 Underground Insights from Early-Mover CCS Projects; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-33113-9. [Google Scholar]
- Ajayi, T.; Gomes, J.S.; Bera, A. A Review of CO2 Storage in Geological Formations Emphasizing Modeling, Monitoring and Capacity Estimation Approaches. Pet. Sci. 2019, 16, 1028–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Markusson, N.; Balta-Ozkan, N.; Chilvers, J.; Healey, P.; Reiner, D.; McLaren, D. Social Science Sequestered. Front. Clim. 2020, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, D.; Gross, M. Stuck on Coal and Persuasion? A Critical Review of Carbon Capture and Storage Communication. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 82, 102306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tcvetkov, P.; Cherepovitsyn, A.; Fedoseev, S. Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage: A State-of-the-Art Overview. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dowd, A.-M.; Rodriguez, M.; Jeanneret, T. Social Science Insights for the BioCCS Industry. Energies 2015, 8, 4024–4042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seigo, S.L.; Arvai, J.; Dohle, S.; Siegrist, M. Predictors of Risk and Benefit Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Regions with Different Stages of Deployment. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 25, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seigo, S.L.; Wallquist, L.; Dohle, S.; Siegrist, M. Communication of CCS Monitoring Activities May Not Have a Reassuring Effect on the Public. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 1674–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, O.; Gilding, D.; Nazarian, B.; Osdal, B.; Ringrose, P.; Kristoffersen, J.-B.; Eiken, O.; Hansen, H. Snøhvit: The History of Injecting and Storing 1 Mt CO2 in the Fluvial Tubåen Fm. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 3565–3573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vandeweijer, V.; Hofstee, C.; van Pelt, W.; Graven, H. CO2 Injection at K12-B, the Final Story. SSRN J. 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikunda, T.; Neele, F.; Wilschut, F.; Hanegraaf, M. A Secure and Affordable CO2 Supply for the Dutch Greenhouse Sector; TNO: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbins, J.; Chalmers, H. Carbon Capture and Storage. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4317–4322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reiner, D.M. Learning through a Portfolio of Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Projects. Nat. Energy 2016, 1, 15011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasunie. Athos-Project Stopt in Huidige Vorm Na Besluit Tata Steel. 2021. Available online: https://www.gasunie.nl/nieuws/athos-project-stopt-in-huidige-vorm-na-besluit-tata-steel (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- RVO. Aramis; Rijksdienst Voor Ondernemend: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2022; Available online: https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/bureau-energieprojecten/lopende-projecten/aramis (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- May, F.; Brune, S.; Gerling, P.; Krull, P. Möglichkeiten Zur Untertägigen Speicherung von CO2 in Deutschland–Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Geotechnik 2003, 26, 162–172. [Google Scholar]
- Juhlin, C.; Giese, R.; Zinck-Jorgensen, K.; Cosma, C.; Kazemeini, H.; Juhojuntti, N.; Lueth, S.; Norden, B.; Foerster, A. 3D Baseline Seismics at Ketzin, Germany: The CO2SINK Project. Geophysics 2007, 72, B121–B132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dütschke, E. What Drives Local Public Acceptance—Comparing Two Cases from Germany. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 6234–6240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krämer, L. Germany: A Country without CCS. In Carbon Capture and Storage. Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues; Havercroft, I., Macrory, R., Stewart, R., Eds.; Hart Publishing: Oxford, UK; Portland, Oregon, 2018; pp. 59–74. [Google Scholar]
- Otto, D.; Thoni, T.; Wittstock, F.; Beck, S. Exploring Narratives on Negative Emissions Technologies in the Post-Paris Era. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schenuit, F.; Colvin, R.; Fridahl, M.; McMullin, B.; Reisinger, A.; Sanchez, D.L.; Smith, S.M.; Torvanger, A.; Wreford, A.; Geden, O. Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy in the Making: Assessing Developments in 9 OECD Cases. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 638805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merk, C.; Nordø, Å.D.; Andersen, G.; Lægreid, O.M.; Tvinnereim, E. Don’t send us your waste gases: Public attitudes toward international carbon dioxide transportation and storage in Europe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 87, 102450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koukouzas, N.; Ziogou, F.; Gemeni, V. Preliminary Assessment of CO2 Geological Storage Opportunities in Greece. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2009, 3, 502–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arvanitis, A.; Koutsovitis, P.; Koukouzas, N.; Tyrologou, P.; Karapanos, D.; Karkalis, C.; Pomonis, P. Potential Sites for Underground Energy and CO2 Storage in Greece: A Geological and Petrological Approach. Energies 2020, 13, 2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tasianas, A.; Koukouzas, N. CO2 Storage Capacity Estimate in the Lithology of the Mesohellenic Trough, Greece. Energy Procedia 2016, 86, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hasanov, F.J.; Mahmudlu, C.; Deb, K.; Abilov, S.; Hasanov, O. The Role of Azeri Natural Gas in Meeting European Union Energy Security Needs. Energy Strategy Rev. 2020, 28, 100464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HHRM. PRESS RELEASE Expansion of Scope of HHRM: Carbon Capture and Storage Projects; Hellenic Hydrocarbon Resources Management: Athens, Greece, 2022; Available online: https://www.greekhydrocarbons.gr/news_en/PR_REL_040522_EN.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. Longship–Carbon Capture and Storage; Meld. St. 33; Ministry of Petroleum and Energy: Oslo, Norway, 2020.
- Northern Lights. About the Longship Project; Northern Lights: Stavanger, Norway, 2022; Available online: https://norlights.com/about-the-longship-project/ (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- Dixon, T.; Birchenough, A. Exporting CO2 for Offshore Storage–The London Protocol’s Export Amendment. SSRN J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, D.L. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0-7619-1523-2. [Google Scholar]
- Brinkmann, S. Qualitative Interviewing; Series in Understanding Measurement; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-0-19-986139-2. [Google Scholar]
- Geerdink, T.; Sprenkeling, M.; Slob, A.; Puts, H. D3.1. Guideline Societal Embeddedness Assessment DigiMon; TNO: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sprenkeling, M.; Geerdink, T.; Slob, A. Guerts Bridging Social and Technical Sciences: Introduction of the Societal Embeddedness Level. Energies 2022. under review. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, V.; Braun, V. Thematic Analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 2017, 12, 297–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willig, C.; Rogers, W.S. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology; SAGE: Rockford, IL, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-5264-2286-6. [Google Scholar]
- de Best-Waldhober, M.; Daamen, D.; Faaij, A. Informed and Uninformed Public Opinions on CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies in The Netherlands. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2009, 3, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ter Mors, E.; Terwel, B.W.; Daamen, D.D.L.; Reiner, D.M.; Schumann, D.; Anghel, S.; Boulouta, I.; Cismaru, D.M.; Constantin, C.; de Jager, C.C.H.; et al. A Comparison of Techniques Used to Collect Informed Public Opinions about CCS: Opinion Quality after Focus Group Discussions versus Information-Choice Questionnaires. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 18, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arning, K.; Offermann-van Heek, J.; Linzenich, A.; Kaetelhoen, A.; Sternberg, A.; Bardow, A.; Ziefle, M. Same or Different? Insights on Public Perception and Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage or Utilization in Germany. Energy Policy 2019, 125, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmarsh, L.; Xenias, D.; Jones, C.R. Framing Effects on Public Support for Carbon Capture and Storage. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mendrinos, D.; Polyzou, O.; Nordø, A.; Sprenkeling, M.; Peuchen, R.; Geerdink, T.; Puts, H.; Otto, D. D3.2 Report on the Outcomes of the Societal Embeddedness Level Assessment for CCS in Four Countries: Norway, The Netherlands, Greece and Germany; CRES: Pikermi, Greece, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Gough, C.; Cunningham, R.; Mander, S. Understanding Key Elements in Establishing a Social License for CCS: An Empirical Approach. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2018, 68, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oltra, C.; Upham, P.; Riesch, H.; Boso, À.; Brunsting, S.; Dütschke, E.; Lis, A. Public Responses to CO2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases. Energy Environ. 2012, 23, 227–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terwel, B.W.; Harinck, F.; Ellemers, N.; Daamen, D.D.L.; Best-Waldhober, M.D. Trust as Predictor of Public Acceptance of CCS. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 4613–4616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wallquist, L.; Visschers, V.H.M.; Dohle, S.; Siegrist, M. The Role of Convictions and Trust for Public Protest Potential in the Case of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2012, 18, 919–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Zhang, X.; McAlinden, K.J. The Effect of Trust on People’s Acceptance of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) Technologies: Evidence from a Survey in the People’s Republic of China. Energy 2016, 96, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunsting, S.; Desbarats, J.; de Best-Waldhober, M.; Duetschke, E.; Oltra, C.; Upham, P.; Riesch, H. The Public and CCS: The Importance of Communication and Participation in the Context of Local Realities. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 6241–6247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashworth, P.; Wade, S.; Reiner, D.; Liang, X. Developments in Public Communications on CCS. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 40, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buck, H.J. Social Science for the next Decade of Carbon Capture and Storage. Electr. J. 2021, 34, 107003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLaren, D.; Markusson, N. The Co-Evolution of Technological Promises, Modelling, Policies and Climate Change Targets. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dean, M.; Blackford, J.; Connelly, D.; Hines, R. Insights and Guidance for Offshore CO2 Storage Monitoring Based on the QICS, ETI MMV, and STEMM-CCS Projects. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2020, 100, 103120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsuji, T.; Ikeda, T.; Matsuura, R.; Mukumoto, K.; Hutapea, F.L.; Kimura, T.; Yamaoka, K.; Shinohara, M. Continuous Monitoring System for Safe Managements of CO2 Storage and Geothermal Reservoirs. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 19120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowotny, H.; Scott, P.B.; Gibbons, M.T. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, 1st ed.; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 2001; ISBN 978-0-7456-2608-6. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khaira, A.; Dwivedi, R.K. A State of the Art Review of Analytical Hierarchy Process. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 4029–4035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Norway | The Netherlands | Germany | Greece | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Previous projects CCS | Successful offshore projects on industrial scale (Sleipner, Snøhvit) since 1996, CCS application | Discontinued past onshore (Barendrecht, Groningen) and offshore projects (ROAD, Athos). Successful offshore CO2 storage and enhanced gas recovery (K12-B) | Successful scientific onshore pilot project (Ketzin), discontinued energy industry projects linking CCS and coal | None |
Previous CCS application | CCS connected to gas extraction at offshore platforms, Carbon capture project from industry (Yara) | CCS connected to enhanced gas recovery | CCS connected to coal fired power plants | None |
Planned CCS projects | Large scale CCS project (Longship), flexible large scale carbon transport and storage project (Northern Lights) under construction | Large scale Offshore carbon capture, transport and storage projects planned (Porthos, Aramis) | CO2 storage banned in Germany. Plans for the transport of CO2 to offshore storage hubs in other countries | Offshore storage planned in depleted hydrocarbons field |
Planned CCS applications | Negative emissions technologies, residual emissions | CO2 capture (from industry), transport, utilization and storage (offshore), negative emissions technologies. | Negative emissions technologies, residual emissions | CO2 capture coupled to hydrogen production unit from natural gas (blue hydrogen) |
Local case | Bergen work region (Northern Lights project) | Rotterdam (Porthos project), Amsterdam (Athos project, stopped recently) | Hamburg (CO2 transport), previous storage sites (Ketzin, Beeskow) | None |
Norway | The Netherlands | Germany | Greece | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
National (N = 1003) | National (N = 1206) | National (N = 1001) | National (N = 1004) | |||
How concerned are you about risks of CO2 storage? | ||||||
Very concerned | 2.0 | 13.4 | 19.3 | 11.1 | ||
Moderately concerned | 8.8 | 21.8 | 26.6 | 25.4 | ||
Somewhat concerned | 22.4 | 36.1 | 31.8 | 36.0 | ||
Slightly concerned | 29.6 | 16.7 | 13.4 | 19.3 | ||
Not concerned at all | 24.1 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 2.8 | ||
I don’t know | 16.1 | 8.2 | 7.4 | 5.5 | ||
Do you believe a monitoring system would affect the concerns you have regarding CO2 storage | ||||||
I am not concerned about CO2 storage | 18.5 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 3.6 | ||
I believe a monitoring system would not affect my concerns about CO2 storage | 16.6 | 23.5 | 33.7 | 13.8 | ||
I believe a monitoring system would limit my concerns about CO2 storage | 49.8 | 43.4 | 52.7 | 62.4 | ||
I believe a monitoring system would increase my concerns about CO2 storage | 0 | 6.1 | 5.4 | 12.3 | ||
I don’t know | 15.2 | 18.3 | 6.6 | 8.1 | ||
I would trust monitoring of a CO2 storage site to … | ||||||
Companies that operate CO2 capture and storage sites | Disagree | 32.6 | 41.1 | 57.4 | 28.0 | |
Neighter nor | 18.5 | 19.6 | 24.0 | 27.8 | ||
Agree | 42.8 | 32.6 | 14.1 | 42.2 | ||
Don’t know | 6.1 | 7.6 | 4.4 | 2.0 | ||
Government | Disagree | 16.5 | 28.4 | 47.3 | 42.9 | |
Neighter nor | 14.2 | 18.4 | 26.9 | 24.8 | ||
Agree | 64.3 | 48.3 | 21.7 | 30.4 | ||
Don’t know | 5.0 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 1.8 | ||
Scientists | Disagree | 12.9 | 7.5 | 16.2 | 10.7 | |
Neighter nor | 14.6 | 12.9 | 24.6 | 15.9 | ||
Agree | 67.0 | 75.3 | 55.8 | 71.6 | ||
Don’t know | 5.58 | 4.2 | 3.3 | 1.8 | ||
Environmental NGOs | Disagree | 31.5 | 23.1 | 23.3 | 30.3 | |
Neighter nor | 17.7 | 16.1 | 22.2 | 25.4 | ||
Agree | 45.0 | 56.6 | 50.6 | 42.2 | ||
Don’t know | 5.9 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 2.1 | ||
A monitoring system should … | ||||||
Reliably indicate the movement of the injected CO2 in the storage site | not important | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 3.2 | |
neutral | 6.7 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 12.0 | ||
important | 83.5 | 83.6 | 85.1 | 81.8 | ||
Don’t know | 7.8 | 4.4 | 6.9 | 3.1 | ||
Reliably measure and predict leakages of CO2 | not important | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 3.7 | |
neutral | 5.2 | 6.1 | 4.0 | 9.6 | ||
important | 87.3 | 88.6 | 88.7 | 84.2 | ||
Don’t know | 5.7 | 4.0 | 6.1 | 2.6 | ||
Be cheap to install and operate | not important | 32.7 | 23.8 | 24.1 | 13.8 | |
neutral | 22.4 | 28.6 | 29.0 | 25.8 | ||
important | 37.8 | 41.8 | 39.0 | 57.6 | ||
Don’t know | 7.7 | 5.8 | 7.8 | 2.8 | ||
Have a low impact on the environment (e.g., Marine animal life) | not important | 2.7 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 3.0 | |
neutral | 8.4 | 7.5 | 6.1 | 10.1 | ||
important | 82.4 | 87.1 | 86.7 | 84.7 | ||
Don’t know | 3.6 | 3.9 | 5.9 | 2.3 | ||
Include a warning system in case of deviations from the expected values | not important | 2.0 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 2.8 | |
neutral | 5.2 | 5.0 | 4.3 | 11.2 | ||
important | 86.6 | 90.4 | 88.6 | 83.3 | ||
Don’t know | 6.2 | 4.0 | 5.9 | 2.8 | ||
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Otto, D.; Sprenkeling, M.; Peuchen, R.; Nordø, Å.D.; Mendrinos, D.; Karytsas, S.; Veland, S.; Polyzou, O.; Lien, M.; Heggelund, Y.; et al. On the Organisation of Translation—An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing Design Options for CO2 Storage Monitoring Systems. Energies 2022, 15, 5678. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155678
Otto D, Sprenkeling M, Peuchen R, Nordø ÅD, Mendrinos D, Karytsas S, Veland S, Polyzou O, Lien M, Heggelund Y, et al. On the Organisation of Translation—An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing Design Options for CO2 Storage Monitoring Systems. Energies. 2022; 15(15):5678. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155678
Chicago/Turabian StyleOtto, Danny, Marit Sprenkeling, Ruben Peuchen, Åsta Dyrnes Nordø, Dimitrios Mendrinos, Spyridon Karytsas, Siri Veland, Olympia Polyzou, Martha Lien, Yngve Heggelund, and et al. 2022. "On the Organisation of Translation—An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing Design Options for CO2 Storage Monitoring Systems" Energies 15, no. 15: 5678. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155678
APA StyleOtto, D., Sprenkeling, M., Peuchen, R., Nordø, Å. D., Mendrinos, D., Karytsas, S., Veland, S., Polyzou, O., Lien, M., Heggelund, Y., Gross, M., Piek, P., & Puts, H. (2022). On the Organisation of Translation—An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing Design Options for CO2 Storage Monitoring Systems. Energies, 15(15), 5678. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155678