Socio-economic impacts of low-carbon power generation portfolios: Strategies with and without CCS for the Netherlands

Highlights: • We compare GHG mitigation policy including or excluding CCS on socio-economic impacts for the Netherlands. • We simulate these policy options in a global multiregional Input-Output Model with detailed bottom-up technology data. • Economy-wide differentials between these mitigation policies are small for Employment, GDP and Imports. • Notable impacts are found for the energy sector and some upstream sectors (natural gas, construction). • This pattern shows to base a choice on macroeconomic impacts is hard and it will affect strong and vested interests. - Abstract: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) could be an interesting option to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands. This study compares a mitigation strategy for the Dutch power sector that includes CCS to one without on several socio-economic indicators. In particular, we calculate incremental gross value added (GVA), employment and import dependency impacts of two such low-carbon power production portfolios for the Netherlands. We combine technology specific techno-economic bottom-up data with a macro-economic multi-regional Input-Output-Table containing high sectoral detail. For the total economy, we find the differences between these scenarios to be small. Still, gross value added, and employment are lower under the CCS-inclusive strategy, while import dependency is higher. For the power sector, the differences between the scenarios are, however, considerable. Furthermore, our analysis shows that also for other sectors the differences between the scenarios could be large. For instance, a CCS-exclusive strategy leads to considerably higher GVA and employment in domestic construction services, while the CCS-inclusive strategy comes with considerably higher GVA and employment for natural gas mining and related upstream sectors.