CCS technological innovation system dynamics in Norway

on CCS innovation dynamics, which we suggest approaching as a socio-technical change process. To better understand this process, we draw on the sustainability transitions research field and employ the Technological Innovation System (TIS) framework to study the CCS innovation system in Norway. We find that, overall, the Norwegian CCS TIS displays systemic weaknesses for example in the form of market formation and resource mobilization, yet recent developments suggest a relatively positive momentum for this technological field which is key to meeting Norwegian and global climate mitigation targets.


Introduction
CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) technology is vital to most net-zero transition scenarios and is especially important in many hard-to-abate sectors such as energy-intensive processing industries and the waste sector (Bui et al., 2018;IEA, 2013IEA, , 2020)).Although CO 2 capture is technically possible, key challenges for realizing CCS persist.These challenges include securing financing, low carbon prices, developing transport and storage infrastructure, insufficient regulatory frameworks and policy measures, public acceptance, and legitimacy.Over the past decade, CCS has taken a new direction with more focus on application in energy-intensive industries rather than the energy sector, as well as captured CO 2 utilization (GCCSI, 2021).For CCS value chains to materialize, implementation thus needs to occur amongst an array of sectors with different actors, innovation modes, adaptation pressure, institutions, and policy regimes, and with capacities for accommodating this decarbonisation solution.
There has so far been limited social science research on CCS innovation dynamics, which we approach as a process of socio-technical change (Markard et al., 2012).Conceptually, this implies understanding innovation as resulting from co-evolutionary development of technologies, networks of actors, and institutions, influenced by various contextual factors.Existing empirical research on CCS innovation dynamics has also mainly been limited to one or a few sectoral contexts (such as oil and gas (O&G)), whereas there is now a need to understand broader industrial transformation processes within and across different sectors where CCS can contribute to decarbonization (Andersen et al., 2023).Hence, there is a need for analyses of CCS innovation dynamics, and the technological, socio-political, sectoral, and geographical conditions likely to influence the development and diffusion of this decarbonization solution.
This paper thus aims to contribute to the extant social science literature on CCS by employing the technological innovation system (TIS) as analytical framework (Bergek et al., 2015;Bergek et al., 2008b;Hekkert et al., 2007).TIS is a key framework in the (socio-technical) sustainability transitions (ST) research field (Markard, 2020).Following the standard 'script' of TIS analysis we identify the main structural building blocks (actors, networks, institutions) of the CCS innovation system, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of core innovation system functions.We employ this framework to ask what are the strengths and weaknesses of the CCS innovation system in Norway?Our analysis is based on a qualitative research design with primary data generated from semi-structured interviews, workshops, as well as various secondary sources, including industry reports, scientific literature, policy documents, newspaper articles and company websites.
Our motivation for focusing on Norway is that Norway is considered a CCS frontrunner country globally (GCCSI, 2023;Wettestad et al., 2023;Hansen et al., 2024).Understanding developments in Norway can be important for stakeholders in other countries, where CCS developments have not come equally far.There has furthermore been limited previous research from an innovation studies point of view on CCS.Exceptions include CCS innovation system analysis in South Africa (Ko et al., 2021), China (Lai et al., 2012), whereas van Alphen et al. (2009) performed a TIS-study of CCS in Norway around 15 years ago.At that time, however, the world of CCS looked very different in Norway and elsewhere (GCCSI, 2023), implying that the time is ripe for an update.
Initial implementation of CCS in Norway occurred in the mid-1990s, when CO 2 capture from produced natural gas implemented at the offshore Sleipner gas field, with subsequent geological storage (Furre et al., 2017).In 2024, one of the world's first full-scale CCS value chains designed to receive CO 2 captured from land-based industry is being finalized in Norway (Longship project).The storage site will be able to receive CO 2 from several countries, in addition to the CO 2 that will be captured from one cement plant and one waste-to-energy plant domestically.To provide some context and comparison, and because innovation systems transcend national boundaries (Binz and Truffer, 2017), we also pay attention to international developments, particularly in Northern Europe.
CCS is central to decarbonization of European industry, and carbon storage is one of eight key strategy areas within the newly announced Net-Zero Industry Act (European Commission, 2023).While Norway has not set a specific target for emission reductions using CCS, nor for storage (including imported CO 2 ), CCS is a key pillar in national energy and climate policy.Indeed, the most recent White Paper (OED, 2021;116-117) on energy states that "Norway can play an important role in developing CCS as a climate solution", given its current leading position in this technology area, suitable offshore geological storage, and considerable experience with development of capture technology.This makes it important to assess whether CCS innovation dynamics are indeed positive, or whether there are obstacles that need to be resolved for this decarbonization solution to deliver as needed.
In the next section, we briefly present the socio-technical transitions research field and our analytical framework.In Section 3, we describe our methods and data.Our empirical findings are presented and analysed in Section 4, followed by a discussion in Section 5 and conclusions in Section 6.

Analytical framework: the technological innovation system (TIS) approach
The sustainability transitions (ST) research field has emerged over the last couple of decades and has become highly influential in analysing transformations towards more sustainable forms of production and consumption, and in terms of articulating recommendations to decision makers (Markard et al., 2012).This has also been recognized in recent work by for instance the IPCC (2022).Key ST frameworks build on earlier work in innovation studies, evolutionary economics, and science and technology studies.ST research is especially concerned with how current socio-technical systems that provide key societal services (e.g., energy, mobility, food, natural resources) can become more sustainable.In general, sustainability transitions in such sectors are typically hindered by path dependencies, and various technological, economic, political, institutional and cultural barriers to change.
Technological innovation systems (TIS) (Bergek et al., 2008b;Hekkert et al., 2007;Johnson, 2001) is one of the key ST frameworks.It is most notably mobilized to better understand innovation dynamics associated with (novel) technologies (such as CCS) that can contribute to enhancing sustainability of for instance the production and/or consumption of energy (Bergek et al., 2015;Markard et al., 2012).While our main aims with the analysis are empirical rather than conceptual, our case study offers a contribution to the ST literature (and the TIS approach in particular) by considering how CCS innovation system dynamics are influenced by political, sectoral and geographical context (Bergek et al., 2015).We also include a TIS function (see below) that has received limited attention, namely materialization (Bergek et al., 2008c).We consider materialization highly relevant for CCS because of the necessity of large-scale investments in physical infrastructure (Geels et al., 2023).
A TIS is comprised of three main structural building blocks: actors, networks, and institutions.Actors may include industry, academia, government bodies, standard setting agencies and so forth.According to the framework, actors form informal (e.g., in joint problem-solving) and formal (e.g., cluster organisations) networks through interactions.Such interactions occur under distinct (sets of) institutional infrastructures.Actors and institutional infrastructures are inherently dynamic (Bergek, 2019), with changing composition of actors and development of institutions as a TIS matures.
A comprehensive description of the structural composition of a TIS can reveal system-level failures or weaknesses, for instance related to lack of actors, weak networks, or institutional bottlenecks.As argued by Jacobsson and Bergek (2004, 819) "…there is no reason to expect a particular system structure to be related to the performance of a technological [innovation] system in a clear and unambiguous way."Therefore, understanding whether or not a novel technology or technological field (such as CCS) has a positive momentum, or not, in terms of attracting resources, upscaling, user adoption and so on requires attention to key innovation system resource formation processes (Bergek et al., 2008a).Such processes are referred to as TIS functions and listed in Table 1.
Functions are interconnected via complex feedback loops and may be difficult to separate analytically.For example, while a novel technology (e.g., a type of carbon capture technology) may be based on a solid knowledge foundation and technically proven, lack of legitimacy may hinder resource and market formation, and impede the direction of search function amongst prospective technology adopters (Suurs and Hekkert, 2009).TIS analysis should seek to illustrate such interdependencies between the performance of functions.
Most often, TIS studies assess the conditions for development and diffusion of novel technologies in the context of particular sectors, for example energy (Kebede and Mitsufuji, 2017), shipping (Bach et al., 2020(Bach et al., , 2021) ) or steel production (Kushnir et al., 2020).However, a TIS will often involve several sectors, which more recently has been acknowledged in TIS value-chain approaches (Andersen and Markard, 2020;Stephan et al., 2017;van Welie et al., 2019).CCS is currently on the agenda in a whole range of sectors that need to decarbonize (e.g., cement, steel, energy, plastics), and several sectors are involved in the transport (e.g., shipping, oil and gas (O&G)) and storage (e.g., mining, O&G) of captured CO 2 (GCCSI, 2022a).
This multi-sector feature of CCS technology development and implementation underscores on the one hand the need for considering how innovation system dynamics are influenced by sectoral, sociopolitical and geographical contexts (Bergek et al., 2015).While CCS has a relatively long history in the context of the O&G sector, its application in other sectors is by and large only emerging (GCCSI, 2022b;Paltsev et al., 2021).Indeed, in a previous TIS analysis of CCS in Norway by van Alphen et al. (2009), the sectoral context was exclusively O&G and fossil energy sectors.Also in Normann's (2017) study of policy networks associated with CCS in Norway up until 2007, the sectoral context was solely petroleum-related.This diffusion of CCS to other emission sectors means for instance that different elements of (potential) CCS value chains may vary considerably in their maturity (Coninck and Benson, 2014).On the other hand, the increasing involvement of actors from different sectoral and geographical contexts demands attention to similarities and differences in how CCS is approached and perceived, and what this means for technology development and diffusion (Finstad and Andersen, 2023).By assessing strengths and weaknesses (e.g., specific bottlenecks), this analysis allows for the formulation of detailed policy recommendations on how to strengthen the CCS innovation system and thus increase the feasibility of technology implementation.

Methods and data
Our objective in this paper is to analyse what characterises CCS innovation dynamics in Norway.To this avail we employ a mixedmethods research design with emphasis on qualitative methods and triangulation with different empirical material, which is common in TISbased research (Bergek, 2019).While both TIS structural and functional characteristics to some extent can be assessed quantitatively (e.g., numbers of types of actors, patents, research projects, financing), qualitative methods are needed to capture actors' sensemaking and perceptions of complex, ongoing phenomena.
Our main source of (primary) data stems from 19 semi-structured interviews conducted during 2020-2022 (see Appendix 1 for an overview).Our informants represent Norwegian firms engaged in CCS, as well as public actors, NGOs and cluster and interest organisations.Informants typically hold managerial positions (e.g., CEO, CFO, CCO for private sector actors).Interview guides were based on the TIS framework and were thus designed to identify core TIS structural components and assessment of functions.Most interviews were conducted online via Teams or Zoom (mainly due to the COVID-19 pandemic), and subsequently transcribed a verbatim.All interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide based on the TIS framework, which was adapted to individual informants depending on the organisation (e.g.firm or public entity) they represented, as well as their role and position.A generic version of the interview guide with key pointers to different topics is provided in Appendix 5.
Interview transcripts were qualitatively coded in NVivo 1 using a provisional coding strategy, where codes were determined a priori using a defined analytical approach based on the TIS framework.Coding was done in two phases.First, a coding template was developed using the TIS framework (i.e., identifying TIS structural components, TIS functions (see, Table 1), and TIS context conditions).This template was tested through a pilot coding round whereby two authors coded the same interview, to ensure alignment in understanding and interpretation across the author team.Subsequently, we made minor adjustments of the coding template and clearer specification of different codes.The pilot coding nonetheless showed large agreement in terms of coding between analysts, and in the second phase interviews were coded individually by five of the authors.Analysis memos of content under the most important codes were drafted, which then formed the basis for developing the results section.Examples of illustrative quotes underpinning our assessments of TIS functions are provided in Appendix 4.
To enhance the robustness of the empirical analysis, we also relied on other (secondary) sources of data, including on scientific publishing (i.e.bibliometrics) and patenting, which are useful indicators on knowledge development (Bergek et al., 2008b).We also used notes and observations from a workshop (December 2021) with advisory board members to the CaptureX research project, who in different capacities (i.e., representing technology developers, technology users, public sector actors, research and development (R&D) institutes, universities, environmental NGO) are knowledgeable about CCS.Lastly, tentative results were presented in a workshop (September 2022) on CCS with several industry and public sector actors present, and feedback was used to update and validate findings.

Research setting
Our analysis covers the entire CCS value chain, which has three main segments: capture, transport and storage.The capture segment comprises a range of different technological variants, usually categorized as being either pre-, post-, or oxy-fuel combustion.Choice of capture technology is contingent on particularities of application domain, for instance in the form of flue gas composition or overall process set-up.Captured CO 2 can be transported by different means (e.g., ships, pipelines) and in different forms (e.g., compressed, liquefied).Storage of CO 2 can also be done in different ways.In the Northern Lights project, CO 2 is permanently stored in subsea geological formations (aquifers).
The first instances of CCS implementation in Norway occurred in

F5 Legitimation
The process of gaining regulative, normative and cognitive legitimacy for the new technology, its proponents and the TIS as such in the eyes of relevant stakeholders, i.e., increasingly being perceived as complying with rules and regulations, societal norms and values and cognitive frames.

Development of positive externalities
The creation of system-level utilities (or resources), such as pooled labour markets, complementary technologies and specialized suppliers, which are available also to system actors that did not contribute to building them up.

F7 Materialization
The actual realization of physical components or infrastructure of a technology value chain.

F8
1 Nvivo is a software used for qualitative text analysis.
1996 at the Sleipner gas field (1Mt CO 2 capture per annum), and in 2008 on the Snøhvit natural gas processing complex (700t CO 2 capture per annum).A key driver for this was the Norwegian CO 2 -tax for the O&G operators on the Norwegian Continental Shelf that came into force in 1991, with the primary aim of cost-efficient CO 2 emission reductions from petroleum activities (Norwegian Government, 2020).It should be noted that neither on Sleipner nor on Snøhvit the captured CO 2 is used for enhanced gas recovery (EGR), but permanently stored in separate subsea geological formations.
In 2006, the Government at the time launched the plan for a fullscale CCS project on a (natural gas) combined heat and power plant and refinery at Mongstad.This followed more than a decade of political debate concerning the building of natural gas power plants in Norway, where the dispute basically concerned whether or not to consent natural gas power with or without large CO 2 emissions (Normann, 2017).In 2005, the public entity Gassnova was established under the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.Together with the Research Council of Norway, Gassnova has administered the CLIMIT research and demonstration funding programme for CCS.In the period 2009-2012, the CCS-dedicated Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) was established.While TCM remains in operation, the Mongstad CCS project was cancelled in 2013 due to considerable uncertainty regarding costs of the amine capture plants as well as transport and storage parts of the project, and also uncertainty concerning the future of the Mongstad refinery.A new Government strategy was launched in 2014, which was followed by various feasibility studies (including with various emitters).In 2020 the full-scale demonstration project Longship was launched, with two capture sites (Hafslund Oslo Celsio's waste incineration plant, and Heidelberg Materials' cement plant), and transport of CO 2 by ships to storage in a saline aquifer on the continental shelf of Western Norway.Subsequently (and partly in parallel), several industrial actors have launched plans for CCS in Norway, notably in mature industrial regions, but also greenfield projects.No investment decision on implementing capture technology have however been made beyond Longship as of May 2024.On the whole, however, Norway has few large CO 2 emitters compared with most other countries around the North Sea (Winje et al., 2021). 2 For CO 2 storage actors, the ambition is therefore to provide CO 2 offtake for emitters abroad.CO 2 storage licenses were awarded in 2019 (1), 2022 (2) and 2023 (2), and have thus increased sharply in numbers.However, it will take some years for potential new storage sites to become operational.

Results
In this section, we present our findings from the analysis of CCS TIS structural components and functions, 3 with emphasis on the latter.While the empirical focus is on Norway, we see these 'national' developments in a broader geographical context.Although we provide some indication of how CCS innovation dynamics have developed our time, the empirical results are presented mainly in the form of a temporal snapshot (i.e.status as of 2022).

Actors
The Norwegian CCS TIS comprises a broad and increasing range of actors including technology users, technology providers, universities and research institutes, government bodies and agencies, as well as environmental NGOs and industry associations.Firms include a mix of established companies (several of them related to the O&G industry), many of which are amongst the largest in Norway (such as Equinor).In addition, several specialized start-ups, joint ventures, and spin-offs have emerged, offering various technologies and services related to CCS.The research institute SINTEF and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), both located in Trondheim, play a prominent role in research and knowledge development.There are several regional clusters working on CCS (e.g., Eyde, Borg, Midt-Norge), some of which are dedicated exclusively to CCS and receive support from the national cluster program.A particular feature of the Norwegian CCS TIS is the strong presence of environmental NGOs such as Bellona and ZERO that actively work to promote CCS.Several public actors have been central in the development of CCS innovation in Norway, including Gassnova and the Research Council of Norway providing research funding through notably the CLIMIT program, and the largely publicly owned Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) being a key test site for CCS technologies.

Networks
In terms of networks, interviewees point to various types of networks of both regional, national and international nature.Many of these networks are related to R&D, such as the large-scale research centre FME NCCS with both national and international participating actors.Industry clusters are as mentioned also involved in different types of activities related to CCS, and are found in different parts of the country.The Longship project is seen to enrol different types of actors into CCS and to facilitate collaboration across both sectors and countries.The Zero Emission Platform (technical advisor to the EU on CCS and CCU deployment) is also frequently mentioned as an important network influencing CCS developments.Various joint ventures have been established, including in the transport segment and to produce for instance blue ammonia and/or hydrogen from natural gas.The most prominent joint venture is the Northern Lights partnership (Equinor, Total, Shell), which handles the commercial operation of transport and storage in connection to the Longship project.

Institutions
As regards institutions, TIS analysis typically distinguish formal and informal institutions as well as policies that influence innovation dynamics.In terms of informal institutions, CCS is generally considered a feasible option for decarbonization in Norway, at least from a technical point of view.There is no strong opposition, neither from the public or civil society, and there is broad political agreement that CCS is important for Norway to meet its climate obligations (Tjernshaugen, 2011;Wettestad et al., 2023).In Europe and globally, acceptance appears to be much more mixed (Wesche et al., 2023;Whitmarsh et al., 2019).As regards formal institutions and policies, informants frequently mention the EU emission trading system (ETS), which Norway is also part of, as not offering sufficient support to CCS and also having uncertain future price levels.Norway's CO 2 tax, which was introduced already in 1991 and became a key driver of CCS implementation at both the Sleipner (since 1996) and Snøhvit (2008) gas projects (van Alphen et al., 2009), can potentially stimulate CCS deployment as a complementary financial incentive to the ETS.In the Norwegian context, there are no specific legal hindrances related to offshore CO 2 storage.However, regulations concerning cross-border CO 2 transfer constitute a bottleneck for upscaling of storage in Norway.This appears to be high on the political agenda, and informants deem this institutional bottleneck as solvable.

Knowledge development and diffusion (F1)
Informants describe how Norway has a long history of developing CCS expertise (see Fig. 1), beginning with the Sleipner and Snøhvit natural gas fields on the Norwegian Continental Shelf in 1996 and 2008, respectively.Key R&D performing actors include the research institute SINTEF, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and 2 According to Winje et al. (2021), Norway only has 9 onshore emitters with more than 400 tCO 2 emissions per annum, whereas 23 with emissions in the 100-400 400 tCO 2 emissions per annum range. 3See more examples of interview data addressing the functions of the TIS in Appendix 4.
M. Steen et al.
companies such as Equinor and Aker.This is illustrated by Table 2, which provides an overview of main Norwegian actors engaged in scientific publishing on CCS: SINTEF and NTNU have by far the largest publication activity, followed by the universities of Bergen, Oslo and Stavanger.
In terms of scientific publishing in Norway on topics related to CCS, there has been a steady increase over the last decade or so, as in most other North Sea countries.The number of publications with Norwegianaffiliated authors has increased from 15 in 2010 to 115 in 2022 (Fig. 2).Compared to the other North Sea countries, the increase in Norwegian publication activity has been higher than in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK, but lower than in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden (see Appendix 3, Fig. I).
Another indicator of knowledge development is patenting.Technical CCS knowledge development began in the O&G industry with commercial considerations to use captured CO 2 to extract more oil, i.e., enhanced oil recovery (EOR). 4Since then, CCS knowledge development has moved into the energy sector (capturing emissions from natural gas and coal plants) and more recently into process industries.Energy and industrial applications thus broadened knowledge needs to include storing CO 2 permanently underground with associated transport.Knowledge development has since progressed to focus on developing novel types of capture technology that is more efficient, modular, scalable, and cost effective.
The current R&D focus on standardization and modularization of carbon capture units is facilitated by firms and research institutes and is driven by particular needs, especially in non-energy processes (see also F2, F4).When applying CCS in the sectoral context of fossil energy (for EOR, natural gas processing, or energy production), an important incentive was to reduce energy use, which thus influenced how CCS knowledge developed.In the context of energy-intensive process industries, the main impetus was rather to maximize CO 2 capture, while decreasing the size of capture units and infrastructure.Developers were driven by different goals since energy use was not as significant a barrier for these industries.
While post-combustion amine technology is the leading and most mature capture technology, and thus the chosen technology in the two most mature Norwegian CO 2 capture projects (Norcem/cement and Celsio/waste), application in different types of process industries is driving further development in alternative capture technologies.According to many informants, however, amine is currently the most feasible technology and can in many instances be retrofitted on existing plants.Other capture solutions, including post-combustion solutions not using amines but other solvents, are largely immature and may require redesign of production processes, and are thus considered more relevant on new industry plants.
Further, several informants argued that CO 2 capture should be integrated into industrial value chains (i.e.utilization of CO 2 ), and thereby  implementation, and also due to actors protecting their IPR.The EU ECCSEL initiative, 5 a platform for knowledge sharing and learning, is an example of positive developments in this regard.

Entrepreneurial experimentation (F2)
There is increasing experimentation (including pilot and demonstration projects) with CCS solutions, for instance in metal production.Most notably, experimentation with CCS is diversifying to multiple user sectors (Finstad and Andersen, 2023).A difference between previous and current experimentation activities is that actor and technological complexity has increased.This is especially apparent in the full-scale  CCS demonstration project Longship, covering capture in different sectors, transport (by ship) and storage.In contrast, earlier projects were typically owned and operated by one actor under one jurisdiction (Wettestad et al., 2023).
TCM, which started operating in 2012, is seen as having been important for facilitating experimentation and knowledge development (F1).This is evident in that both (post-combustion amine) capture solutions that have been chosen for the Longship project have been developed and tested at TCM.However, informants argue that TCM does not cover the needs of all (potential) CCS users due to plant-specific technology requirements (e.g., composition of flue gases).Previous experimentation has focused on CCS energy requirements, whereas in many industry contexts the entire (industrial) process needs to be considered.Space limitations in processing industry infrastructure has furthermore triggered experimentation with more compact and modular carbon capture solutions.Much real-world experimentation furthermore seems focused on amine capture technology and some actors point to the need for wider full-scale experimentation with other solutions.
Also, the public-private partnership model used for Longship, whereby the state provides substantial funding, is seen to influence the scope and types of technologies experimented with.Mainly, this manifested in the Norwegian state mandating early selection of technology suppliers, to keep costs down.This suggests some limitation with regards to experimentation with different technological although informants pointed to the choice of having two different technology suppliers (Aker and Shell, albeit both with relatively mature amine capture solutions) or the first two full-scale capture projects reflecting the state's ambition to stimulate technology variety.Thus, a policy dilemma is related to balancing costs of supporting testing and demonstration while simultaneously ensuring variety in capture technology.

Market formation (F3)
Most existing CCS facilities globally are connected to EOR.Previously, CCS was also considered an option for allowing continuing production of electricity from fossil fuels, however, this potential market has been reduced in the European context following the decline of coalfired power plants.CCS market formation is however increasing (from a low starting point) and, more importantly, changing fundamentally in terms of user sectors such as energy-intensive process industries and waste-to-energy.In Norway, full-scale capture projects (cement and waste-to-energy) are currently in development.Both these types of process industries are not likely to be moved abroad, in contrast to steel, for example.Given increases in costs of CO 2 -emissions and national commitments to carbon neutrality, CCS becomes increasingly relevant as a mitigation option in these industries.In the case of cement, interviewees reported increasing demand for less CO 2 -intensive products, while, conversely, opportunities for forwarding costs to waste customers were considered low.
Other prominent emerging markets for CCS are in the production of fertilizers and blue hydrogen.Blue hydrogen particularly appears to be on the agenda in the UK, where hydrogen holds potential as a fuel for the gas power plants needed when electricity production from renewables is low.In Norway, market development for blue hydrogen is expected on the west coast connected to use in maritime transport.
Interviewees emphasized that a main reason for the accelerating market development for CCS in Norway is development on the storage side, implying that a full value chain for CO 2 is becoming feasible.An informant stated that "it was not a problem to build a capture facility 3-4 years agothe technology was there.But what would you do with the [captured] CO 2 ?"The Longship project addresses this barrier by offering transport and large-scale geological storage (operated by Northern Lights).In turn, the decision of the Norwegian Government to invest in Longship was influenced by signals from the EU and other European countries regarding expected future developments of CCS, since the vision is to store CO 2 captured on both domestic and foreign territories.
Technology costs remain a main challenge today for market formation, but decreasing costs in turn also require increasing volume on the market sidea classical challenge when new value chains need to be developed more or less from scratch (Mäkitie et al., 2022).Economies of scale are for example significant in terms of injection into storage sites.In the Norwegian context, this underlines the importance of ensuring that the two capture projects under development are actually successful, as they are to demonstrate and facilitate learning (F1) around the functioning of a full CCS value chain.
In terms of policy instruments to facilitate increasing market formation (see also F4), interviewees argued for a need to develop a broader policy mix.Despite recent increases, ETS is considered insufficient at current price levels to stimulate CCS commercialisation, highlighting the need for additional forms of financial support such as recycling of revenues from CO 2 taxes.In addition, green procurement practices in relation to for example green cement was highlighted by interviewees as a potential important policy instrument.
Regarding future market development, interviewees also highlighted potential geographical divergence, as transport of CO 2 is facilitated by proximity to harbours.While transport of CO 2 by train, truck or even pipeline is possible, costs are higher.Naturally, an alternative for inland sources of CO 2 would be to connect to geographically proximate CO 2 users.Greenhouses are an example of an existing market for CO 2 , however, market development for CO 2 use is predominantly considered not to constitute an immediate prospect by interviewees.

Direction of search (F4)
As apparent also in other functions, a key development influencing the direction of search is the change from CCS being explored as a solution to mitigate energy sector emissions to increasingly being considered a decarbonization solution for hard-to-abate process industries.These sectors are subject to increasing pressures to decarbonize, with expected increases in carbon prices, tightening regulations, and potential reputational issues following failures to adapt.
The shift towards process industries (e.g., cement, ferroalloy, waste) and blue hydrogen has stimulated the entry of different technology suppliers and users to the CCS innovation system.As a notable share of carbon emissions in process industries originate from the production process itself (e.g., calcination in cement production), adoption of CCS is considered necessary due to lack of decarbonization alternatives for many process industry actors.The business case, however, is yet unclear (

F3). As argued by one informant, "When it comes to decarbonization [in process industry] [-] you start out with energy efficiencies. [-] Then, [-] renewable energy, and you do that. And then whatever emissions you can't handle either through shifting to renewables or with energy efficiencieswhat options do you have? You basically have carbon capture."
New capture technology suppliers aim to cater to the new potential user segments.This includes companies offering small, standardized and modularized capture technologies for smaller production units (e.g., in waste incineration), seeking to cut costs and thus target the possible new emerging markets.Further, pre-combustion capture technologies are receiving a boost from the expected demand for low-carbon hydrogen.Blue hydrogen is foreseen as a scalable hydrogen production method, which may utilize existing natural gas resources, knowledge and infrastructure.Pre-combustion method, relying on the separation of natural gas into hydrogen and CO 2 , has thus attracted attention from both technology suppliers and O&G companies.

Resource mobilization (F5)
Interviewees are slightly concerned regarding the future availability of human resources.O&G engineers can to some degree be transferred from the O&G industry to CCS relevant industries.However, many CCS experts are close to retirement, which will lead to a competence exit from the industry in the coming years.It is therefore seen as crucial to recruit young professionals to this area.Also, there is potential competition between O&G and other industries in need of CCS competence (Normann et al., 2023).Large companies seem to have the staff they need, while it has been difficult for startups within CCS to hire people with the right competences, pushing them to recruit internationally.
Concerning financial resources, informants argue that 'green financing' is plentiful (and cheap), and many CCS start-ups have been able to attract resources for exploration and early-phase development.However, a credible business model is needed to unlock access to financial markets for funding beyond technology exploration.In other words, investors are interested "but they need certainty that there will be a revenue stream", as stated by one informant.
Due to the size and capital intensity of CCS projects, major private investments are needed even when public co-funding is available.The Norwegian Longship project is a case in point.In this full-scale demonstration project, the estimated total project cost is NOK 25.1 billion of which the state covers approximately two thirds.Although many of the companies considering CCS are large international players that command vast financial resources, they are often reluctant to invest because of the inherent uncertainty about how the market will develop.For example, an overview of O&G majors' investments in low-carbon technologies in the period 2015-2020 shows that investments into CCS are dwarfed by the funding going into wind, solar, energy storage and biofuels (GWEC, 2021).Many informants mention that the EU ETS currently does not provide sufficient justification to invest in CCS, although several also argue that an (expected) increase in ETS price levels in coming years would alter this.As of 2020, ETS income is recycled into an innovation fund, which currently supports CCS projects.However, this funding source has mainly supported innovation projects, and only since 2023 the funding to construct and operate CCS facilities (EC, 2024).
Fig. 4 shows the distribution of funding for R&D, as indicated by scientific publications.In Norway, the CLIMIT program is a key source of R&D financing, with the Research Council of Norway funding basic research (CLIMIT R&D), and Gassnova funding more applied research and demonstration projects (CLIMIT demo).Over the 2005-2022 period CLIMIT supported R&D and demonstration projects with an accumulated (approx.)NOK 2.7 billion.Some of the funding from CLIMIT is also channelled to international R&D collaboration in the ACT-program (Accelerating CCS Technologies).Additional R&D funding is further provided through the Norwegian FME research centre scheme, which has so far funded three large-scale research centres on CCS (Njøs et al., 2020), and the European CCUS Research Infrastructure (ECCSEL).Such funding of also international R&D collaboration is not seen to be happening elsewhere in Europe to the same degree.
Some interviewees call for more funding for technology development because of needed cost reductions.In the most recent years domestic funding agencies Enova and Innovation Norway have provided grants to CCS projects with radical technological innovation aspects, but not to large-scale implementation without innovation.Several interviewees suggest that funding support for technology implementation could be done by creating a "climate fund" based on the CO 2 tax Norwegian firms already pay.As a more recent development, interviewees are hopeful that capture and/or storage actors can raise income from emerging voluntary carbon offsets markets (organized outside of the ETS) so that these firms become negative emission service providers.Large companies such as Microsoft and Amazon have shown interest in buying such services to meet own net-zero goals.

Legitimation (F6)
Several informants point to fluctuating legitimacy for CCS over time and across geographical and political contexts.This applies to both formal and informal legitimacy aspects.There are for example substantial differences between European countries and the US in terms of ownership of underground resources, whereby in the latter context companies can implement storage on private property.Formal obstacles for large-scale and multi-national CCS infrastructure development include the prohibition of transboundary CO 2 transfer under the London protocol, however, in general, informants appear to conceive of such legal hindrances as being solvable.
Norway is seen to differ from other countries in terms of CCS having relatively high legitimacy as a climate mitigation option, despite for instance huge budget overruns at TCM about a decade ago (Buhr and Hansson, 2011).Many of the most central Norwegian environmental NGOs have been persistent and strong proponents of CCS for a long time, whereas environmental NGOs in continental Europe tend to either be against CCS or at least not promote it.Legitimation challenges for CCS appear to relate to the fact that it is often associated with the sectors in which it first emerged, i.e., the O&G industry for EOR, and as a decarbonization solution for coal and natural gas-fired power plants.According to several informants, outside of Norway CCS is often seen as a form of greenwashing, and in the broader discourse, CCS is frequently also criticized for being a tool for mitigation delay.In Norway, CCS is certainly associated with O&G, yet it is mainly linked to promising value creation opportunities in that context, for instance in relation to potential production of blue hydrogen, despite the uncertainties regarding the actual environmental footprint of that form of hydrogen production (Howarth and Jacobson, 2021).
Yet the overall picture that emerges from our analysis is that CCS has gained considerable legitimacy in recent years principally because of increased awareness about the importance of curbing GHG emissions amongst policymakers, in industry, and amongst the public (F4).The  Paris agreement and recent reports from the IPCC and IEA are seen as contributing to having bolstered both awareness and acceptance of CCS, and technology suppliers signal that they have experienced a strong increase in interest from potential customers worldwide in recent years.
More specifically, all informants point to the fact that meeting the climate targets will require a broad range of tools and solutions, and that CCS is a necessary option for sectors such as cement and waste-toenergy.The most striking finding here is that CCS legitimation increases considerably as it moves from its initial (O&G, fossil relations) to new (i.e., waste, processing industry) user sectors.One informant stated this poignantly: "I think that has been key to achieving broader acceptance, that it's not a tool to prolong the lifetime of fossils, but to solve a global challenge." Considerations of not only scope 1 emissions but also the footprint from entire value chains (scope 2 and 3) also positively influence CCS legitimacy.Actors working to promote CCS typically argue that it is much easier to communicate the need for this mitigation solution in sectors such as cement or steel than in a fossil energy context.Nonetheless, actors involved in the development and implementation of CCS also argue that it is challenging to communicate to the general public why CCS is needed, since many of the relevant user sectors produce for other firms rather than end consumers.Some informants therefore also see the involvement of firms producing consumer goods, such as Microsoft (investing in direct air CCS), as being important for contributing to raising overall awareness and acceptance of CCS.
Informants vary in terms of how mature they consider carbon capture technology.Those representing firms that have been directly involved in CCS for a while, especially on the technology development side, generally deem the technology to be sufficiently verified.Others, especially on the user side, call for more testing and verification of CCS in different sectors and industrial plants that vary in composition of flue gases or other plant-specific features (F2).Some informants also advocate for increasing CCS innovation activity, which in a sense creates a legitimacy challenge for the more mature capture technologies as potential users may fear investing in 'yesterday's technology'.There is however consensus amongst informants that demonstration of functional full value chains for CCS is strongly needed to increase legitimacy.Several informants point to the Northern Lights and Longship projects as essential in that regard.There is also a clear need for more comprehensive verification of CO 2 storage.As one informant puts it, CO 2 storage needs "monitoring, measuring, and verifying." The current high costs nonetheless constitute a significant legitimacy challenge for CCS (see also Njøs et al. 2020).In this regard, all informants point to the need for developing more full-scale CCS projects.Some informants point to the need for framing CCS as a societal service (that solves a challenge) akin to waste, i.e., a service that is paid for rather than a service requiring subsidies.Generally, most informants point to the need for a stronger political will to create and shape markets that will allow for the implementation and upscaling of CCS.

Development of positive externalities (F7)
Positive externalities are present for the CCS TIS in several ways.Specialised suppliers are present in all segments of the value chain, however to lesser extent in transport and storage than in capture.The Norwegian CCS TIS benefits from earlier implementation of CCS in natural gas processing, especially with regards to storage, which helps reduce uncertainty.The role of early users is generally assessed to be of importance for reducing uncertainties and lowering the barriers for actors (in other sectors) to follow.
As regards positive externalities in the form of shared knowledge and experience with CCS demonstration and implementation, the picture is mixed.On the one hand, informants point to important learning that has occurred for instance at TCM and other demonstration projects.On the other hand, the scope for learning (F1) across CCS projects has limits due to the uniqueness of process industry plants (or other user sector domains) and the need for customized CCS solutions.
In terms of existing physical infrastructure, several informants point to the opportunity of utilizing existing (albeit modified) onshore and subsea natural gas infrastructure for transport of CO 2 (and hydrogen).Other informants point to potential benefits in existing gas (both fossil and bio-based) processing plants for implementing CCS solutions.

Materialization (F8)
So far internationally, CCS technology and infrastructure has primarily materialized in the O&G sector for EOR and natural gas processing.Stronger market formation is contingent on the availability of CO 2 transport and storage infrastructure.The Longship project contributes to those elements coming into place in Norway, but also internationally, as the infrastructure is made available also for customers from other countries.As part of the Northern Lights project, two CO 2 tankers are being built and are scheduled to be delivered in 2024.In addition, the Norwegian shipping company Knutsen Group has entered a joint venture with NYK from Japan to build and operate CO 2 tanker ships.The CCS market is interesting for shipping companies due to the opportunities for long-term charter contracts.Materialisation is seen as being needed to reduce uncertainties and costs (learning-by-doing).By spring of 2024, other full-scale projects beyond Longship and Northern Lights have not yet been realized in Norway.A potential challenge however for the materialization function is that large-scale infrastructure projects are often met with public resistance (Batel et al., 2013).

Discussion
Table 3 summarizes the results of the TIS functions analysis.While there have, overall, been very positive developments for CCS in Norway especially since 2020, the technological innovation system (TIS) still suffers from systemic weaknesses.This applies especially to the market formation (F3), resource mobilization (F4), and materialization (F8) functions, which is not surprising given the immaturity of this TIS.There are nonetheless largely positive albeit somewhat unclear prospects for these functions.The other functions, such as legitimation and entrepreneurial experimentation, display a more mixed and positive picture.Overall, and despite the identified systemic weaknesses, the momentum for CCS in Norway appears to be positive, not least with regards to the launch of large-scale projects and the increasing number of actors (cf.TIS structural dimensions) involved in both developing and implementing solutions across the CCS value chain.The Longship project is the most prominent example of this positive development looking forward.It also needs to be recognized that this positive recent development builds on a long chain of prior events, with for instance important knowledge development having occurred in Norway since the 1990s, and a consistently supportive policy environment despite the failure at Mongstad.
Comparing our results with van Alphen et al. ( 2009), we note some interesting similarities and differences.At that time, CCS in Norway was exclusively linked to the O&G sector and natural gas.First, they found knowledge development and diffusion and legitimation to be relatively strong, whereas we considered it intermediate.Regarding the former function, a reasonable interpretation is that new knowledge needs emerge as CCS encounters other sectoral domains, as has happened in more recent years.The ability to bear the costs of CCS in other sectors than O&G, may also explain why we assess the legitimation function somewhat lower.Another probable explanation why we consider legitimation to be weaker than van Alphen et al. (ibid), is that new CCS user sectors (i.e.beyond fossil energy) consider technological maturity to be lower.The direction of search ("guidance of search" in van Alpen et al.) function has however seemingly been strengthened, reflecting the arguably much stronger attention and pressure to decarbonize across multiple sectors now compared with 15 years ago.The same applies to entrepreneurial experimentation, where there is considerably more activity in recent years than in the previous era of CCS.The market formation and resource mobilization functions are however assessed as weak in both analyses, that thus represent enduring 'inducement mechanisms' (van Alphen et al., 2009) that hamper CCS developments both then and now.
Regarding the political context, our findings demonstrate how the current momentum of the CCS TIS to a substantial extent is driven by heightened awareness about the need for decarbonization in all sectors following the Paris agreement and clear political and industry commitments to mitigate GHG emissions.While this applies to CCS in a global context, the political context in Norway has overall been favourable to CCS for a long time although implementation has been slow beyond the O&G sector (Tjernshaugen, 2011;Wettestad et al., 2023).Our analysis suggests the need for a more comprehensive policy mix to stimulate CCS development and implementation, especially beyond the Longship project.
The more comprehensive and sector-wide drive to decarbonize is also reflected in how the CCS TIS is influenced by changing sectoral contexts.While CCS previously was mainly developed in the context of fossil fuels (as mirrored in the early CCS TIS analysis by van Alphen et al. ( 2009)), it is now recognized as an important option for decarbonization in many of the hard-to-abate and energy-intensive processing industries.Yet, actors from the petroleum sector are deeply involved in the CCS TIS in Norway, not least in the CO 2 transport and storage segments.The general perception of the involvement actors such as Equinor, attracted by the potential commercial opportunities related to providing CO 2 transport and storage services, is that they play an important role in realizing CCS through their extensive capabilities and resources.
With an increasing number of carbon emission sectors influencing TIS developments, different technological solutions (capture, transport, intermediate storage) will be needed to cater to user-specific needs.This increase in CCS user sectors is likely to positively influence the materialization of CCS owing to efficiency gains in infrastructure costs, achieving increasing economies of scale, and opportunities for within-and cross-sectoral learning.On the other hand, increasing technological diversity may also hamper diffusion (Finstad and Andersen, 2023) and come with integration challenges (Geels et al., 2023).
As to the role of geographical context, there are clearly substantial differences between countries.In Norway, where the power sector is almost entirely based on renewables, decarbonization of transport and industry is high on the agenda (MoCE, 2021).While some sectors have several potential decarbonization options, CCS is essential for instance in the cement sector.Norway also has offshore storage (which is less susceptible to e.g.public opposition than onshore storage (Merk et al., 2022)), and a petroleum sector with experience, competence and interest in realizing CCS.Our interview material also indicates that the feasibility of CCS implementation in, for example, waste-to-energy appears to vary substantially between regions due to distance to storage sites and co-location with other potential capture technology adopters in need of transport and (temporary) storage.On a final note regarding geographical context, several of the 'CCS hotspots' in the country are in regions with agglomerations of CO 2 emitters, which may provide benefits in terms of shared infrastructure development for CO 2 transport and storage (c.f.Sovacool et al., 2022) Finally, the relationships between the CCS TIS and other TIS within the space of 'decarbonization solutions' appear to be mainly positive in the Norwegian context.One example of this is the potential 'key enabling' role of CCS in the production of blue hydrogen (Njøs et al., 2020).However, there are concerns related to energy needs for CCS solutions, notably in terms of power availability and grid infrastructure.Indeed, an industry project in the high north to produce blue ammonia from natural gas (with CCS) has been halted when the initial application for power supplies was recently rejected by national grid company Statnett (Andersen and Viset, 2023).Lacking access to power is also hindering industry projects around the Northern Lights CO 2 terminal in Western Norway (Elliot, 2023).

Conclusions
There is broad agreement that CCS is needed if the 1.5-or 2-degree target is to be met.Despite promising developments and considerable resources going into R&D, and a strongly expanding list of announced CCS projects worldwide, actual investments and materialization remain limited (Martin-Roberts et al., 2021).Previous research has demonstrated that CCS has struggled with for instance securing financing, technology costs, and political and public acceptance.
In this paper, we employed a technological innovation system (TIS) approach to assess the current status of CCS innovation dynamics in Norway.Our analysis focused on the structural and functional features of this TIS and its system-level strengths and weaknesses.Our findings demonstrate that in structural terms, the TIS involves a growing number of both established companies and start-ups, and also other actors such as NGOs, government bodies, research institutes and universities.Networks of different types (e.g., large R&D centres) facilitate collaboration across such actors.In terms of institutions, there are regulatory barriers confronting the large-scale realization of CCS, but these are judged to be solvable by involved actors.The full-scale Longship CCS value chain project is seen to represent an important steppingstone in terms of enabling market formation, demonstrating technology in the context of a full value chain with CO 2 capture, transport, and storage.
Although there are positive developments, such as considerable R&D activity, increasing number of demonstration projects, and CCS having high legitimacy as a decarbonisation solution for industry, our analysis suggests that the Norwegian CCS innovation system as a whole is confronted with systemic weaknesses.These weaknesses are especially related to market formation, resource mobilization and materialization.As of now, the political framework conditions and financial support systems that are in place (beyond the Longship project) are not considered sufficient for actors to make investment decisions.There is substantial uncertainty related to future policies and framework conditions, and thus within which timeframes and for which actors CCS becomes a more feasible decarbonisation solution.Continued and concerted efforts from actors (e.g., supportive policymaking, societal pressure for decarbonisation, demand for low-carbon products) will be needed to address these challenges, and to further facilitate technological development and diffusion of CCS.
This paper has limitations that need to be addressed in future work.First, while our data material is comprehensive, interviews with yet other actors could have led us to slightly different results.Nonetheless, as we base our analysis on multiple data sources, we are certain that our assessment is robust, although not directly replicable, as this type of qualitative research never is.Second, there is a need for a better understanding of how innovation dynamics differ across CCS value chain segments and influence each other.One particularly important topic to address is how the lack of CO 2 storage influences carbon emitters' choice of decarbonisation solutions moving forward (IEA, 2022).Moreover, different technology strategies and business model options are being pursued by both technology developers and users, which will influence the CCS TIS in different ways (Finstad and Andersen, 2023).What this means for the necessary economies of scale for CCS to be a feasible decarbonisation solution is an important topic for future research, including attention to carbon utilization.Third, CCS innovation dynamics are international rather than national, and while we alluded to this in this paper, a more international perspective on current CCS innovation dynamics would be beneficial.
(continued ) There might be or might not be some uncertainties in terms of monitoring, but these are smaller issues.What I have experienced and learned also from people working serious on these, the technology is not longer a concern, it is mainly how to make this as a good business case."-R&D "there was a lot of let us call it hype, back in 2008-2009-2010, where we in Norway announced (…) announced that we were going to build gas-fired power plant with carbon capture and that was going to solve all our energy problems, and we were going to be in the forefront of you know green technology and environmental solutions.So that is, sort of the background for a lot of activities related to post-combustion capture happened around that time.A lot of technology was developed."-Technology supplier (continued on next page) Fig. 3 indicates that overall patenting has been relatively stable in the North Sea Region over the last decade.While patenting decreased in Germany, UK and Denmark since 2010, it has remained somewhat more stable in Norway, albeit at somewhat low level.However, relative to population, CCS patenting is highest in Norway and Denmark amongst the North Sea countries (see Appendix 3, Fig. II).

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3. Patent applicationsnew patent applications related to CCS by North Sea country over the period 2010-2019.Source: Orbis IP.

M
.Steen et al.

Table 2
Most frequent organisations involved in scientific publications in the CCS field with at least one author affiliated with a Norwegian organisation, 2010-2022.
tating inland CCS operation, and more energy-efficient solutions.As previous research has also shown (e.g., Martin-Roberts et al. 2021), knowledge diffusion is hindered by challenges in transferring learning from project to project due to the customized nature of CCS

Table 3
Summary of key findings TIS functions.
Not now, we do not [exchange knowledge and information] (…) we are in a difficult situation because we know very detailed[information]about what is happening in the different companies.What they are struggling with, what they have managed to do, and these are things that are business secrets, so we cannot go out and tell everyone about them."Publicentity"If I talk about capturing CO2 from fossil energy power plants -like coal and natural gas -to capturing from a process industry.(…)theamount of energy that you use [is a] parameter that was very important for the power industry.It is not that important for the process industry(…)And that changed also the way of thinking within research and development."-Public entity Entrepreneurial experimentation "(…) so what fit for the coal industry could fit for the process industry, but not really.You need to downsize the big, huge, amine plants to something that fits more to an old 100 year plant that doesn't have much space for new installations and so on."-Public entity "There is a whole bunch of new actors which is exciting.I think maybe, there is a (…) more focus on utilization even in Norway now which might be one of the reason.So a whole bunch of small actors are trying out a bunch of ways for using CO2 for products, so that is one thing, which is kind of interesting.And the new focus on mitigation CO2 from waste burning is also maybe one of the drivers (…)" -ENGO "I have discussed very often with people saying 'oh you could test it, you could test it at Mongstad where you have the test centre'.Nothe industries, they are quite conservativeand I think that is a good thing, that they are quite conservative regarding technologies etc.You have to test it on your own flue-gas back home if you are going to have acceptance to do such a thing."-Technology user "The state process was designed so that we would choose technology suppliers early and then develop the project together with them (…) the cost of these studies are quite extensive, and also with the need to pilot the technology, if you're moving forward with two or maybe three suppliers, that would be extremely cost driving."-Technology user Market formation "So what has happened after that is of course the Norwegian case, the Longship project, when the government took the responsibility and funded the development of the storage site and before they took the final independent investment decision, where the state took the risk and took the role of being a facilitator for important development."-Public entity "If you are looking at today, 15 years later, we see that the costumers (…) on the customer side, especially from the public owners like Statsbygg, Statens Vegvesen and those major building owners, they are focusing more and more on environmental performance of their projects and CO2 emissions is important."-Technology user "When you really can pick up the scale, big volumes, because you develop a storage site, and it doesn't really cost different if it is one million tons a year or ten million tons a year you inject into the storage site.Of course, you need more wells but there is a lot of scaling benefits when it comes to CCS." -Storage provider Direction of search "It seems to me like most companies have accepted or come to the conclusion that amine-based technology is currently the one with less risk and is most proven."-Technology supplier "Energy-intensive industry does not have a large amount of space around their -Norway is a very good example of that -they have lack of space for new big, huge CO2-capture installations.So to make things smaller (…) much more compact, to make it better in a way.So that is some area that has been really focused on."-Public entity "The global hydrogen market is humongous.Mainly covered by reforming and gasification routes presently, but (…) you probably seen this IEA report from 2017 where (…) is expected to be taken by clean hydrogen solutions.And we have very good match because we are a bulk technology, we can produce in scale and we have a very scalable technology, so, the answer to the question: the focus on CCS was based on a desire to have a low carbon footprint on hydrogen production."-Technology supplier Resource mobilization "Many of the companies do have the right and enough competence to do this, others don't.The big oil and gas companies, as an example, do have the competence to do this.(…) yeah, so for the waste facilities that are in the other end of the scale, they are not used to handling gases and not much technology development so they will maybe need to get more competence.But the ones who are now into CCS and also (…) it doesn't look like it is a problem to find the right personnel to do this" -Public entity "These resources are available.We will have to add on to our existing knowledge -the knowledge of how to handle gasses" -Technology user "Starting up a new company and doing all the engineering and commissioning and all the projects from scratch, that's (…) I guess that is viewed as quite risky, which it of course also is, so if you have a good job, it is harder to attract people to a start-up, I guess, so that is also a part of it."-Technology developer "There is a myriad of less mature technologies coming into the market, getting a lot of attention.Green financing is very cheap now, so everyone who has a green idea will go to Euronext Growth or other stock exchange and get cheap money from the financial market, and we see there is a large, large variety of companies with very different carbon capture technologies coming to the market."-Technology developer "Of course, it is difficult to find financing for unprofitable investments but for technology developments it is easier.Also for CCS projects with potential of a good business case.I don't think financing is a real problem."-Public entity "I think it is the current situation where you get grants and funding over Enova and Climit and so on, combined with the ETS -well, it is not a perfect solution, but I think in the short window that should be strengthened by having more funds being available for the public support system, to really boost projects."-Technology supplier "What we lack both in Europe and in Norway is what we do next.I mean, the roll out.Because even though we get Norcem or maybe even Fortum to implement CCS, maybe five other industry companies in Europe and the UK go forth with CCS, the technology will still be too expensive.So we need subsidies or grants or political instruments that drive that as long as the CO2 price is too low compared to the cost."-Interest organization Legitimation "Carbon capture has fluctuated a lot, with peaks and troughs over the years, right?In 2014 (…) CCS was not as firmly established or recognized neither, in Norway nor especially in Europe and globally.There were some large carbon capture plants that were in operation and under construction, primarily being driven by commercial considerations to use CO 2 to extract more oil.(…) It has changed a lot.Now, I would say that carbon capture is a widely recognized tool by many to decarbonize globally."-Cluster "Like I said in the beginning we are trying to make a shift from fossil energy to renewable energy, so the need for CCS on that is seen as maybe not that necessary, but we really need it on emission from industry and waste incineration."-ENGO "there was a lot of let us call it hype, back in 2008-2009-2010.(…) And then a couple of years ago, two or three years ago, we started seeing that quite important organizations such as the IPCC and the International Energy Agency started pointing towards carbon capture as a part of the solution to reach the climate goals set in the Paris Agreement."-Technology supplier "And I think that the acceptance in the public and in the political environment is bigger because we want to have industry, the most-forward looking industries in Europe.We don't want industries to flag out to other countries who do not have that good climate or environmental focus.If we are to reach the European goals, we have to decarbonize then.So it is easier to have acceptance now, I think, and understanding for that CCS is necessary."-Interest organization Development of positive externalities "We have had this technology working in Norway in many, many years, several decades.So the capture technology is well-known.Storage is also well known.