Webinar : A CCS communications framework developed by the Japanese Knowledge Network - Lessons learnt and a way forward

A CCS communications framework developed by
the Japanese Knowledge Network: Lessons learnt
and a way forward
Thursday 2 October 2014, 1700 AEST

Dr Hiroyasu Takase
Dr. Hiroyasu Takase has been developing a variety of
mathematical models relating to environmental risk
assessment for 28 years, including contaminant transport in
3D heterogeneous media, groundwater flow, reactive solute
transport, gas generation and migration, etc. He has also been
in charge of designing and developing knowledge
management systems for a variety of areas relating to CCS
and radioactive waste disposal based on his experience
ranging from scientific research to risk
communication.
He graduated from the faculty of nuclear engineering at the
University of Tokyo and completed a PhD on applied
mathematics (nonlinear partial differential equations) at the
Managing Director, Quintessa Japan
University of Leeds. He spent 12 years at JGC Corporation in Japan and 6 years at
QuantiSci in the UK as the leader of mathematical modeling group.
He is currently the Managing Director of Quintessa Japan that has been providing
scientific consultancy and software to the implementers and the regulators in Japan for
14 years.

QUESTIONS
 We will collect questions during
the presentation.
 Your MC will pose these
question to the presenter after
the presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

A CCS communication framework developed
by the Japanese Knowledge Network
- Lessons learnt and a way forward -
2 October 2014
Hiroyasu Takase
4

Contents
 Japanese Knowledge Network
 Background
 Knowledge-sharing across organizations
 Running on-line knowledge network
 Knowledge Sharing among Experts
 Practice of knowledge sharing
 Integration of multidisciplinary knowledge
 Structuring knowledge into argumentation model
 Communicating Scientific Knowledge with Public
 Knowledge gaps
 Risk communication and/or science communication
 Communication methodologies
 Dry runs
 Way Forward
 A guideline for multidisciplinary multi-stakeholder knowledge sharing
 Summary and future directions
5

Japanese Knowledge Network
 Knowledge sharing is a critical need for the CCS community and is
an area in which the Global CCS Institute is playing a central role.
 The Japanese Knowledge Network:
 is a community-centric knowledge-sharing,
 aims at exploring methodologies and tools to support structured and
effective knowledge sharing.
 Central themes of the community are:
 How we can collaborate to integrate expert knowledge relating to the
issues identified.
 How we can distill detailed expert knowledge and communicate it with
variety of stakeholders.
6Japanese Knowledge
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Communicating Scientific
Knowledge with Public Way Forward

Japanese Knowledge Network
Participants
 More than forty experts
 Their fields of expertise
vary and cover:
 Coal, oil and gas
 Environmental
 CCS
 Academic sectors.
 Chatham House rule was
adopted:
 Free to use the information,
but neither the identity nor
the affiliation of the
speaker(s)
Schedule
 Phase 1: 2010 – 2011
 Exploration of methodologies
 Development of an overall
argumentation model for CCS
 Phase 2: 2012 – 2013
 Knowledge sharing in key
areas including induced
seismicity
 Phase 3: 2013 – 2014
 Restructuring argumentation
model for science/risk
communication
 Science communication, e.g.,
Science Café
7Japanese Knowledge
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts

Knowledge-sharing across organizations
 Constraints
 Intellectual Property Right
 Non-Disclosure Agreement
 Incentives for knowledge sharing
8Japanese Knowledge
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Positive Negative
Existence and
Security
Positive annual appraisal and
career opportunity / Job security /
Career advancement / hard rewards
Bad performance (rating) because
sharing takes time
Loose job because knowledge becomes
codified and used by others.
Relations Become and remain member of a
particular group / community /
Accepted by others
Group commitment
Get criticism because direct colleagues
do not want the person to share with
others outside the group
Status Acknowledgement of expertise /
reputation
(Possible conflict with Chatham
House Rule)
Fear of loosing face, because information
may be bad or not relevant, or already
well known by others.
Power Gain power by showing expertise Loose power because others use
information given by the person
Achievement and
Self actualization
Learning and
personal(organizational) growth /
fun and satisfaction
(Modified from Andriessen 2006)
Agreement on scope in advance
Expectation of “knowledge creation”
through integration of multidisciplinary/cross-
organizational knowledge otherwise impossible

Running an on-line knowledge network
 Qualification of members
 Practitioners, cutting across organizational and sectorial
boundaries.
 Size of a community
 In order to allow face-to-face meetings blended with continuous
web-based discussion, communities of less than 50 people
seem appropriate.
 Facilitator
 Communities need a facilitator.
 Face to face meetings properly organized by a facilitator
strengthen the communication and relationships.
 How to communicate
 The digital communication platform provided by the Global CCS
Institute provides ‘meeting points’ for members.
 Duration
 It takes some fraction of their time every day for members of a
community.
 A time of around two weeks seems to be appropriate
9Japanese Knowledge
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts

Discussion on themes for collaboration
 Building consensus on themes for collaboration taking into account
of
 Constraints, e.g., IPR and NDA,
 Incentives, e.g., expectation of multidisciplinary/cross-organizational
knowledge creation,
is vital.
 Development of an overall knowledge-base
 List of specific issues identified at the start of Phase 1
 Quality management and industrial standard
 Comparison of CCS with other countermeasures against global
warming, e.g., nuclear energy,
 Risk communication
 Impact of earthquake/seismicity to CCS and impact of injected CO2 to
seismicity
 Model benchmarking
 Evaluation of CCS storage potential of Japan
 Development of CCS roadmap in Japan
 Benefit of CCS for stakeholders
10Japanese Knowledge
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts

Knowledge Sharing among Experts
Practice of knowledge sharing
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Knowledge
sharing
Knowledge users
Why “knowledge providers” do not
provide their knowledge?
Why “knowledge users” do not use
knowledge provided?
Knowledge providers
Too
busy
Not
worthwhile
Don’t
want to be
criticized
Registration
procedure is
cumbersome
Not sure
what is
needed
Only if all
the others
do
Difficult to
find what I
really need
Don’t know
how to find
Some of
them are not
consistent
Too
superficial
Cannot be used
unless rationale
is given
Knowledge acquisition process
has to be easy and casual
Knowledge base has to be
reliable and user-friendly

Integration of multidisciplinary knowledge
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Compilation of information
 Unstructured
 Minimal quality control
Knowledge
acquisition
GCCSI Digital Platform
Comments
Documents Links
Multimedia contents
Knowledge base
 Integrated
 Structured
 Quality assured
Facilitator and support team
Use of
knowledge
Community learning
Creative collaboration

Structuring knowledge into argumentation model
 Argumentation model
 Arguments, evidence and criticisms that were identified through
on-line discussion were structured to form an argumentation
model.
 Evidence and references
 Commercial software (MindMap produced by MindJet) allows users to
link information in a variety of file types and also link to external web
sites.
 On-line version
 Interactive version of the argumentation model was also developed as a
nested set of HTML documents with hyperlinks.
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts

Argumentation model supporting implementation
of CCS in Japan
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
A. Why do we need to
reduce carbon dioxide
emissions to prevent
global warming?
B What kind of
technology is
involved in CCS?
C What are
the benefits
of CCS?
D Are there any
hurdles in the imple-
mentation of CCS or
problems that may
arise during imple-
mentation?
E What other
measures can
reduce global
warming?
Carbon dioxide capture and
storage (CCS) is an effective
technique for reducing the
risk of global warming.
MECE structure to communicate the big picture and the finer but
important details at the same time
Top two levels of the argumentation model

of CCS in Japan
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
C.1.1 Using model predic-
tions for future energy use
and economic activity on a
global scale, the most
cost-effective method to
reduce carbon dioxide
emissions to target level
(for example, to stabilize
the concentration of CO2
at 550ppm, which is
approximately twice the
concentration before the
Industrial Revolution), will
include a combination of
measures including CCS.
In some models, CCS
could be a main measure
contributing to reduction of
global warming.
C.1.2 A similar model has
been used for Japan and
CCS is one of the major
measures for emission
reduction scenarios.
C.1 By combining CCS
with other measures, a
large reduction in car-
bon emissions can be
achieved, which will
mitigate global warming.
C.2.1 CCS can reduce the
emissions of carbon dioxide
from large sources like factories
and power plants that account
for 80% of the carbon dioxide
generated by fossil fuel use.
Therefore, it can contribute to
the effective use of fossil fuels.
C.2.2 Renewable energy such as
solar and wind power is dependent
on weather conditions. So, even if
the proportion of such renewable
energy power generation increas-
es, a stable backup power supply
that is not influenced by extreme
weather is needed. By securing
fossil fuel generation capacity while
reducing carbon dioxide emissions
by CCS, the stable supply of
energy needed for industry and
modern lifestyle can be supplied.
C.2.3 Other than power
generation, fossil fuels are used
in industries such as steel and
cement production; renewable
energy does not currently
provide alternatives for
these. By utilising CCS, these
industries can continue to use
fossil fuels (with reduced
carbon dioxide emissions) .
C.2 When implementing CCS,
carbon dioxide emissions will be
reduced while simultaneously
continuing to use fossil fuels, so
CCS can contribute to a stable
energy supply as well as effective
use of resources available.
C.3.1 To promote large-
scale energy conservation,
there is a need to change
habits and lifestyle dramati-
cally. Also, to implement
major expansion of renew-
able energy sources such
as solar and wind power, it
is necessary to change
industry structures and
infrastructures.
C.3.2 CCS can be imple-
mented in parallel to
energy-saving, allowing
measures against global
warming to be implemented
quickly and time won to
allow slower adaption to
larger social changes.
C.3 Because CCS is a
technology compatible with
current industry structures
and infrastructure, changes
in lifestyle due to its adoption
are minor and can be
implemented carefully and
slowly compared to other
global warming adaptions or
counter-measures.
C.4.1 One of the character-
istics of CCS when com-
pared with other global
warming measures, is that it
can be combined with
infrastructure relating to
current energy sources, so
the existing facilities and
equipment can be reused.
This is one of the factors
that contributes to the price
competitiveness of CCS.
C.4.2 In the model for future
energy use and economic
activity on a global scale, by
incorporating CCS as part of
the global warming counter-
measures, the cost is
reduced by around 30%
when compared to alterna-
tive nuclear power and
renewable energy options.
C.4 By incorporating CCS
as one of the global warm-
ing measures, global
warming can be reduced at
less cost than
measures without CCS.
C.5.1 Plants absorb
carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere in the pro-
cess of
growth. Therefore, if
carbon dioxide emitted
from biomass fuels can be
separated/captured and
geologically stored, in-
crease in CO2 concentra-
tion can be suppressed,
and can also result in a
decrease in net CO2.
C.5 The combination of
CCS and the use of
biomass energy can
result in a net reduction
in carbon dioxide levels,
not only to suppress the
increase in CO2 con-
centration.
C What are the benefits of CCS?

of CCS in Japan
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
D.1.1 There are only a few people who
understand CCS, so can consensus be
gained for a big push of CCS?
D.1.2 Although CSS could be a good
measure against global warming, could
it be the case that few municipalities
would actually support it?
D.1.3 The fundamental solution to
global warming could be formulated as
the transformation to a recycling
society using renewable energy. How-
ever, since carbon dioxide emissions
can be reduced to some extent even
with the use of fossil fuels by CCS, this
may slow down such a fundamental
transformation of society. On this
ethical basis, could it be argued that
CCS should not be implemented?
D.1 Are there any hurdles in
the implementation of CCS?
D.2.1 Would carbon dioxide leakage
cause impacts on the people and
environment nearby?
D.2.2 CCS is a new technology with
little accumulated experience and
achievements, are there any
possibilities of huge accidents?
D.2 Are there any detrimental health
effects that could be caused by CCS?
D.3.1 CCS will use extra energy and
extra fossil fuel will be used, so is this
an argument against implementation?
D.3.2 Would there be a rise in cost of
electricity if CCS is implemented?
D.3.3 If carbon dioxide leakage
occurs, would it nullify its purpose
as a countermeasure against
global warming?
D.3.4 Would waste be produced as a
result of the CSS plan?
D.3 Are there any problems relating
to efficiency and cost of CCS?
D.4.1 Large scale implementation of
CCS in Japan, especially geological
storage. is difficult due to little
experience with oil and natural gas
fields, so can CCS become a
significant global warming counter-
measures for Japan?
D.4.2 In seismically active country
like Japan, is it not difficult to
implement the CSS plan, in
particular, assuring safety of
geological storage?
D.4 Would there be any special
issues when implementing the CSS
plan in Japan?
D Are there any hurdles in
the implementation of CCS or
problems that may arise
during implementation?
Detailed argumentation
model to follow (see next
slide)

Detailed argumentation model for “The Chuetsu earthquake was not
induced by CO2 injection at the Nagaoka test site”
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Chuetsu region is in Niigata-Kobe
Tectonic Zone and earthquakes have
occurred repeatedly in the past.
M. Mizokami (2004), Understand-
ing mechanism of Chuetsu
earthquake (in Japanese)
Chuetsu earthquake was caused by a
reverse fault movement whose
orientation is typical in the area.
Earthquakes of the same type as
Chuestsu have occurred repeatedly in
the same region in the past
Micro-seismicity pattern ob-
served by Association for the
Development of Earthquake
prediction near the injection well
before and after CO2 injection
showed the same statistical
characteristics.
The Mining and Materials
Processing Institute of
Japan (2008), Under-
ground storage of CO2
Chetsu earthquake broke out on
23rd October 2004 while CO2
injection was continued be-
tween July 2003 and January
2005. However, taking into
account that earthquakes of the
same type have occurred
repeatedly in the same region in
the past, it does not necessarily
suggest that there was a causal
relationship.
There is no clear temporal
correlation between CO2
injection and Chuetsu
earthquake
www.rite.or.jp/Japanese/project/tityu/nagaoka.html
The injection well is 22 km away from the epicenter.
Epicenter of Chuetsu earthquake was not in the
vicinity (~ 5 km) of the injection well.
M. Mizokami (2004), Understanding mechanism of
Chuetsu earthquake (in Japanese)
The Mining and Materials Processing Institute of
Japan (2008), Underground storage of CO2
Depth of the epicenter was around 10 km while the
injection depth was 1.1 km.
There was no earthquake observed at
or near the injection depth.
Epicenter is much deeper than the injection depth and it is
not likely for fluid of lower density to travel down there.
Accoridng to the geological cross section of the
region, the transmissive formation in which the
reservoir is located truncates at the ground surface
near the Shinano river and does not reach the
earthquake source fault.
Microseismicity measurements indicates that the injected
CO2 stayed in the vicinity of the injection well at the time
when the earthquakee brouke out.
There is no known geologic structures that may
channel flow to sites of earthquakes.
There is no clear spatial
correlation between CO2
injection and Chuetsu
earthquake
The maximum injection pressure
at the well bottom was 12.5 MPa
which is not high enough to break
the cap rock.
The reservoir was a soft rock
and its brittle failure is unlikely.
Changes in fluid pressure at well
bottoms were not sufficient to
encourage seismicity.
Numerical simulations based on a
pessimistic assumption, i.e.,
existence of a structure which is
as transmissive as the reservoir
linking the injection well and the
earthquake source fault, suggest
that pressure change at a location
20 km away from the injection well
is less than 1 kPa.
Changes in fluid pressure at
hypocentral locations were not
sufficient to encourage seismicity.
Changes in fluid pressure
due to CO2 injection were
not sufficient to encourage
seismicity.
Chuetsu earthquake was not
induced by CO2 injection at
Nagaoka test site

Communicating Scientific Knowledge with Public
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Steps for developing communication methodologies to fill identified gaps

Knowledge gaps
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
As a preliminary step for this task, it was imperative to analyze existing studies on public
acceptance of CCS to further recognize why the public considers CCS a risk.
Percentage of respondents (N = 654) who did not agree, who did
not know, or who agreed with each technical mental concept and
belief about CCS (Wallquist et al., 2010)
The public’s understanding of carbon dioxide
(CO2) (Itaoka et al., 2013)
Identified key knowledge gaps
 General understanding of climate change
 CCS as a prioritized climate change mitigation measure
compared to other technologies
 Storage mechanisms or characteristics of underground
formation as a CO2 storage reservoir
 Characteristics of CO2, including what “supercritical”
CO2 looks like ➡Focused in Phase 3

Risk communication and/or science communication
 Risk Communication (RC)
 “An interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals,
groups, and institutions, including discussion about risk types and levels and about
methods for managing risks. Specifically, this process is defined by levels of
involvement in decisions, actions, or policies aimed at managing or controlling
health or environmental risks.” (NRC, 1989)
 Science Communication (SC)
 “It may be defined in broad terms as: the popularization of science. In practical
terms this means distilling the results of scientific enquiry (which are usually
published in papers or books conforming to the conventions and practices of
scientific writing) into a form that is readily understood by the public.” (Davis, 2010)
 Similarities
 Undertaken in a normal situation, not in an urgent condition or crisis
 Involve interactive communication between the person providing information and
the person receiving information
 Differences
 RC between the risk manager/regulator and the stakeholder aims at supporting
decisions while SC expedite understanding of scientific basis (although the
borderlines are not always clear).
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward
Knowledge with Public

Lessons learnt in Phase 2 and objectives of Phase 3
 Experience and lessons learnt in Phase 2
 The dry run of FGI in Phase 2 focused to obtain useful information for
CCS risk communication.
 Some participants commented that they cannot judge the safety of CCS
because the scientific aspects of CCS are difficult for them to grasp.
 This indicates the need to incorporate scientific information into
communication in order to reinforce CCS risk communication.
 Objectives of Phase 3
 To compare the effects of RC and SC taking into account of the
characteristics of each methodology
 To explore optimal means of combining risk and science communication
dialogs
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Key elements of science communication
 Storytelling
 The power of storytelling lies in its “narrative effect”.
 Manifests itself by increasing attention and eliciting faster and fuller
comprehension of information (Norris et al., 2005).
 Engaging
 Essential to attract attention to the information being conveyed. The way
the information is packaged matters.
 Communication design is vital.
 Enhancing creativity
 Creativity of the communicator in the way he or she delivers the story
will affect its reception.
 Creative nonfiction combines literary styles and techniques to create
factually accurate narratives.
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Platforms for science communication
 Science café
 Science café is a technique where experts and the public can
communicate about science technology in a casual atmosphere..
 The expert provides information, followed by questions, answers, and
discussion with the public for one hour. The forum is led by a facilitator.
 Effective tool for direct interactive communication between experts and
the public.
 Science gallery
 Show space for the public to learn and think about basic science
information
 Through the display of panels and models and the help of a
communicator, people can obtain explanations individually, exchange
information, and express their opinions.
 Webs and brochures
 Japan CCS produced a manga-style creative fiction publication.
 The US DOE presents a video titled “Carbon in Underground”.
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Dry run in Phase 3
 Objective
 To provide the public with limited CCS knowledge with an opportunity
for science communication and risk communication regarding CCS.
 To explore an effective communication methodology.
 Methodology to integrate science communication and
risk communication
 Interactive communication
• Continued dialogue
• Feedback to subsequent meetings
• Q & A session with experts
• Balanced information package
 Incorporation of science communication techniques
• Science Café on global warming
• Experiments regarding trapping mechanisms
• Cartoon to explain the fate of CO2 underground
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Dry run procedure
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward
 Participants: Six non-working housewives in their thirties and forties living in
the Tokyo metropolitan
 No/little knowledge on CCS and average attitudes toward global warming
(evaluation based on the Internet preliminary survey)

First survey
 Baseline assessment
 Provision of information that is generally available on TV and internet
 All participants demonstrated only a vague understanding of CCS,
underground storage in particular.
 Skeptical about CCS in general.
• Concerns on storage capacity and risk of earthquake
• “Since CO2 is invisible, we cannot know if it is being stored or not.”
• Distrust for the words “safely” and “permanently.”
 Increased understanding after showing the GCCSI website
• However, certain technical terms hindered their understanding.
• Questions remained because their “whys” were not answered.
 Q&A session with an expert
 Expert answered questions asked by participants and provided a
complementary explanation in a Q&A session.
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Second survey
 Science Café on global warming
 Explanation Q&A sessions using a brochure created by the Ministry of
Environment
 Differences or inconsistencies found between participants’ intuition and
the facts. Such gaps were filled through dialogue.
 The Science Café was well received by participants and their
awareness was enhanced.
 Explanation and Q&A sessions on necessity of CCS
 Necessity of CCS was explained using information package based on
the argumentation model.
 Some participants still had negative perceptions concerning CCS: they
did not understand its mechanisms and were doubtful as they had heard
only its positive aspects.
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Third survey
 Explanation and Q&A sessions by an expert in CCS and
underground characteristics
 Questions about the effects of CO2 on the human body, injection
methods, stabilization after injection and earthquake effects.
 Expert’s answers improved sense of safety.
• “Since unexpected issues may occur in any situation, I don’t believe it is
100% safe. However, I understand that it is almost safe.”
• “We would not bring ourselves to listen to such a detailed explanation of
CCS if we did not recognize its necessity.”
 Underground storage mechanism (Experiment and associated
explanation)
 CO2 trapping mechanism was illustrated with a cartoon and experiments.
 Participants’ understanding of the underground storage mechanism was.
 Experiments were more highly appreciated by the participants than
cartoons that are abstracted and, possibly, biased.
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Experiment 1 “Let’s compare an impermeable formation
and storage formation! “
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Experiment 2 “CO2 trapped in the pore spaces…what does
it look like?”
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Experiment 3 “Let’s make sparkling water by dissolving
CO2 in water!”
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Experiment 4 “What happens when CO2 settles? ”
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward

Results of the post-survey questionnaire
Network
Knowledge Sharing
among Experts
Way Forward
“Interest” and “Understanding” “Effectiveness” and “Acceptance”

Webinar : A CCS communications framework developed by the Japanese Knowledge Network - Lessons learnt and a way forward

Webinar : A CCS communications framework developed by the Japanese Knowledge Network - Lessons learnt and a way forward

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Webinar : A CCS communications framework developed by the Japanese Knowledge Network - Lessons learnt and a way forward

Similaire à Webinar : A CCS communications framework developed by the Japanese Knowledge Network - Lessons learnt and a way forward (20)

Plus de Global CCS Institute

Plus de Global CCS Institute (20)

Dernier

Dernier (8)

Webinar : A CCS communications framework developed by the Japanese Knowledge Network - Lessons learnt and a way forward