Skip to content
EEEP
Menu
  • 2012
    • Volume 1
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
      • Number 3
  • 2013
    • Volume 2
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2014
    • Volume 3
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2015
    • Volume 4
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2016
    • Volume 5
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2017
    • Volume 6
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2018
    • Volume 7
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2019
    • Volume 8
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2020
    • Volume 9
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2021
    • Volume 10
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
    • Volume 9
      • Number 2
  • 2022
    • Volume 10
      • Number 2
    • Volume 11
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2023
    • Volume 11
      • Number 2
    • Volume 12
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2024
    • Volume 13
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2025
    • Volume 14
      • Number 1
  • 2026
    • Volume 15
      • Number 1
Menu

EEEP » 2012 » Volume 1 » Number 2 » How a “Low Carbon” Innovation Can Fail–Tales from a “Lost Decade” for Carbon Capture, Transport, and Sequestration (CCTS)

How a “Low Carbon” Innovation Can Fail–Tales from a “Lost Decade” for Carbon Capture, Transport, and Sequestration (CCTS)

Posted on February 4, 2026February 9, 2026 by admin

This paper analyzes the discrepancy between the high hopes placed in Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage (CCTS) and the meager results that have been observed in reality, and advances several explanations for what we call a “lost decade” for CCTS. We trace the origins of the high hopes placed in this technology by industry and policymakers alike, and show how the large number of demonstration projects required for a breakthrough did not follow. We then identify possible explanations for the “lost decade”, such as incumbent resistance to structural change, wrong technology choices, over-optimistic cost estimates, a premature focus on energy projects instead of industry, and the underestimation of transport and storage issues. We conclude it is likely that we have to live for quite some time with a cognitive dissonance in which top-down models continue to place hope in the CCTS-technology by reducing its expected fixed and variable costs, and bottom-up researchers continue to count failed pilot projects.

Authors: Christian von Hirschhausen, Johannes Herold, and Pao-Yu Oei
DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.1.2.8
Keywords: CCTS, Innovation, Low-carbon energy transformation, Technology policy
🔐 Download PDF

Account

  • Log in

Tags

Air pollution carbon emissions Carbon tax China Climate change Climate change mitigation Climate policy Coal computable general equilibrium Cost of Debt Decentralized energy governance Demand side difference-­in-­differences Electricity generation Electricity market design Electricity markets Energy Energy efficiency Energy Policy Energy R&D Energy security Energy transition environmental regulation Europe evaluation Geopolitics Introduction Investment Long-term contracts Middle East Natural gas Oil prices Regional markets Regulation Renewable energy Renewables Resilience Resource adequacy Scenario analysis Scenarios Sustainability sustainable development Techno-bias Transmission benefits willingness-to-pay

Archives

  • March 2026
  • February 2026
© 2026 EEEP | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme