Grab and gone: expert perspectives on innovation to diffusion of direct air carbon capture and storage technology

Abstract

As the urgency to limit global warming has intensified, negative emissions technology such as direct air capture and carbon sequestration are increasingly considered in climate mitigation scenarios. When Iceland opened the commercial-grade direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) facility in 2021, this marked a breakthrough for DACCS technology as a scalable climate mitigation solution. This study investigates the adoption of DACCS in Iceland and the potential for diffusion into other contexts as a global decarbonization solution. We implement expert interviews to analyze the adoption of technology, and to identify the various requirements of scaling DACCS into local and global contexts. Using inductive thematic analysis, we characterize the diverging perspectives on the role of carbon dioxide removal as a climate mitigation solution and also identify pathways toward technology upscaling at national, regional, and global scales. Despite the successful technology demonstration of DACCS, we find that experts hold different mental models of climate mitigation generally, characterized as “nature vs. technology.” We also find that experts clearly articulate the necessary conditions for the diffusion of DACCS more broadly, including explicit regulatory measures as guardrails against a “license to pollute” as well as bilateral governance structures that include financial investment. Finally, we find that the importance of public acceptance of the technology was noted among all expert groups. Limited data exist on the acceptance of DACCS paired with renewable energy and this is a future research recommendation.

Keywords:

• Decarbonization
• energy transition
• geothermal
• Iceland
• sociotechnical
• CO₂ removal

Introduction

The climate crisis has been caused by the use of fossil fuels that increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. While GHG emissions are only expected to increase due to the increasing global energy demand caused by population and economic growth, global efforts to mitigate anthropogenic climate change have been relatively unsuccessful. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report projects global warming exceeding 1.5 °C to cause unavoidable climate hazards to ecosystems and humans. The IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C specifically outlined the potential role of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in meeting global climate targets [1]. For a worldwide shift toward low-carbon economies, nearly all projections suggest that these targets can only be achieved by large-scale geoengineering for CO₂ removal [2,3]. Working Group III’s contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on the Mitigation of Climate Change further outlined the rapid reduction of GHG emissions through CO₂ removal with carbon capture and storage (CCS). For rapid and deep decarbonization of the atmosphere, mass global implementation of direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) facilities is increasingly called for to remove historic emissions, which could be implemented regardless of the deployment of point source CCS.

CCS is an integrative technology that captures CO₂ emissions from power plants and industrial processes, which are then transported for storage at offsite facilities [4]. This method is primarily known as point-source capture, paired with fossil fuel generators, and is predominantly discussed in CCS literature [5,6]. Large-scale deployment of CCS has been studied and the multitude of barriers include financial instability and price of carbon markets, lack of legal and regulatory frameworks, and public acceptance of CCS [7]. An alternative to CCS is DACCS, also referred to simply as direct air capture (DAC) or negative emissions technology. This emerging technology removes historic emissions—that is, CO₂ that is already in the atmosphere—and expedites natural carbon sequestration processes on-site [8,9]. Both options have high potential in climate mitigation strategies to remove historic and atmospheric emissions [10].

Despite the emission reduction potential, implementation of CCS and other geoengineering technologies has been slow to implement at scales that are called for in climate mitigation scenarios. Point source CCS is frequently critiqued for the possibility of enabling continued fossil fuel use. Many researchers have warned of the justice implications of continued use of fossil fuels that can be enabled through carbon capture systems, both at local levels for pollution and the injustices that perpetuate or exacerbate, as well as the broader issues with continued fossil fuel use that may be enabled through the use of CCS technology [11]. These concerns have prompted researchers, activists, and justice organizations to call for a ban on CCS in the United States and Canada [12].

While DAC is uniquely different from a point source in that it does not depend on continued fossil fuel use to operate, there are environmental tradeoffs in deployment. All CCS is energy intensive and is critiqued for the energy demands required for operating both point sources and direct air capture CCS facilities. DAC systems scaled to limit warming to global agreements suggest significant global electricity use allocated to DAC systems [13] as well as the possibility of large land conversion if generation in scenarios where solar is expanded to provide the needed electricity to operate DAC systems [14]. Despite these tradeoffs, models suggest that DACCS deployment can aid climate mitigation targets but also necessitate continued improvements in decarbonizing the electricity sector and technological improvements of DACCS systems [15]. In this study, we explore the commercial-scale demonstration of pairing direct air capture CCS with a geothermal plant, thereby minimizing the fossil fuel operational inputs. The pairing of renewables with CCS may help overcome public opposition, minimize environmental consequences, and make greater contributions to climate mitigation.

Despite the climate mitigation potential of DACCS, technology and engineering solutions do not exist without the social approval of such technology as well as public decisions to deploy them. Shrum [16] characterize complex public responses to CDR technologies and note that attitudes and perceptions, and policy support, are not fully formed among individuals and decision-makers and that decisions are not always rational. Perception of energy technologies is integral to understanding how and why people invest in them financially, personally, or otherwise [17]. Technology innovations must see widespread support from societal actors (e.g. businesses, policy-makers, local residents, etc.) to motivate citizen support, create financial incentives, and encourage positive discourse about the economic, social, and cultural benefits of low-carbon innovations [18]. Individuals’ reactions and acceptance of DACCS are highly variable given limited public awareness while social representations and history of usage are the strongest factors influencing CCS perception and tolerance rather than cost or technical risk [19–21]. Yang et al. and Moon et al. have highlighted the role of trust in increasing public acceptance in different contexts of CCS [22,23]. We thus conclude that perceptions of DACCS are critically important to understand in developing pathways to implementation.

Social acceptance has long been argued as a critical component of a successful energy transition. Wüstenhagen et al. conceptualize the “triangle of social acceptance” which illustrates that energy transitions and technical innovations are manifested through a balance of dynamic processes within and between socio-political, market, and community acceptance [24]. Decisions made by stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers) on one dimension can have consequences on the acceptance of innovation from the other dimensions [20]. For example, failure to achieve community acceptance at the socio-political level can mean that support through investments and/or local support for the technology may falter. The differences in acceptance of energy projects recorded at the socio-political (i.e. general) and community (i.e. local) levels have given rise to opposition to energy technologies (e.g. [25–27]). This social acceptance gap is sometimes framed as “NIMBY” (not in my backyard, coined by Dear [28]), although the gap is notably more nuanced and dependent on power relations and local politics, among other explanations [29].

Socio-technical transition

The low-carbon energy transition as a pathway toward sustainability can be conceptualized as a “socio-technical” transition. Socio-technical systems refer to the interconnections of a system that have social implications, which evolve over time and are resistant to change as actors become entrenched in the existing regime [30]. The socio-technical transition refers to system change to address worsening environmental problems in which a fundamental improvement is necessary, such as climate change or other persistent environmental problems [31]. System change may require both technological innovation and social considerations, such as behavior, policy and markets, and public preferences [32]. This co-evolutionary adaptation of society and technology can occur when policy-makers, institutions, and businesses pressure social innovation, causing societal shifts. Exogenous change can put pressure on the existing regimes and open up opportunities for the enrollment of resourceful actors in the networks [33].

Examining the energy transition through the lens of a socio-technical transition offers a framework to evaluate the interrelations between actors, networks, institutions, and technologies. A leading approach to understanding socio-technical transition is through a framework called Multi-Level Perspective (MLP). MLP has been invoked to inform analysis of the development and entrenchment of technology in society [34]. Geels describes the nature of socio-technical system regimes, in which the “rules” that are followed by actors in a system are nested among a broad landscape of deeper structural trends of society, such as infrastructure, and among protected spaces for radical or niche innovations [35]. The MLP (Figure 1) frames that socio-technical transitions occur among interactions between these three levels (existing regimes, the broader exogenous landscape, and niche innovations), where radical innovations emerge after development in a protected space, then enter small markets niches, and breakthrough to diffuse into larger markets if there is sufficient performance, demand and supports as well as external opportunity, eventually followed by a transformation in regime [32].

Figure 1. A multi-level perspective on the socio-technical transition of technology. Reprinted from Geels [32] with permission from Elsevier.

Achieving socio-technical change typically requires policy change, which entails politics and power struggles, because vested interests will try to resist such changes. The MLP framework has been extended to technology innovation in many contexts and has been applied to the energy sector where “deep decarbonization” requires the acceleration of innovation [36]. Hermwille also posits that socio-technical transformation is not possible without niche innovations and external pressure [37].

In the competitive marketplace of technological innovations, niches are afforded an initial protective space from prevailing pressures that threaten further development and commercial deployment. When innovations move beyond creation, they can be adopted as a commercial demonstration; and eventually, diffuse into society through increasing adoption in other places [38]. Smith and Raven [39] write that the protective space nurtures niches to become more robust and expand before they are able to transition into the conventional market, a process called “diffusion.” Institutional, behavioral, and social factors can affect the diffusion of low-carbon technologies in society [40]. These so-called “green” niches are more likely to be successful when the niches are compatible with existing regimes [41]. Edling and Danks [42] note that clean energy diffusion is not simply a “technological substitution,” but complex interactions among technology and infrastructure, actors and institutions, user belief and preferences, culture and society.

Diffusion can also be conceptualized through a process of social embedding. Social embedding is a concept where diffusion occurs as an alignment between a niche innovation and the wider context—such as existing regimes [43]. This framing suggests existing regimes as an opportunity for innovation to diffuse, rather than a barrier to widespread adoption. Social embedding of new technologies may occur across multiple processes including societal culture, regulatory environment, business environment, and consumer adoption [30]. Kanger et al. use the social embedding framework to analyze the diffusion of new technology—electric vehicles—and identify that social embedding is not limited to users of new technology and that aspects of a socio-technical system may not be known in advance of the diffusion process. There can be substantial differences in outcome by region depending on the various decisions that are made over time [44].

Radical innovations can take many years to reach maturity and diffusion into mainstream markets. After periods of trial and error, and sufficient performance in niche markets, broader diffusion into mainstream markets may be driven by business support, economies of scale, and destabilization of existing regimes [32]. The diffusion phase may also be characterized by conflict in business models, among policy makers, and special interest groups [32]. DACCS paired with renewable energy presents a niche innovation that has not yet reached the stages of broad scale diffusion, despite an increasing interest in incorporating carbon removal amid an increasingly pressing need to decarbonize across short time horizons [45].

Study aims and scope

In this case study, we aim to better understand the enabling conditions of socio-technical change in energy systems and examine the factors that constrain and enable the diffusion of DACCS in society. Here, DACCS is paired with renewable geothermal energy, rather than the more traditional carbon capture technology paired with fossil fuel plants to remove point source emissions at existing generation plants. DACCS can operate separately from point source CCS and remove historic emissions; we do not assume that DACCS replaces point source CCS, but instead is deployed alongside other climate mitigation measures to enable deep decarbonization to achieve targets identified in IPCC reports [1]. We aim to learn from the successful adoption of a technology to identify important barriers and opportunities that may enable or constrain adoption into other markets, or adoption in other local contexts. Further, research into the socio-technical system of geothermal energy has recently been highlighted as a critical research need in the social sciences [46].

We contextualize DACCS in the socio-technical framework as a niche innovation utilizing renewable energy systems and for removing historic emissions instead of the existing system with fossil fuels powering point-source carbon capture technologies [47]. Exogenous pressures encompass the socio-technical landscape of the public and government institutions to create a window of opportunity for the diffusion of niche innovations [48]. This window of opportunity provides opportunities for sensitive intervention points for change over time as systems evolve, and thus would allow for a transition toward a sustainable model for DACCS paired with renewable energy systems. While conventional CCS exists within the existing energy system and can be used to perpetuate fossil fuel use, pairing geothermal energy with direct air capture is considered to occur outside existing regimes [49]. Pairing DACCS with renewables may ameliorate some of the opposition to DACCS.

We use a case study approach of a niche innovation at the world’s first commercial-scale DACCS plant in Iceland. Such case studies can elucidate the factors that lead to a successful deployment of a niche innovation and invite considerations for commercial scaling of DACCS technology elsewhere in the world that might face similar decarbonization goals but greater constraints and challenges. The world’s first commercial-grade DACCS facility—the “Orca”—opened in Iceland in 2021. At the time of deployment, Orca represented an innovative breakthrough in DACCS whereby it is connected to a geothermal power station, which also provides 303 MW of electricity and 133 MWt of hot water for heating the city of Reykjavik [50]. This DACCS model paired with a renewable energy source represents the first DAC application that effectively results in net negative CO₂ emissions [51,52]. The captured CO₂ is dissolved in water and then injected into porous basalt rock to mineralize into carbonate, which has a high CO₂ storage capacity [53–55]. Storing large volumes of captured CO₂ emissions in deep geological formations is considered a promising climate mitigation option because of the availability of basaltic bedrock around the world, rather than in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and deep saline aquifers [56,57]. Moreover, the Orca connects to an onsite CO₂ storage facility, thereby reducing further emissions from transporting CO₂ between different capture and storage site locations.

This case study offers a novel, successful commercial demonstration of a niche technology that is increasingly called upon as a solution to the climate crisis. Iceland serves as a unique case study because they have successfully demonstrated the capabilities of DACCS paired with geothermal energy generation. Following, several countries including Australia, Hungary, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom have included DACCS in long-term climate mitigation strategies to the UNFCCC [58]. Learning from the success of the Orca may further the understanding of conditions needed to enable the diffusion of DACCS paired with renewable energy more broadly in other regions of Iceland or in other countries. The general public has limited experience with DACCS as an emerging technology. Accordingly, the public may not have yet developed a coherent position toward DACCS [59]. Still, key stakeholders can offer insights into both the enabling conditions of successful technological advancements and offer a nuanced perspective toward global scaling, and further, the public is influenced by the political elite’s position on climate policy [16]. Therefore, in this study, we present an analysis of expert perspectives on DACCS diffusion in Iceland and at other geographic scales. Rather than using a predefined set of indicators of heuristic tools for evaluation, we use an inductive framework to capture the factors that led to success and how these are perceived to diffuse. We, therefore, pose the following research questions:

1. What is the role of DACCS as a global climate mitigation solution?

2. What are the pathways to DACCS technology diffusion in the multi-dimensional socio-technical energy transition?

Methods

Research design

The research design uses expert interviews to collect varying perspectives on the enabling conditions for the adoption and diffusion of DACCS technology. The research design was approved by the Colby College Institutional Review Board for human subjects research compliance (IRB #2020-001). We collected empirical data from 28 experts in Iceland using semi-structured interviews. Data was collected across several weeks during January 2022 in Iceland and averaged 25–35 min in length. We used an inductive analytical framework to identify key themes that were emergent from the data, rather than a priori indicators of technology diffusion. Our work contributes to the body of knowledge by incorporating empirical novelty into the research design and findings. First, we add empirical novelty by incorporating the perspectives of elite experts—people in positions of power, business, and energy decision-making; and second, we offer a socially relevant case study with practical application for business leaders and policymakers [60].

Selection of respondents

We selected expert perspectives on DACCS implementation in Iceland by identifying three broad categories of stakeholders: Government, Energy industry, and Nongovernmental organizations (NGO)/Conservationists. The criteria used to identify experts includes (1) individuals who had worked across different sectors (industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, government decision-makers) and (2) individuals who had extensive knowledge of CCS and DACCS as a decarbonization method. We developed an initial list of interviewees based on recommendations from local informants and then used a snowball sampling technique to utilize social networks to encourage people to participate in the study. This approach to qualitative policy analysis has been implemented in this field: Mabon et al. [61] used snowball sampling to explore the challenges facing public and stakeholder acceptance of underground CO₂ storage, while Xenias and Whitmarsh [62] used this method to explore the importance of public engagement with CCS. Thirty-one percent of stakeholders that were contacted agreed to be interviewed. A total of 28 interviews were carried out in Iceland between January 8, 2022, and February 11, 2022 (Table 1). The majority of the interviews were conducted with employees of DACCS and the related energy industry in Iceland. This unevenness was taken into consideration during data analysis, to minimize bias from oversampling industry stakeholders. Stakeholders with no awareness of DACCS were excluded from the sample because they would have limited information about this study, and because opinions are subject to frequent change where awareness is low [61,63].

Table 1. Categories of expert stakeholders that participated in interviews.

Stakeholder sector	Definition	# of interviewees
Government	Employees for the Ministry of Iceland and/or government subsidiaries	7
Industry	Renewable energy, CCS, energy, and utility companies	16
Conservation/NGO	Environmental non-profit organizations, academic researchers, advocacy groups	5

The majority of interviewees were in the DACCS or energy industry.

Interview protocol

Interviews were semi-structured, consisting of 13 predetermined questions with additional ad-hoc follow-up prompts to explore topics mentioned by the interviewee and continue the conversation. Semi-structured interviews are conducted by creating a series of predetermined questions which unfold into a conversation where interviewees could discuss issues that were most important to them [64]. Follow-up prompts were used to explore concepts brought up by respondents. The interview protocol was developed iteratively by the research team and external advisors, and pre-tested to address clarity, comprehension, and potential bias. Each interview opened with questions about Iceland’s climate mitigation plans generally. Respondents were then provided some basic background information about DACCS and asked about the role of DACCS in meeting country-level emissions reductions. Respondents were then provided some detailed information about the local DACCS plant (the “Orca”), such as the purpose, costs, pairing with renewable energy, and emission reduction capabilities. Respondents were then asked a series of questions to inquire about perceptions of that facility as a novel DACCS technology demonstration, as well as their expert opinions about technology diffusion into other regions and markets.

Most of the interviews were conducted via Zoom due to COVID-19 safety protocols; some were conducted in person and the research team met with many of the participants on-site and in-person in advance of the data collection period. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using Otter.ai software and cleaned to fix errors and anonymize the transcripts before analysis. All but two of the participants consented to be audio-recorded. For those, written notes were coded using the same method as the recorded transcripts from the other interviews.

Data analysis

Interview transcripts were anonymized, categorized by stakeholder group (government, industry, or NGO), and coded using QDA software Dedoose. Our analytical method was thematic analysis [65], which is a qualitative descriptive approach to identifying patterns and themes in data as well as relationships between concepts [66]. We take an inductive approach to data analysis, broadly looking for varying perspectives around how DACCS fits into the country’s decarbonization strategy, identification of the enabling factors that led to successful implementation, and future scaling for diffusion into other markets. Our approach consisted of the following steps: initial data familiarization among all researchers, including open coding the transcripts to identify the range of topics brought up by participants. Next, the researchers collaboratively developed a codebook from the open coding process, which was constructed into parent, child, and grandchild codes with specific definitions of each. The codebook was iteratively modified through frequent discussion, reconceptualization, and refinement. The transcribed data was coded according to the codebook. All researchers collectively discussed major findings and identified major thematic areas. Results are presented by thematic area using exemplar quotes below.

Results

Thematic analysis of the expert stakeholder interviews (n = 28) reveals varied perceptions of the role of DACCS in climate mitigation, as well as how experts perceive Iceland’s technical, social, and institutional capabilities and enabling requirements to effectively implement DACCS at a broader scale. We answer our first question—the role of DACCS as a decarbonization solution—by analyzing expert perspectives on the role of technical solutions vs. nature-based or other climate mitigation solutions. We answer our second question—the pathways to diffusion—by identifying institutional and societal requirements as perceived by expert decision-makers and business leaders. We present these major thematic areas that characterize whether—and how—technology diffusion may occur in other regions of Iceland, and in other markets globally.

Technology vs. nature

The first major finding was that the diffusion of DACCS is not broadly accepted by stakeholders as a priority climate mitigation option. The actors involved in market creation and decision-making hold diverse beliefs about the role of technology in solving the climate crisis and the implications for landscapes and culture. A notable dichotomy in how experts prioritize different avenues toward climate change mitigation reveals that while the technology has matured sufficiently to implement on a commercial scale, there lacks consensus about the role of technology-driven solutions. Interviewees disclosed diverse opinions on emissions reduction methods that can be broadly characterized as nature-based solutions and technology-driven solutions (Table 2).

Table 2. Thematic clustering of concepts identified as “technology vs. nature.”

Theme	Subtheme	Expert perceptions
Technology vs. nature: The role of DACCS in supplementing or impairing existing carbon mitigation strategies, as compared to nature-based solutions.	Technical solutions	Preference for using technology to decarbonize (e.g. DACCS)
		Availability of resources needed to upscale DACCS (i.e. energy, water, space, bedrock)
		Potential negative environmental impacts: land use from development; pollution; earthquakes
		Potential risk from CCS: “License to Pollute”
	Nature-based solutions	Preference for natural environment to uptake CO2; habitat restoration co-benefit
		Landscape and viewshed amenity of conservation; Ecotourism as a co-benefit

Experts demonstrated varied support for the role of technology in climate change mitigation.

Experts strongly expressed that carbon sequestration through natural systems should be a viable and preferred climate migration strategy. This was prominent among members of the conservation community but was also found among members of government and industry. Conservationists argued that Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) is the top priority for Iceland’s climate mitigation strategy with the added benefit of increasing biodiversity. Many respondents referred to wetland degradation as one of the largest emitters of CO₂, exceeding emissions from heavy industrial pollution and transportation sectors, and some respondents identified the native birch tree (Betula pubescens) as a natural pioneer for carbon sequestration and restoring degraded lands. Soil conservation was also brought up as essential for restoring soil integrity to promote vegetation growth and increase the capacity for terrestrial carbon sinks, as well as the role of compromised ecosystems in exacerbating emissions. One conservation scientist asserted:

Iceland can easily reach the goal of being carbon neutral, but then you need to consider the land and the land process of wetlands, the process for drylands… land that is in a very poor state and poorly vegetated – these systems are now the biggest emitters of CO₂ in Iceland – far bigger than all industrial and transportation and everything else. – INT28, Conservation/NGO

Some other experts contend that conservation measures should be a top priority due to Iceland’s heavy reliance on nature-based tourism, noting that millions of tourists visit the country for its “untouched” and “pristine” nature. Conservationists also note the relative cost of implementing nature-based solutions, such as land restoration and management instead of DACCS. Long-term benefits of nature-based solutions like increasing biodiversity outweigh the use and costs of any technology.

The cost of reclaiming land is maybe 100th or 1000th of what it costs to pump the CO₂ into the ground. And there is an additional benefit, this is very important, nature conservation. You create new ecosystems, you are restoring biodiversity…and reclaiming wetlands is very cheap. – INT28, Conservation/NGO

This framing puts at odds the dependence on natural systems and the deployment of technology to meet country-specific decarbonization goals.

On the other hand, numerous experts asserted that land restoration and revegetation are time-consuming for a time-sensitive climate crisis: forests take years to reach maximum sequestration capacities. With Iceland’s ambitious climate goals under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, experts believe that DACCS has the potential to fast-track the country’s efforts to efficiently reach these targets. Experts also pinpointed the co-benefits of energy development—including CCS—in improving the economic conditions of the country. For example, the development of geothermal power plants generates electricity for households and industry, as well as provides heat and hot water to urban residents. Experts recall the impact electrification has had on the development of Iceland, as energy access boosted the country’s productivity and economy.

Energy is the foundation of development as we know it. And energy poverty is still a serious issue. And we understand this very well from Iceland because just to give you one data point, I was born in 1958 and at that time Iceland qualified for development aid. And so we were on the UNDP list eligible for support from the UNDP. So that changed rapidly, basically due to energy development. – INT15, Government

Notably, while all experts agreed that DACCS is an effective way of reducing emissions, most noted that implementation of DACCS should be implemented as one solution among other decarbonization strategies, and the near-term deployment can enable emissions offsets from industries that have been notably difficult to decarbonize, such as the aluminum smelters and fishing fleets. Experts laud the ability to offset emissions in heavy industry that is still dominated by fossil fuels.

For Iceland to become carbon neutral, we need to have CCS. Because it’s just impossible for us to decarbonize everything unless we make use of CCS. – INT17, Government

Yet, caution was noted as well, because the use of CCS in general, can enable continued use of polluting industries which has significant distributional justice implications, although many experts did not see DACCS as a mechanism to perpetuate continued use of fossil fuels. Yet, one industry expert noted the “dangerous greenwashing solution” (INT22 – Industry) enabled by investment in CCS infrastructure on a large scale. This concept of a “license to pollute” was frequently mentioned as a cautionary note, whereby polluting generators can avoid other emissions reduction measures or more transformative energy infrastructure changes. This was discussed in reference to CCS as a point source application but also in the context of DACCS. As one skeptical respondent noted, the availability of DACCS, while used for deep decarbonization to remove historic emissions, was still perceived as a political strategy to avoid other climate mitigation strategies, whether or not it is economical or efficient to do so.

We cannot rely solely on (DA)CCS and arguably we cannot rely on policymakers and government stakeholders in the US – as well as other high-emitting countries – to stick to other means of mitigating the effects of climate change and reducing their emissions if they have an abundance of what may appear to be an “easy way out. INT 24 – Industry.

DACCS technology appears to have gained market acceptance in Iceland and is a viable solution to reduce historic emissions in the short term. Nonetheless, expert responses revealed some of the nuances that stymie the scaled implementation both within Iceland and globally. For example, to be effective, DACCS currently requires localized specialization to effectively capture and store carbon based on the carbon properties of the region. Further, market formation in free market economies may result in a variety of carbon markets where the injection is not prioritized and market drivers may determine the fate of CO₂. As one respondent noted:

CO₂ for the Reykjanes peninsula is not the same CO₂ as we have [in Hellisheiði] – it’s much cleaner and pure out in the Reykjanes Peninsula. And that’s why they are utilizing that for fuel production. Whereas CarbFix in Hellisheiði is injecting a bit dirtier CO₂…so there’s this whole spectrum of the value chain of carbon dioxide that’s based on the companies are definitely establishing themselves as global and key players – INT4, Industry.

Such bottom-up approaches where private industry-developed markets can lead to choices that may be efficient, but not socially desirable. Experts explicitly discuss the role of various governance strategies—top-down, bottom-up, or bi-directional—as a key component of successful technology diffusion.

High-level policy approaches

We further explored how experts viewed regulatory and governance processes that would be needed to support the diffusion of DACCS more broadly. Two major themes emerged from experts: the need for bi-directional governance and the role of financial investment by government (Table 3).

Table 3. Thematic clustering of concepts related to governance and regulatory strategies for technology diffusion.

Theme	Subtheme	Expert perceptions
Governance and regulation: Regulatory responsibility for decision- and policy-making on implementing DACCS.	Approaches to policy making and technological diffusion	Top-down governance: Government responsible for climate policies; status quo vs. future
		Bottom-up innovation: Private corporations responsible for forwarding climate solutions; status quo vs. future
		Bi-directional: Combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches
	Role of institutions and policies involved in the expansion of CCS	Existing markets and regimes, such as the EU ETS
		Private corporate partnerships driving development at the international scale
		Public funding for implementation, legislation, and inclusion of CCS in Climate Action Plans

We found consensus among experts that a bidirectional approach is the most pragmatic pathway to DACCS implementation. The bi-directional approach was characterized as a combination of top-down regulation and bottom-up innovation. However, some experts also suggested that top-down governance would be the fastest pathway to rapidly scale up the technology in the face of the climate crisis. These experts referred to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) as an example of a successful multinational top-down governance model that regulates countries, including Iceland, in emission reduction mechanisms. Experts also detailed the importance and role of national and local policies in the implementation of DACCS, such as financial investment to supplement legislation.

Industry experts described a scenario where DACCS and EU ETS are mutually beneficial. Carbon emission generators can reduce carbon emissions using DACCS rather than pay for emissions allowances, ultimately encouraging companies to incorporate DACCS into their emissions reduction practices [67]. In this capacity, the EU ETS is a mechanism to increase demand for public and private investments in technical solutions, thereby decreasing the cost of technology through economies of scale.

There is a financial incentive in the European ETS emission allowances scheme…and we will be seeking incentives from the Icelandic government to actually NOT tax the carbon, to begin with in order to establish this project, make it economically viable, and then for the future, scale-up of these technologies when we have demonstrated the whole value chain. – INT23, Industry

Experts notably cautioned about the pitfalls of national policy for DACCS where strong guard rails are not in place to ensure that carbon capture is used in addition to other emission and pollution reduction methods. Considerable concerns about lack of regulation surfaced when experts discussed the so-called “license to pollute.” Without strong regulatory mechanisms in place at the national level, some respondents proclaimed that using DACCS offers generators a way to avoid additional emission reduction strategies. They contend that top-down measures are necessary to ensure that DACCS is being properly used to reduce emissions:

While the role of sequestration in the decarbonization journey is significant, it should not be used as a replacement for emission reduction measures. I think there’s a real risk that it will be. In some jurisdictions, in some political systems, it will be a license to continue to pollute, and that absolutely would nullify its benefit. – INT15, Government

While the Icelandic government has publicly shown support through policy statements, experts assert that major policy levers, such as concrete legislation and financial investment have been tangibly lackluster. Tax incentives and subsidies were specifically identified by participants across all sectors as a solution to make DACCS more cost-effective and commercially viable.

Unfortunately, they haven’t really been implementing any financial incentives to deploy the technology. They’re, you know, sort of relying on us [private business] taking the initiative and the private industry. So it has mostly been, you know, a bottom-up approach from now. – INT23, Industry

On the other hand, proponents of nature-based solutions noted the high societal cost of infrastructure investment and supported the allocation of government funds not to technology but to land conservation and remediation.

Public acceptance and engagement

Interviewees emphasized the importance of public acceptance while discussing the impact of DACCS implementation. Acceptance of technology at the community level was rarely addressed by participants, although the importance of broad public support was routinely discussed as a key hurdle in the transition to a low-carbon economy (Table 4).

Table 4. Thematic clustering of concepts that related to public awareness and acceptance of geoengineering technologies.

Theme	Subtheme	Expert perceptions
Public knowledge and acceptance: Private sector communication to the general public; knowledge of and acceptance of technology	Public attitudes	Opinions and awareness of CCS
		Personal behavioral change to reduce carbon footprint
	Communications and marketing for CCS	Media coverage; social media; advertising
		Education as a tool to increase awareness of CCS

Although all experts believe that DACCS in Iceland has generally received positive support largely due to stakeholder engagement efforts, several experts noted that public support for CCS was nuanced and followed many of the same challenges as acceptance of renewable energy projects. In particular, industry experts referred to public acceptance—and opposition—as a critical aspect of climate mitigation efforts, articulating that pristine areas should only be used for energy generation “only when the population says, ‘yes’.” – INT16, Industry.

We have the same problems as everyone else in the CCS industry, although Carbfix does have a high public acceptance, in general. There are always some voices that you know, are against injecting CO₂, you know, we encounter this ‘not in my backyard’ attitude.’ – INT23, Industry

Experts also frequently referred to the acceptance of DACCS as intertwined with the acceptance of energy generation technologies, noting the similarities of novel infrastructure in landscapes that are valued by the population. Interestingly, although perhaps not surprising, experts specifically referred to the importance of local level studies to understand landscape impacts, and how changing land use may affect the public’s intrinsic value of the natural environment. One expert stated:

People have been following this idea that Iceland would be almost covered with these vacuum cleaners and sucking air or sucking CO₂ from the atmosphere. I find it highly likely that Icelanders are very fond of their landscape. They started to appreciate it as soon as tourists come in and tell everyone how beautiful Iceland actually was. So, tourists actually helped us to sort of refocus our attention back to the Icelandic landscape and see it as a natural resource. – INT17, Government

Whether through podcasts, written articles, or direct engagement with people, experts broadly asserted the importance of public education and knowledge sharing around energy transition, and DACCS in particular, in meeting country-specific climate goals. Industry, government, and conservation experts all referred to the importance of information sharing in project-specific developments. In particular, industry representatives mostly referred to commonly implemented yet outdated passive information dissemination, rather than two-way stakeholder dialogue:

… If you’re to build the direct air capture plants in the east, for example, near a local community, it would be way better if you have six months prior to commissioning. And you would educate people on how it works, how the process is, and everyone would be way more supportive. – INT9, Industry

Finally, some experts also argued that public pressure to support technologies like DACCS is an integral tool to push for more government support whether through legislation or financial aid to scale up the technology.

There needs to be pressure from both sides. But we have seen in other countries – I've seen this as well, that the governments are so highly influenced by the industry and by the companies that do not want to make any changes. The public needs to be the pressure as well … This is the most important part of the public. It is to pressure the government. – INT13, Conservation/NGO

Overall, our results show that social considerations of DACCS have only been considered in vague terms at the local level among energy experts, and highlight the growing awareness of various stakeholders of the role of community in the scaling and expansion of technology.

Discussion

This research is contextualized within Iceland’s commercial demonstration of Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) paired with a geothermal generation facility, at the Orca DACCS plant and the Carbfix storage facility. We present a thematic analysis of expert perspectives on the diffusion of DACCS in Iceland and in new markets, to better understand the implementation of niche technology as a baseline in understanding innovative DACCS, and further identify foreseeable opportunities and challenges that may be considered as countries undertake decarbonization goals. This case study examines Iceland’s low-carbon transition, with a specific focus on the socio-technical landscape of DACCS as an emerging technology implicated in climate mitigation efforts. Our goals in conducting this study were to (1) identify expert stakeholders’ perceptions of DACCS as a decarbonization solution and (2) identify the characteristics that will shape the pathways to successful DACCS diffusion in a socio-technical landscape.

Our findings offer several key takeaways for decision-makers. From a technological standpoint, DACCS is considered to be sufficiently mature for market expansion and conforms well with existing infrastructure and regimes. The physical inputs needed for DACCS are not perceived to be limiting factors for expanded technology use. Yet, we find, along with other researchers, that successful technology performance is not sufficient for upscaling or diffusion. Naber et al. [68] demonstrated the importance of building strong social networks and shared social visions in scaling energy system innovations. The general public has a high degree of uncertainty about CCS: researchers have shown that the public is concerned about cost and feasibility, and perceives CCS as “risky” and “unnatural” [16,69]. Successful technology performance may reduce risk perception and uncertainty, which policy-makers may use to communicate decarbonization as a policy priority. Yet, this assumes that policy-makers will act in rational, unbiased ways; policy-makers and the general public may hold different values and decision processes that may shape whether and how CDR technology is implemented [16]. Our results also show that divergent sociocultural values among decision-makers may be a limiting feature of technology diffusion. These limitations are framed less in the specific nature of DACCS as a technology that can be paired with renewable energy, but more in the philosophical beliefs of the role that technology should play in society. Such beliefs may limit the urgency of policy to support broad-scale diffusion. Framed within the multi-level perspective (MLP) of sociotechnical transitions, we identify this dichotomy of technology vs. nature within the cultural aspects of the existing socio-technical regime, which includes complex interactions among technology, society, culture, infrastructure, and user preferences [42]. The dichotomy of a technology fix vs. ecological conservation is resonant with long-standing diverging mental models regarding the role of technology in solving grand societal problems as compared with more conservation, restarting, and behavior change ethos [70].

The “triangle” of social acceptance calls for a balancing of socio-political, community, and market dimensions of acceptance. If DACCS is a national priority in Iceland or in other regions, the study of social acceptance should be prioritized. While our interviews reveal that market and socio-political acceptance are present, we note the gap in understanding community acceptance. Emerging research indicates that public knowledge of DACCS is low and members of the public are skeptical of carbon capture technology [71]. Socio-technical transitions have only been successful and sustainable if it is culturally integrated and improves the quality of life [72]. At a national scale, Iceland has been working on this through various national and global media platforms to raise public awareness for DACCS from television specials to international news outlets. Bottom-up buy-in is also integral to the success of implementing climate technologies; companies must be transparent through the research and development process. Experts emphasize the importance of responsibly implementing DACCS through public participation and community engagement processes, and these conversations must be had and can still be improved upon in Iceland [73]. Our study did not elicit nor reveal data on community acceptance. Further research on community acceptance of DACCS will be needed to understand how the general public perceives this technology and its role in mitigating climate change. In the context of other countries where climate change may be a polarizing topic, such as the United States (U.S.), bipartisan support from the public will be crucial for DACCS. Upham et al. communicate that populations are somewhat conservative about green technology but find strong support for incremental technological innovation shifts [74]. Incremental technological shifts can help instill social trust in the public to adopt green technology [75]. If societal trust in the government declines, there is reduced support from the citizens for government action to be capable of addressing domestic policy-making [76]. We expect that acceptance of technologies, such as a DACCS are more likely to be positive where institutional trust is high. For example, prior studies demonstrate that public opinion of carbon capture is linked to institutional and government trust [77]. We posit that technologies, such as DACCS are more likely to be adopted in geographies where social trust in government and industry is high.

Many “sustainable” solutions do not offer obvious or immediate user benefits. Solar and wind energy were not immediately accepted by the public when they first arrived on the market, and continue to face widespread opposition in many contexts today. Subsidies and regulatory frameworks to meet clean energy targets have guided their diffusion and embedment in the marketspace. Governmental intervention will likely be necessary both to outline clear action plans that incorporate DACCS into emissions reduction goals and to support the equitable integration of CDR technology. The IPCC recently published a report stating that “the deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net-zero CO₂ or GHG emissions are to be achieved” [45].

Governments can utilize different policy levers to incentivize DACCS and reduce costs to make the technology more economically viable and competitive in the market for climate technologies. We find that experts identify more mature policy mechanisms such as specific regulatory measures and financial investment as important mechanisms to accelerate diffusion. This is consistent with other studies that identify these more traditional policy tools as important drivers as niche innovations have stabilized in early markets [78]. The integration of DACCS into the EU ETS highlights an initial step toward diffusion within the broader global market.

At a national level, policies for DACCS are nascent. Iceland’s Climate Action Plan presents ambitious goals to substantially reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2030 through carbon sequestration methods, such as improved LULUCF. However, the national plan does not mention the use of climate geoengineering technologies like DACCS. Countries, such as the U.S. and the United Kingdom have already committed $24 million and €70 million, respectively, to fund the research and development of DACCS; the Canadian government donated $24 million to a DACCS company [79]. The U.S. recently reformed the “45Q” tax credit program for DACCS with an incentive of $20 per metric ton of saline and other forms of geological CO₂ storage [80,81]. Furthermore, as subsidies allowed solar and wind to commercially succeed, the same could be done for DACCS. Sekera and Lichtenberger [82] argue that this would not be possible because there is a market for energy generated from solar and wind exists but a market for burying CO₂ is unlikely. However, Iceland is launching this market on a global scale. The EU Innovation Fund’s recent investment into expanding DACCS in Iceland will generate revenue through cross-border carbon transport and storage in Iceland. On the other hand, there has been public opposition to CCS due to sentiments that it takes away funding resources from developing other climate solutions like clean energy projects [12]. Nonetheless, national funding commitments for DACCS are a small step toward integrating this technology into the marketplace.

In addition to capturing historic emissions, DACCS can be expanded to sequester emissions from sectors that are difficult to decarbonize like aviation, transportation, and maritime fleets. As countries like Iceland are currently experimenting with electric airplanes and alternative fuels, DACCS is viewed as a transitional solution during the development of these innovations. We also caution that widespread adoption of geoengineering technology, such as DACCS may enable the “license to pollute” mindset. While the “license to pollute” discourse is often centered around fossil fuel or bioenergy paired with point source CCS, we suggest that DACCS may suffer opposition as well. First, we find that there is a lack of awareness and widespread misperception about CCS technologies among the general public [83], and furthermore, people are often particularly opposed when DACCS is linked with enhanced oil recovery whereby the CO2 is used to extract more oil [69]. Finally, DACCS is resource-heavy and investing in such technologies may take resources away from other decarbonization strategies.

Multi-dimensional considerations for low-carbon transition are traditionally techno-economically driven [84]. While technological innovation is clearly a necessary component of the energy transition, inequities can be exacerbated if strategies to achieve social justice are not explicitly integrated [85]. Climate change mitigation strategies, such as geoengineering, may only be comprehensively viable if there is engagement and inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable communities in the research design and implementation of innovative technologies [86]. We assert that any national or regional efforts to scale geoengineering technologies like DACCS should be done with intentionality toward a just transition. To that end, future social science research on geoengineering technologies should include the general public, and notably frontline communities where harms may be exacerbated.

Finally, we return to the role of DACCS in the multi-dimensional socio-technical energy transition and consider the potential for carbon capture to supplement renewable energy in rapidly decarbonizing the global economy. The global need to mitigate climate change in increasingly urgent terms offers exogenous pressure for country-level adoption of decarbonization solutions. DACCS has the potential to be an effective climate change mitigation tool. However, the efficacy of mobilizing decarbonizing technologies like DACCS is contingent upon an alignment of system elements, such as support from powerful actors, shared visions, market, and user preferences, as well as opportunities created outside the energy system itself to create incentives to pursue such strategies [32]. We find that although some components of rapid change do exist (e.g. niche innovation), the political landscape and policy levers are not currently implemented beyond single-country cases, although such tools exist and are called for by expert stakeholders.

Conclusion

In this study, we have examined how experts and decision-makers perceive this niche technology as a component of wide-scale decarbonization, as well as identify the features of the broader sociotechnical system that may lead to technology diffusion. To limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, carbon dioxide removal technology like DACCS has been identified as increasingly necessary and the window of opportunity for implementation is now. While socio-technical systems analysis can be retrospective in nature, this research examines dynamics in early-stage technology to inform policy deliberations and global implementation. DACCS is less researched and known to the public compared to other forms of CCS like point-source capture. Notably, CCS has historically been reliant on fossil-fuel use but the integration of DACCS with geothermal energy may present new insights into how society views geoengineering technology moving forward.

If Iceland and other countries around the world plan to expand DACCS where we may see technology diffusion, our findings point to the need to consider socio-political, market, and consumer acceptance when dealing with the multi-faceted approach of scaling DACCS. The attitudes of the expert stakeholders were optimistic as a result of DACCS's capability of decreasing carbon emissions and creating bilateral agreements with the EU to store carbon emissions for other countries. Yet we found that at this early stage, experts believe nature-based solutions would be more viable in the short term to mitigate carbon emissions and provide more long-term benefits. We also find that a necessary condition for reducing the cost of DACCS includes building economies of scale. A bidirectional approach through a combination of both top-down regulation and bottom-up innovation will be needed to finance, and ultimately, implement DACCS globally. Beyond finance, regulatory measures can implement the guardrails necessary to equitably implement technology that does not exacerbate injustices.

Acknowledgments

The authors offer thanks to Dr. David Timmons for his willingness to provide background information and suggestions for successful country-based research in Iceland and for feedback during data analysis and interpretation. The authors also thank Dr. Danae Jacobson and Dr. Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir, and two anonymous reviewers, for constructive review of the findings that improved this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available. Data in summary form can be requested from the corresponding author, A.B.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Colby College Environmental Studies Department, F. Russell Cole Fellowship.