The influence of institutions on the development of carbon dioxide storage and utilization applications: carbon mineralization and geological storage

Transcription

1 The influence of institutions on the development of carbon dioxide storage and utilization applications: carbon mineralization and geological storage Abstract: Laura Kainiemi a, Sanni Eloneva a, Arho Toikka b and Mika Järvinen a a Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, laura.kainiemi@aalto.fi,sanni.eloneva@aalto.fi, mika.jarvinen@aalto.fi b Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland, arho.toikka@aalto.fi According to IEA Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is necessary for successful climate change mitigation and would need to account for approximately 25% of total carbon dioxide reductions. EU has emphasized the need for CCS by developing incentives through the establishment of a funding programme and by including CCS into emission trading. Policy has mainly concentrated on applications based on geological storage, thus excluding the use of CCS with bioenergy and carbon mineralization. The development of emerging technologies and the influence of institutions can be analysed using a technological innovation systems (TIS) framework. This approach explores the system dynamics surrounding new technologies by analysing functions taking place in a network of actors, influenced by institutions. Institutions, both formal and informal, are the rules of the game and have the ability to affect the competition between different technological applications. The CCS TIS has developed within the existing fossil fuel regime and the formal and informal institutions are based on this regime. Therefore a larger shift in the regime and the institutions surrounding it would be required to improve conditions for the development of mineralization and CCS with bioenergy. Policy on CCS is based on forecasts that geological storage applications are likely to be successful in the future. Policy focus on geological storage has created formal institutions that can slow down or even prevent the development of carbon mineralization. These include the EU ETS, which only takes into account reductions from geological storage and the CCS directive, focused at regulating storage operations. Informal institutions, such as the use of the term CO 2 utilization instead of storage to describe carbon mineralization could lead to marginalization from CCS discussion and research. Keywords: CCS, institutions, TIS, CO 2 mineralization, mineral carbonation 1. Introduction Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the options that could be used for climate change mitigation. Most scenarios are based on forecasts by IEA and the IPCC which estimate the necessary share of CCS as 25% of total carbon dioxide emission reductions [1,2]. However, the European Union programme (NER300) for funding CCS demonstration projects has not been able to find one single demonstration project to fund on the first round of applications [3]. CCS is an emerging technology, which consists of various different technological applications. Success of a specific application depends, not solely on the success of CCS technology but also on whether this application is compatible with the surrounding technological innovation system (TIS). TISs are the systems within which technologies and their variations develop. The systems are made of networks of actors operating within an institutional environment, whose actions and interactions with each other contribute to the diffusion and development of a technology or technological application. [4] Activities called functions take place in the system; these can be information development, information diffusion, market creation and guidance of search. Functions give rise to the new technologies or applications and possibly make them part of the existing system [5,6]. 1

2 Institutions are the rules of the system. They can be formal laws, shared rules or strategies which shape human interactions, conventions, codes of behavior and organizational practices. They can create limitations by defining what is acceptable, but they can also facilitate and create a common language for a purpose. [7] Actions in the system are directed by institutions and institutions have direct effect on the functions of technological innovation systems [5]. Technological innovation systems theory has earlier been used to analyse the effects of institutions on emerging technologies, such as CCS. In this paper TIS is applied to examine institutional influence on technological applications within an emerging technology. The TIS developing around CCS technologies, focusing on Carbon Capture and Geological Storage (CCGS) is analysed and compared to the TIS surrounding carbon dioxide mineralization, which is less well known application for CO 2 storage. The following section of this paper introduces the TIS framework and expands it for the analysis of competing applications. The functions of the mineralization TIS, the CCS TIS and their interactions with key institutions will be analysed in the following section. The paper concludes by presenting the main findings and their implications for future development of carbon capture and storage and utilization technologies. 2. CCS applications For climate change mitigation purposes, CO 2 can be captured at the source, transported to a storage site and then stored permanently i.e. CCS contains three components; capture, transportation and storage [1]. Options for carbon capture are post combustion capture (end-of-pipe technology), oxyfuel combustion (fuel is combusted using oxygen instead of air to produce a flue gas that contains mainly water vapour and CO 2) and precombustion capture (primary fuel is processed to produce hydrogen and CO 2 streams). Transportations could be done via pipelines or ships, or in very small scale via road or rail tankers. Potential technical storage methods are geological storage (storage in oil and gas fields, deep saline formations, or unminable coal beds), ocean storage, and CO2 mineralization (i.e. mineral carbonation). In CO2 mineralization, carbon dioxide is fixed with calcium or magnesium oxides found in silicate minerals to form a stable carbonate as an end product. There are various different technological routes for mineral carbonation proposed and studied, but none of them has yet been piloted i.e. research is still in the laboratory phase. [8] Compared to mineral carbonation, geological storage options are further developed, more widespread and possess a higher level of integration. They also seem more viable economically and financially, particularly enhanced oil recovery (EOR). On the other hand, there are issues with storage safety, which is crucial, both for avoiding harmful effects to people and the environment as well as in terms of unsuccessful long-term mitigation. Safety is also one of the most crucial factors affecting public acceptance [9-13] and lack of acceptance has even lead to project cancellations. [14]. Since the CO 2, once fixed into mineral form, cannot be released into the atmosphere, it provides permanent storage and does not have storage safety issues, such as possible leakages. Therefore no monitoring is necessary [15]. Due to lower storage risk, it is likely to be more acceptable to the public as well. Most uncertainty for mineralization lies in technological development and economic viability and the process must be made more efficient before scaling up. The potential for mineral storage is significant and silicate minerals are widely available around the globe [16]. There are also suitable industrial waste streams readily available, although the CO2 sequestration potential of these is smaller [1]. CO 2 storage potential for oil and gas fields is estimated to be between GtCO2, unmineable coal seams are evaluated to have a capacity somewhere between GtCO 2 and deep saline formations would store more than 1000 GtCO 2, 2

3 possibly as much as GtCO2. The capacity for mineralization has been estimated to exceed the amount of CO 2 that would be emitted from burning all known reserves of fossil fuels. [1] Mineralization applications would be particularly tempting for regions which do not have suitable geology for storage and would have to transport their CO 2 for long distances and also for areas where the risk of leakage from underground storage is considered unacceptable [17]. Mineralization technologies have been criticized for high cost (in comparison to geological storage), early level of technological development, environmental effects of mining operation (necessary to provide minerals to the process) as well as the resulting waste flows. [1] Although the mining operations would be notable, they would hardly differ significantly from that of coal mining. In addition, significant amounts of suitable raw materials already exist as hoisted rocks of mines producing industrial minerals and metals [18]. According to the latest review on CO 2 mineralization [8], energy input needed per ton of sequestered CO 2 is ~ GJ. Some mineralization applications appear closer to commercial application. For example, a process using steelmaking slags, naturally high in calcium, to react with CO 2 results in precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC), a potentially valuable end product (PCC) [19]. Nonetheless, CO 2 mineralization methods that use industrial waste streams as raw material, suffer from limited CO2 sequestration potential. 3. Technical innovation systems and institutions 3.1. Institutions Institutions are the rules of the game that humans have set for enabling and constraining their interactions and predicting the behavior of others. Laws are an explicit example of institutions, but practices within industries or scientific disciplines are also institutions. [7] Institutions can be defined as shared strategies, norms and rules that shape human interaction. They can restrict activities directly through laws and regulation or indirectly through generally agreed rules of conduct or operation. In addition to creating limitations on what is acceptable or possible, institutions can also enable undertaking activities or facilitate communication with other actors by creating a shared language. Some of the key formal institutions for CCS are the definitions within the emission trading scheme or other mechanisms that create the rules for building CCS systems and affect the economic viability of these systems. Informal institutions include national and international energy visions and roadmaps that set goals and guidelines for future energy system developments. [20] As the current legislation is based on predictions of main technological applications, the development of other applications could be distorted. Since mineral carbonation applications have largely been determined unviable [1], institutions to support their development are mostly missing Technological innovation systems A technological innovation system (TIS) is a network of different actors who operate within the institutional infrastructure in place in an economic/industrial area and whose actions and interaction contribute to the development, diffusion and utilization of new technologies or technological applications [4]. The main components and the interaction between the components of technological innovation systems are shown in Fig 1. 3

4 Fig.1. Technological innovation system, main components and interactions between the components of the system. The actors in a technological innovation system are stakeholders who develop, advocate or oppose to new technologies and function within an institutional infrastructure which legitimizes, regulates and standardizes the new technology. Within the networks of actors operating in an institutional setting certain key activities, called system functions, take place. These functions build up the existing system and give rise to new technologies. [6] In order to become a part of the existing system, a new technology must be aligned with the institutions of the system. [5] Institutions may have to change in order to accommodate new technologies, which takes place through the functions of the system [6,5,21]. These functions are: Creation of legitimacy, Guidance of search, Knowledge development and diffusion, Entrepreneurial activity, Market formation and Resource mobilization. [5,6] Creation of legitimacy means that a new technology or application becomes a part of the existing system or regime. A legitimate technology has social acceptance and is in line with the institutions of the system [5]. Stakeholders in the existing system can oppose to the legitimization of new applications [6]. Knowledge development is created through R&D and stimulates innovation in new technologies; indicators of success in this function are R&D projects and investments as well as patents [6]. Knowledge diffusion shares the findings of technology development among technology developers as well as between the developers, society and users. Policy decisions should be aligned with the latest R&D findings, but these findings are also affected by policy and other institutional factors [6]. Guidance of search is the selection process between the applications developed in the knowledge development function, which are distributed through knowledge diffusion. Preferences in the society, government influence or the surrounding network can affect the direction of search to more desirable options. [6] Expectations can have a strong influence [22] on the search and can strengthen path dependencies [23]. Entrepreneurial activities commercialize the technology by benefiting from the business opportunities created by technological development. Entrepreneurs can either be newly entering into the field or be existing companies who aim to diversify or develop their current activities [6]. Market formation is done by creating competitive advantages through public policy [5]. Market opportunities encourage the development of new niche technologies or 4

5 applications and the policy measures taken to support them demonstrate how well this function is performing [6]. Resource mobilization means access to human and financial resources, such as investments or governmental support. It includes research programmes funded by companies or governments as well as funds that are allocated to testing and demonstration. [6] The functions of a technological innovation system influence each other, positive or negative developments in one function reflect to others either positively or negatively. Positive interactions between the functions are essential for the advancement of new technologies. [6] Negative influences and interactions can prevent or create obstacles for this development. Inertias in technological systems are significant and they tend to resist changes to the existing system, this can lead to lock-ins to certain development trajectories [24]. Existing systems contain institutions which have developed over long periods of time and support the existence of the current system. New, emerging technologies must be able to survive these institutional barriers which support established systems and prevent change. [25] Institutions and networks can prevent or slow down the development of the system [26-30] and even lead to system failure, where the systems fail to develop further or develop in an obstructed way [26]. If policy makers want to intervene in the technological system, they need to take measures to affect the functions of the system, not the underlying structure of the system itself, since the functions are what bring changes into the system [5], whereas the components represent the static structure [6]. This can be done through the creation of policy that strengthens system functions. This situation can be described as a multi-level model, which describes the development of emerging technologies or niches within the system level of a technological regime [31, 28]. In order for the developing niche technologies to become a part of the existing technological system they must overcome the obstacles created by institutions that have developed to support the existing regime. 4. CCS innovation systems and institutions 4.1. CCS innovation system IPCC defines carbon capture and storage as a process where the CO 2 generated at a point source, such as a fossil fuel powered power plant, is captured from the flue gases, pressurized and transported to a storage facility in tankers or by pipeline [1]. CCS in this understanding has developed within the fossil fuel regime [30]. CCS can be defined as a niche within the fossil fuel regime as illustrated in Fig 2. This regime also contains other niches, such as bioenergy. The fossil fuel regime is based on mature technologies developed over several decades for the use of fossil fuels. Around the technologies of this system there has developed a complex network of actors and institutional elements, such as regulation, international treaties and financial markets. Actors of this system have significant political and economic power, making the system highly resistant to change and able to fight off the emergence of niche technologies. [30] When the system has been threatened by change through the creation of new opportunities for niche technologies such as renewable energy applications, it has been able to create complementary innovations, such as flue gas treatment technologies to avoid significant system changes [32]. 5

6 Fig.2. The interlinking regimes of CCS technological innovation system demonstrate how institutions from the regime and niche regime levels directly affect emerging technologies.(adapted from [30].) CCGS process components such as transport via pipelines, storage in depleted oil and gas fields, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and capture technologies at power plants are based on technologies developed for the use of fossil fuels. Many of them have already been used in the fossil fuel industry and have simply been modified and adapted for the purposes of CCS activities. [30] Therefore it could be said that CCGS is a modification to the fossil fuel system [33]. Many actors are also the same since these process components are managed by the same companies CCS and institutions An analysis conducted by Vergragt et al. [30] showed that the functions of Creation of legitimacy, Guidance of search, Knowledge development and Knowledge diffusion are relatively strong in the CCS TIS, but also that they are closely linked with the fossil fuel regime. This means that knowledge development and diffusion are likely to concentrate on applications that support the existing fossil fuel regime, directing the guidance of search towards these applications and away from the ones that are not complimentary to the existing regime, such as BECCS and mineralization applications. These applications have larger obstacles to overcome in order to be legitimized, due to inertia within the system [24]. Expectations among policy makers, at least on the EU level, as well as technology developers appear to be that CCS should be employed and it should be employed with geological storage. CCS as an emerging technology has to overcome institutional obstacles [34] and currently these obstacles are more pronounced for CCS applications that are not based on the processes and networks of the fossil fuel regime. Institutions supporting the diffusion and use of CCS are still relatively weak, in terms of regulation, emission trading system, social acceptability and overall legitimacy. Within the CCS niche, existing as well as planned policy is concentrated on regulating geological storage and providing funding for demonstration projects [35]. The use of CCGS in the energy sector could serve to reinforce the fossil fuel regime and might lead to a lock-in to the use of fossil fuels. The use of CCS with bioenergy would represent a shift from the fossil fuel regime towards a more sustainable energy regime. [30] Similarly, increased use of mineralization technologies would represent a shift towards new modes of operation. For this study we focus on the CCS niche as a regime. Within this niche regime, exist the niches of new, emerging CCS applications, such as BECCS and mineralization. 6

7 4.3. Mineralization innovation system and institutions Similar to the findings of Vergragt et al. [30] who analysed the TIS surrounding BECCS, the technical innovation system for mineralization is relatively weak. For mineralization, the strongest functions appear to be knowledge creation followed by knowledge diffusion, while entrepreneurial activities, market creation, resource mobilization, guidance of search and the creation of legitimacy are weaker. In addition mineralization applications face a number of institutional obstacles that stem from the emerging CCS TIS and may slow down or prevent their development. Knowledge creation for mineralization is relatively strong, a search using Science Direct finds 5399 articles for mineral carbonation, while it finds papers for carbon dioxide geological storage and for carbon capture and storage. A new journal, the Journal of CO 2 utilization provides a valuable forum for mineralization discussion and publication networks for mineralization research, which could strengthen knowledge diffusion and create legitimacy for the mineralization TIS. However, naming the journal CO2 utilization also removes mineralization discussion from the CCS mainstream and further marginalizes mineralization from the CCS niche regime. A journal from the same publisher, traditionally publishing a wide range of research on different CCS applications encouraged authors to submit their papers on mineralization to this new journal instead [36]. A journal title that referred to mineralization specifically could be more efficient in strengthening the mineralization TIS. In addition, by having a journal dedicated to CCS, but which excludes CO 2 mineralization papers (or has only few of them), gives a reader of the journal the image that geological storage is the only storage option there is. Therefore it strengthens the CCS TIS that excludes CO 2 mineralization. Although a number of articles are published on mineralization, they often have little visibility in conferences on CCS; a relevant conference in 2013, for example had one session dedicated to mineralization and 11 sessions on the different aspects of geological storage [37]. Since many mineralization technologies are in early stages of development, entrepreneurial activities are mostly limited to industry co-operation on research projects and a few companies establishing or planning pilot plants [38,39]. CCS market creation depends on policy and financial support from governments [30], additionally; resource mobilization is also dependent on government support. No particular policy has been created to support market creation for mineralization and financial support has been available mainly for small scale research activities. When CCS was included into EU ETS, it was defined as a process where CO 2 is captured at the source, transported by pipeline and injected into a geographic formation for storage i.e. mineralization and BECCS were excluded. [40]. This means that CO 2, when injected into geological storage, is calculated as a reduction in the CO 2 output of the source. But if the same amount of CO 2 was bound into minerals, the source company would still have to cover this portion of CO 2 with emission permits. The use of permits combined with the reduction would mean that the company would effectively be paying twice for its CO 2 emissions, first by the cost of capture and mineralization and second, with having to cover the CO 2 with permits. A company applying geological storage, however, would only pay for capture and storage, but would not need to acquire permits and could potentially return some of the cost of CCS by selling its permits. This adaptation of CCS into the EU ETS lowers the cost of geological storage compared to other applications, such as mineralization, making companies more likely to engage in geological storage operations. This makes research and development and implementation of mineralization increasingly risky and unprofitable in comparison. Legitimacy of mineralization and guidance of search are also affected by existing and planned policy, but also informal institutions, such as expectations on which CCS applications will be 7

8 widely used in the future. When policy is based on the expectation that geological storage will be the way CO 2 is stored in the future, this policy will create institutions that guide the direction of search towards geological storage applications, turning the expectation into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Institutions reinforcing this bias include the language and practices of scientific disciplines and industry. Increasing use of the term CO 2 utilization to include mineralization effectively pushes mineralization outside the CCS niche regime, where it is associated with minor industrial applications of CO 2 use such as carbonated drinks, methanol and urea production for fertilizers, refrigeration, food packaging, horticulture, beverages and fire extinguishers. The storage capacity of these applications is generally very limited and most only offer a short-term storage before the CO2 is rereleased into the atmosphere, generally after some months or years [1]. The same occurs, when term CCS is used, but only geological storage of CO 2 is mentioned. These associations are mental models, which by definition are relatively enduring and accessible but limited internal conceptual representations of an external system whose structure maintains the perceived structure of that system. Mental models are prone to mistakes and omissions and they aim to preserve external structures the way they are. [41]. The close links between the fossil fuel regime and CCGS are significant in explaining the institutional bias against mineralization in the CCS niche. As CCS has begun developing from within the fossil fuel regime, the stakeholders actively involved in CCS development are also stakeholders in the fossil fuel regime. To these stakeholders, industrial applications and mineralization are outside their area of expertise and interest. To the fossil fuel regime, geological storage represents storage with which they are already familiar with from oil and gas drilling and exploration activities and they already have existing infrastructure to run geological storage operations, using their existing partner networks. Mineralization would mean these existing institutions would have to change, new partnerships would have to be searched out and new infrastructure would have to be built. This would require significant changes into the existing regime. Regimes are accustomed to resisting these changes in order to preserve their existence [24]. Institutions in the fossil fuel regime thus work to hinder the development of mineralization and could lead to a mineralization lock out, where mineralization applications are excluded from the CCS niche and are no longer considered a CCS technology. The current development in the rhetoric related to the niche and increased use of the term CO 2 utilization indicate that this could already be taking place. The same institutions are also having similar effects to BECCS [30]. It seems that the use of CCS is necessary for climate change mitigation, but it is not known whether geological storage will gain public acceptance in a level that is needed or whether it really turns out to be a technically reliable storage option. Therefore, it is risky to exclude alternative CO 2 storage options (such as CO2 mineralization) at this stage of the development. The deployment of a variety of applications should be encouraged through policy. Creating policy to regulate and support mineralization in addition to geological storage would indicate to the actors of the system that these technologies are both considered legitimate ways of sequestering carbon dioxide. Including mineralization and BECCS in the EU ETS would strengthen the functions of market creation and entrepreneurial activity and increase resource mobilization. Actors should also be careful when it comes to conceptualizing application into mental models, as these models can create informal institutional obstacles that are harder to change than laws and regulations. 5. Conclusions Since CCS as a technology is still new and in a relatively early stage of development, it is difficult to predict future cost levels as well as other factors affecting the adoption of CCS. Therefore it seems premature to create policy based on expectations that geological storage based CCS applications will be the most widely adopted carbon storage technology in the future. The functions 8

9 of the CCS technological innovation system are still weak, although stronger than mineralization. Since geological storage has developed as a part of the existing fossil fuel regime, the institutions of the regime offer less resistance to the development and adopting of these applications than mineralization applications. Since geological storage applications would require less change in the regime and the institutions surrounding it, it is more acceptable for the actors of the system. However, institutional bias should not be allowed to lead to system failure and prevent the system from being modified, since all mineralization and geological storage operations share the end goal of reducing the volume of carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere. As these storage options differ based on their benefits and weaknesses, there could be advantages from using both of them depending on the characteristics and location of the CO2 source. 9

10 Acknowledgments Academy of Finland (projects and 26495) is gratefully acknowledged for funding this work. Nomenclature GtCO 2 Gigatons of CO 2 converted into carbon equivalent GJ Gigajoules Abbreviations EU European Union EU ETS European Union Emission Trading System NER300 New Entrants Reserve of the European Emissions Trading Scheme IPCC International Panel for Climate Change IEA International Energy Agency CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CCGS Carbon Capture and Geological Storage BECCS Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery PCC Precipitated Calcium Carbonate TIS Technological Innovation System References [1] Bert Metz, Lambert Kuijpers, Susan Solomon, Stephen O. Andersen, Ogunlade Davidson, José Pons, David de Jager, Tahl Kestin, Martin Manning, and Leo Meyer, IPCC Special report on carbon capture and storage. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press; [2] IEA, Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage. Paris, France: [3] Europa- The official web site of the European Union. European Commission, Policies: NER 300- Available at: [accessed ]. [4] Carlsson B., Stankiewicz R., On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1991;1(2): [5] Bergek A., Jacobsson S., Carsson B., Lindmark S., Rickne A., Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy 2008;37: [6] Hekkert M., Suurs R., Negro S., Kuhlmann E., Smits R., Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2007;74: [7] North D. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; [8] Geerlings H., Zevenhoven R., CO2 mineralization- Bridge Between Storage and Utilization of CO 2. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 2013;4: [9] Shackley S., McLachlan C., Cough C., The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey. Climate policy 2005;4: [10] Van Alphen K., Voorts Q., Hekkert M., Smits R., Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energy policy 2007;35(8): [11] Johnsson F., Reiner D., Itaoka K., Herzog H., Stakeholder attitudes on carbon capture and storage an international comparison. Journal of greenhouse gas control 2010;4(2):

11 [12] Anderson J., Chiavari J., de Coninck H., Shackley S., Sigurthorsson G., Flach T., Reiner D., Upham P., Richardson P., Curnow P., Results from the project Acceptance of CO 2 capture and storage: economics, policy and technology (ACCSEPT). Energy Procedia 2009;1: [13] Eurostat, Attitudes towards energy, Special Eurobarometer 247. European Commission [14] Brunsting S., de Best-Waldhoder M., Feenstra Y., Mikunda T., Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht. Energy Procedia 2011;4: [15] Eloneva S., Reduction of CO2 emissions by mineral carbonation: steelmaking slags as raw material with a pure calcium carbonate end product [dissertation]. Espoo, Finland: Aalto University School; [16] Huijgen W., Comans R., Carbon dioxide sequestration by mineral carbonation. Energy 2003:ECN-C03(2):1-52. [17] Sipilä J., Teir S., Zevenhoven R., Carbon dioxide sequestration by mineral carbonation- Literature review update Turku, Finland: Åbo Akademi, Laboratory of heat engineering; [18] Teir S., Fixation of carbon dioxide by producing carbonates from minerals and steelmaking slags [dissertation]. Espoo, Finland: Helsinki University of Technology; [19] Eloneva S., Said A., Fogelholm C-J., Zevenhoven R., Preliminary assessment of a method utilizing carbon dioxide and steelmaking slags to produce precipitated calcium carbonate. Applied Energy 2012;90: [20] Toikka A., Hukkinen J-I., Kainiemi L., Energy Regime Change, Path Dependency and Self- Referential Rules: An Institutional Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage Developments in Finland. Energy Policy (forthcoming). [21] Hekkert M., Negro S., Functions of innovation systems as a framework for understanding sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2009;76: [22] Borup M., Brown N., Konrad K., van Lente H., The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2006;18: [23] Upham P., Kivimaa P., Virkamäki V., Path dependence and technological expectations in transport policy: the case of Finland and the UK. Journal of Transport Geography 2013;32: [24] Kemp R., Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability- the problem of technological regime shifts. Futures 1994;26(10): [25] Murphy L., Edwards P., Bridging the valley of death: Transitioning from public to private finance. Colorado, US: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Report number NREL/MP [26] Carlsson B., Jacobsson S., In search of a useful technology policy- general lessons and key issues for policy makers. In: Carlsson B., editor. Technological systems and industrial dynamics. Boston US: Kluwer Press pp [27] Malerba F., Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 2001;31: [28] Rotmans J., Kemp R., van Asselt M., More evolution that revolution. Transition management in public policy, Foresight 2001;3: [29] Unruh G., Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 2000;28: [30] Vergragt P., Markusson N., Karlsson H., Carbon capture and storage, bio- energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil fuel lock- in. Global Environmental Change 2011;21:

12 [31] Geels F., Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi- level perspective and a case study, Research Policy, 2002: 31(8-9): [32] Hansson A., Bryngelsson M., Expert opinion on carbon dioxide capture and storage- a framing of uncertainties and possibilities. Energy Policy 2009;37: [33] Carlsson B., Jacobsson S., Holmén M., Rickne A., Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy 2002;31: [34] Van Alphen K., Hekkert M., Turkenburg W., Accelerating the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies by strengthening the innovation system. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2010;4: [35] Europa- the official website of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide- Available at: [accessed ]. [36] Gale J., CO 2 Utilization (editorial). Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;19:1 2. [37] GHGT-11 International Conference on Greehouse Gas Emissions, Conference programme- Available at: 11%20Programme%20Final%20web.pdf [accessed ]. [38] Skyonic Corporation. Skymine technology- Available at: [accessed ]. [39] Mineral carbonation International. Website- Available at: [accessed ]. [40] Europa- the official website of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2009/29/EC - Available at: [accessed ]. [41] Doyle J., Ford D., Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review 1998;14: