Carbon capture and storage (CCS), including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), could contribute to climate change mitigation strategies. However, the 2020s is not the first time that CCS is high on the agenda. This study explores the differences between the past and current developments of CCS and discusses how incumbent actors' experiences can inform the understanding of potential future energy system transitions in Sweden. For this purpose, a multi-level perspective (MLP) analysis was conducted based on documents, in- terviews and focus groups with key actors. Since the 2000s, increased urgency of climate change has further pushed policy makers into action. In addition, there is a new framing of CCS that underscores the potential of BECCS to provide negative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as prospects for offshore storage of CO2 in Norway and other territories. As such, this study shows that Sweden could be on a transformation pathway towards implementing CCS alongside other mitigation measures.

Sweden and Finland have national goals to reach net negative greenhouse gas emissions before mid-century. Achieving these ambitious goals could employ negative emission technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, but it is unclear how this technology could be realized in an energy transition. Sweden and Finland stand out for having a large share of substantial point source emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide, in the production of pulp, heat and power. In the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, Sweden and Finland reported 64% and 51% biogenic emissions, respectively, in facilities emitting over 100 kt of carbon dioxide in 2017, while the corresponding collective figure for all European states in the database is 6%. This qualitative study highlights company actors’ perspectives on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage within a Nordic regional context and explores their perspective on emerging tensions in the energy transition. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 of the 24 companies with the largest point sources of biogenic emissions. The results are framed around four emerging tensions regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage from companies’ perspectives in this study: (1) absence of reliable long-term policies; (2) limits to companies’ climate change responsibility; (3) technical trade-offs of carbon capture; and (4) lack of customer demands for negative emissions. According to most of the companies, it is technically feasible to capture carbon dioxide, but it could be a challenge to determine who is responsible to create a financially viable business case, to enact supporting policies, and to build transport and storage infrastructure. Company representatives argue that they already contribute to a sustainable society, therefore bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is not their priority without government collaboration. However, they are willing to contribute more and could have an increasing role towards an energy transition in an international context.

An increase in carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, including bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), has led to an urgent demand for storage sites, and Norway stands out for its ongoing and planned geological storage sites in a European context. Even though there are no commercial carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) projects in Norway and the North Sea, there is scientific literature linking CO2 -EOR and CCS in this geographical region. CO2 -EOR utilizes CO2 to extract additional oil, counteracting the climate change mitigation purpose of geological storage. This review article explores how CCS is represented in the scientific literature on CO2-EOR in the North Sea and Norway, with a focus on system synergies and contradictions in relation to climate change mitigation. The main themes in the scientific literature on CO2-EOR in the North Sea are climate change, economics, and geological feasibility. Monitoring, safety, and leakage in addition to transportation of CO2 are less salient. The results show that there are contrasting framings in the literature. One framing is that CO2-EOR is a gateway to large-scale storage which maintains, or even expands, the extraction of fossil fuels and contributes to a sustainable transition in the long run through knowledge building and shared infrastructure. In contrast, another framing is that CO2- EOR combined with CCS have goal conflicts and are therefore not compatible, illustrating complexities with geological storage. Finally, this study reflects on how techno-economic research on CO2 storage in the North Sea and Norway is furthered through critical social science perspectives.

The City of Stockholm aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030 by compensating for residual emissions using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Relying heavily on negative emissions to reach the target, the city's strategy presents an interesting case of net-zero climate policymaking. Based on the analysis of interviews, City Council debates, and policy documents, the Stockholm case underscores the importance of understanding municipal climate policy in a multi-level policy setting, where the ability to govern emissions varies heavily between sectors depending on politics and policy at other levels of governance. Both waste incineration and road transport are perceived to include hard-to-abate emissions in 2030, partly due to governance linkages involving regional, national, and EU-level governing bodies. The energy utility, Stockholm Exergi, plans to implement BECCS, with funding from the EU and other public and private sources, at a heat and power plant. The unique opportunity to use BECCS as part of the city's net-zero target has made it possible to advance the net-zero goal from 2040 to 2030. However, there are risks that relying on BECCS may muffle public debate on what constitutes residual emissions in the city, subsequently leading to smaller municipal investments in emission reductions. Additionally, there are risks that the schedule for implementing BECCS is overly optimistic, meaning goal fulfilment may be threatened. However, this risk is not isolated to BECCS; similar risks are associated with combining fossil fuels with CCS. We recommend that the city critically examines the residual emissions, considers separate targets instead of a net-zero goal, and conducts risk assessments of key mitigation technologies to maintain its status as climate policy forerunner.