S.E. Tanzer
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
3 records found
1
Unlocking the Potential of Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) in Indonesia
Socio-Technical and Governance Readiness Perspectives
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is increasingly recognized as a deep decarbonization solution for hard-to-abate sectors, particularly in developing economies where rapid structural transformation may be difficult. Indonesia has recently emerged as one of the most active CCS developers within the Asia-Pacific region, supported by high geological storage potential, increasing regional markets, and policy ambitions as the future regional hub. However, CCS implementation remains uncertain due to complex technological, governance, and socio-political challenges, raising questions about whether developing regulations and institutional learning are sufficient to scale CCS.
This study develops an integrated diagnostic approach to assess governance readiness for CCS by combining socio-technical transition analysis, governance readiness assessment, and diagnostic intervention design. Applied to Indonesia, the approach examines how governance conditions interact with technological, institutional, political, economic, and organizational dynamics to shape CCS deployment.
The findings show that Indonesia has established a relatively developed formal governance foundation for early CCS deployment, but governance readiness remains uneven. Key weaknesses concern long-term stewardship, operational and cross-border governance, institutional coordination, knowledge development, and societal legitimacy. More broadly, CCS development remains embedded within the existing oil and gas regime. While this path dependency facilitates early deployment by leveraging established expertise, infrastructure, and business capabilities, it constrains cross-sectoral diffusion and risks positioning CCS primarily as an extension of the oil and gas business rather than a nationally integrated decarbonization pathway. Weak domestic decarbonization pressure and reliance on regional carbon markets further limit incentives for broader industrial adoption.
The diagnostic assessment identifies interconnected vision disruptors, short-term implementation barriers, and long-term risks. These include fragmented institutional direction, political discontinuity, weak economic incentives, limited institutional learning, operational governance uncertainty, and risks to long-term stewardship and societal legitimacy. To address these barriers, the study proposes strategic interventions at both national and corporate levels. At the national level, the strategies focus on creating long-term low-carbon development ecosystems through strengthening motivation, incentives, political commitment, institutional learning, and public participation. At the corporate level, interventions focus on strengthening organizational cultures, knowledge development, and management commitment for low-carbon projects.
The study contributes by demonstrating how governance readiness can be integrated with socio-technical analysis to diagnose not only existing CCS barriers but also their interactions and corresponding intervention priorities. The framework provides a transferable analytical approach for emerging low-carbon technologies, while the Indonesian case offers empirical insights relevant to other developing economies pursuing CCS under evolving institutional, market, and infrastructure conditions.
...
This study develops an integrated diagnostic approach to assess governance readiness for CCS by combining socio-technical transition analysis, governance readiness assessment, and diagnostic intervention design. Applied to Indonesia, the approach examines how governance conditions interact with technological, institutional, political, economic, and organizational dynamics to shape CCS deployment.
The findings show that Indonesia has established a relatively developed formal governance foundation for early CCS deployment, but governance readiness remains uneven. Key weaknesses concern long-term stewardship, operational and cross-border governance, institutional coordination, knowledge development, and societal legitimacy. More broadly, CCS development remains embedded within the existing oil and gas regime. While this path dependency facilitates early deployment by leveraging established expertise, infrastructure, and business capabilities, it constrains cross-sectoral diffusion and risks positioning CCS primarily as an extension of the oil and gas business rather than a nationally integrated decarbonization pathway. Weak domestic decarbonization pressure and reliance on regional carbon markets further limit incentives for broader industrial adoption.
The diagnostic assessment identifies interconnected vision disruptors, short-term implementation barriers, and long-term risks. These include fragmented institutional direction, political discontinuity, weak economic incentives, limited institutional learning, operational governance uncertainty, and risks to long-term stewardship and societal legitimacy. To address these barriers, the study proposes strategic interventions at both national and corporate levels. At the national level, the strategies focus on creating long-term low-carbon development ecosystems through strengthening motivation, incentives, political commitment, institutional learning, and public participation. At the corporate level, interventions focus on strengthening organizational cultures, knowledge development, and management commitment for low-carbon projects.
The study contributes by demonstrating how governance readiness can be integrated with socio-technical analysis to diagnose not only existing CCS barriers but also their interactions and corresponding intervention priorities. The framework provides a transferable analytical approach for emerging low-carbon technologies, while the Indonesian case offers empirical insights relevant to other developing economies pursuing CCS under evolving institutional, market, and infrastructure conditions.
...
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is increasingly recognized as a deep decarbonization solution for hard-to-abate sectors, particularly in developing economies where rapid structural transformation may be difficult. Indonesia has recently emerged as one of the most active CCS developers within the Asia-Pacific region, supported by high geological storage potential, increasing regional markets, and policy ambitions as the future regional hub. However, CCS implementation remains uncertain due to complex technological, governance, and socio-political challenges, raising questions about whether developing regulations and institutional learning are sufficient to scale CCS.
This study develops an integrated diagnostic approach to assess governance readiness for CCS by combining socio-technical transition analysis, governance readiness assessment, and diagnostic intervention design. Applied to Indonesia, the approach examines how governance conditions interact with technological, institutional, political, economic, and organizational dynamics to shape CCS deployment.
The findings show that Indonesia has established a relatively developed formal governance foundation for early CCS deployment, but governance readiness remains uneven. Key weaknesses concern long-term stewardship, operational and cross-border governance, institutional coordination, knowledge development, and societal legitimacy. More broadly, CCS development remains embedded within the existing oil and gas regime. While this path dependency facilitates early deployment by leveraging established expertise, infrastructure, and business capabilities, it constrains cross-sectoral diffusion and risks positioning CCS primarily as an extension of the oil and gas business rather than a nationally integrated decarbonization pathway. Weak domestic decarbonization pressure and reliance on regional carbon markets further limit incentives for broader industrial adoption.
The diagnostic assessment identifies interconnected vision disruptors, short-term implementation barriers, and long-term risks. These include fragmented institutional direction, political discontinuity, weak economic incentives, limited institutional learning, operational governance uncertainty, and risks to long-term stewardship and societal legitimacy. To address these barriers, the study proposes strategic interventions at both national and corporate levels. At the national level, the strategies focus on creating long-term low-carbon development ecosystems through strengthening motivation, incentives, political commitment, institutional learning, and public participation. At the corporate level, interventions focus on strengthening organizational cultures, knowledge development, and management commitment for low-carbon projects.
The study contributes by demonstrating how governance readiness can be integrated with socio-technical analysis to diagnose not only existing CCS barriers but also their interactions and corresponding intervention priorities. The framework provides a transferable analytical approach for emerging low-carbon technologies, while the Indonesian case offers empirical insights relevant to other developing economies pursuing CCS under evolving institutional, market, and infrastructure conditions.
This study develops an integrated diagnostic approach to assess governance readiness for CCS by combining socio-technical transition analysis, governance readiness assessment, and diagnostic intervention design. Applied to Indonesia, the approach examines how governance conditions interact with technological, institutional, political, economic, and organizational dynamics to shape CCS deployment.
The findings show that Indonesia has established a relatively developed formal governance foundation for early CCS deployment, but governance readiness remains uneven. Key weaknesses concern long-term stewardship, operational and cross-border governance, institutional coordination, knowledge development, and societal legitimacy. More broadly, CCS development remains embedded within the existing oil and gas regime. While this path dependency facilitates early deployment by leveraging established expertise, infrastructure, and business capabilities, it constrains cross-sectoral diffusion and risks positioning CCS primarily as an extension of the oil and gas business rather than a nationally integrated decarbonization pathway. Weak domestic decarbonization pressure and reliance on regional carbon markets further limit incentives for broader industrial adoption.
The diagnostic assessment identifies interconnected vision disruptors, short-term implementation barriers, and long-term risks. These include fragmented institutional direction, political discontinuity, weak economic incentives, limited institutional learning, operational governance uncertainty, and risks to long-term stewardship and societal legitimacy. To address these barriers, the study proposes strategic interventions at both national and corporate levels. At the national level, the strategies focus on creating long-term low-carbon development ecosystems through strengthening motivation, incentives, political commitment, institutional learning, and public participation. At the corporate level, interventions focus on strengthening organizational cultures, knowledge development, and management commitment for low-carbon projects.
The study contributes by demonstrating how governance readiness can be integrated with socio-technical analysis to diagnose not only existing CCS barriers but also their interactions and corresponding intervention priorities. The framework provides a transferable analytical approach for emerging low-carbon technologies, while the Indonesian case offers empirical insights relevant to other developing economies pursuing CCS under evolving institutional, market, and infrastructure conditions.
Reducing CO2-emissions of Port of Rotterdam hinterland transport by truck
Analyzing the dynamics of adoption of technologies that reduce the carbon intensity of energy used by trucks
This study investigates the decarbonization of truck-based container transport in the Port of Rotterdam's hinterland, focusing on the adoption of three key low-carbon technologies: Battery Electric Trucks (BETs), Fuel-Cell Electric Trucks (FCETs), and e-diesel. As the largest logistics hub in Europe, the Port of Rotterdam faces increasing pressure to reduce CO₂ emissions, especially from road transport. Using a system dynamics model developed in Vensim and informed by expert interviews, the research explores technology adoption dynamics, including infrastructure availability, technology maturity, awareness, energy source supply, and lifecycle costs. The study identifies interdependent feedback loops among these factors and evaluates policy interventions that can accelerate adoption. Two key policies—stimulation of lower-emission truck adoption and collaborative BET implementation—are found to be particularly effective in initiating exponential adoption growth. Scenario analyses also highlight the importance of early and coordinated policy action. BETs emerge as the most viable near-term solution due to their faster cost reductions and existing infrastructure advantages, while FCETs remain a longer-term option for specific use cases. The findings offer actionable insights for the Port of Rotterdam Authority and policymakers, emphasizing early intervention, national coordination, and a strategic focus on BETs to achieve carbon neutrality in hinterland transport by 2050.
...
This study investigates the decarbonization of truck-based container transport in the Port of Rotterdam's hinterland, focusing on the adoption of three key low-carbon technologies: Battery Electric Trucks (BETs), Fuel-Cell Electric Trucks (FCETs), and e-diesel. As the largest logistics hub in Europe, the Port of Rotterdam faces increasing pressure to reduce CO₂ emissions, especially from road transport. Using a system dynamics model developed in Vensim and informed by expert interviews, the research explores technology adoption dynamics, including infrastructure availability, technology maturity, awareness, energy source supply, and lifecycle costs. The study identifies interdependent feedback loops among these factors and evaluates policy interventions that can accelerate adoption. Two key policies—stimulation of lower-emission truck adoption and collaborative BET implementation—are found to be particularly effective in initiating exponential adoption growth. Scenario analyses also highlight the importance of early and coordinated policy action. BETs emerge as the most viable near-term solution due to their faster cost reductions and existing infrastructure advantages, while FCETs remain a longer-term option for specific use cases. The findings offer actionable insights for the Port of Rotterdam Authority and policymakers, emphasizing early intervention, national coordination, and a strategic focus on BETs to achieve carbon neutrality in hinterland transport by 2050.
Multi-criteria Analysis of Sustainable Aviation Fuel Technologies
Integrating Environmental, Economic, Social, and Technical Criteria along with Stakeholder Perspectives to Compare Fast Pyrolysis, Hydrothermal Liquefaction, and HEFA Pathways
Master thesis
(2024)
-
C.L.S. Taets van Amerongen, L.M. Kamp, J.A. Annema, S.E. Tanzer, Oskar Meijerink, Dusita de Hoop, Floor Vogels
The aviation sector, responsible for approximately 2% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is projected to grow 4-6 times by 2050, conflicting with the European Union’s Green Deal target of achieving net-zero emissions by the same year. While aircraft electrification offers a promising solution, its application is largely limited to short-haul flights due to range and weight limitations. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) emerges as a compelling alternative for long-haul operations, as it is compatible with both existing infrastructure and can be blended with fossil fuels. Currently, Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) is the predominant pathway for producing SAF. There remains a significant supply gap for SAF, emphasising the need to scale up production and explore alternative technologies. This thesis evaluates the potential of hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) and fast pyrolysis (FP) to address this supply gap.
The research objective is to compare HTL and FP with HEFA. A literature review identified three main knowledge gaps: (1) a lack of studies on the social impacts of HTL and FP, (2) the absence of stakeholder involvement in evaluating these technologies, and (3) the need for updated data integration to effectively compare HTL and FP with established SAF technologies like HEFA. This study addresses these gaps using a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to provide a holistic evaluation across a multi-temporal timescale while considering diverse stakeholder perspectives.
The study employed a four-phase methodology. The first phase began with the identification of stakeholders through desk research. The second phase involved establishing the criteria for the MCA via a literature review focusing on four main dimensions: environmental (Global Warming Potential and use of by-products), economic (capital expenditure, operating expenditure, and feedstock price), technical (technology readiness level and efficiency), and social (safety and social impacts related to feedstock use). The stakeholders assigned the weightings of each criterion relative to the others during structured interviews using the Best-Worst Method (BWM). In the third phase, each technology was assessed against the established criteria through detailed analysis using specific methods. Based on the findings of the analysis, SAF experts assigned performance scores to each technology per criterion. Finally, in the fourth phase, the criteria and their weightings, along with the performance scores, were integrated to calculate a final weighted MCA score for each technology. This resulted in a final ranking of the technologies based on their overall MCA scores for each stakeholder.
HTL and FP are potential alternatives to the HEFA pathway to produce SAF, each with different advantages and disadvantages. Technically and economically, HEFA currently outperforms due to its maturity and lower costs. At the same time, HTL and FP offer potential environmental and social benefits, particularly in terms of the kind of feedstocks used and the possibilities of by-product valorisation. The preference for each technology varies between stakeholders, indicating the need for a balanced approach that integrates multiple perspectives in SAF implementation decision-making. This research provides actionable insights for advancing SAF technologies and supports the broader goal of achieving sustainable aviation.
...
The research objective is to compare HTL and FP with HEFA. A literature review identified three main knowledge gaps: (1) a lack of studies on the social impacts of HTL and FP, (2) the absence of stakeholder involvement in evaluating these technologies, and (3) the need for updated data integration to effectively compare HTL and FP with established SAF technologies like HEFA. This study addresses these gaps using a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to provide a holistic evaluation across a multi-temporal timescale while considering diverse stakeholder perspectives.
The study employed a four-phase methodology. The first phase began with the identification of stakeholders through desk research. The second phase involved establishing the criteria for the MCA via a literature review focusing on four main dimensions: environmental (Global Warming Potential and use of by-products), economic (capital expenditure, operating expenditure, and feedstock price), technical (technology readiness level and efficiency), and social (safety and social impacts related to feedstock use). The stakeholders assigned the weightings of each criterion relative to the others during structured interviews using the Best-Worst Method (BWM). In the third phase, each technology was assessed against the established criteria through detailed analysis using specific methods. Based on the findings of the analysis, SAF experts assigned performance scores to each technology per criterion. Finally, in the fourth phase, the criteria and their weightings, along with the performance scores, were integrated to calculate a final weighted MCA score for each technology. This resulted in a final ranking of the technologies based on their overall MCA scores for each stakeholder.
HTL and FP are potential alternatives to the HEFA pathway to produce SAF, each with different advantages and disadvantages. Technically and economically, HEFA currently outperforms due to its maturity and lower costs. At the same time, HTL and FP offer potential environmental and social benefits, particularly in terms of the kind of feedstocks used and the possibilities of by-product valorisation. The preference for each technology varies between stakeholders, indicating the need for a balanced approach that integrates multiple perspectives in SAF implementation decision-making. This research provides actionable insights for advancing SAF technologies and supports the broader goal of achieving sustainable aviation.
...
The aviation sector, responsible for approximately 2% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is projected to grow 4-6 times by 2050, conflicting with the European Union’s Green Deal target of achieving net-zero emissions by the same year. While aircraft electrification offers a promising solution, its application is largely limited to short-haul flights due to range and weight limitations. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) emerges as a compelling alternative for long-haul operations, as it is compatible with both existing infrastructure and can be blended with fossil fuels. Currently, Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) is the predominant pathway for producing SAF. There remains a significant supply gap for SAF, emphasising the need to scale up production and explore alternative technologies. This thesis evaluates the potential of hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) and fast pyrolysis (FP) to address this supply gap.
The research objective is to compare HTL and FP with HEFA. A literature review identified three main knowledge gaps: (1) a lack of studies on the social impacts of HTL and FP, (2) the absence of stakeholder involvement in evaluating these technologies, and (3) the need for updated data integration to effectively compare HTL and FP with established SAF technologies like HEFA. This study addresses these gaps using a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to provide a holistic evaluation across a multi-temporal timescale while considering diverse stakeholder perspectives.
The study employed a four-phase methodology. The first phase began with the identification of stakeholders through desk research. The second phase involved establishing the criteria for the MCA via a literature review focusing on four main dimensions: environmental (Global Warming Potential and use of by-products), economic (capital expenditure, operating expenditure, and feedstock price), technical (technology readiness level and efficiency), and social (safety and social impacts related to feedstock use). The stakeholders assigned the weightings of each criterion relative to the others during structured interviews using the Best-Worst Method (BWM). In the third phase, each technology was assessed against the established criteria through detailed analysis using specific methods. Based on the findings of the analysis, SAF experts assigned performance scores to each technology per criterion. Finally, in the fourth phase, the criteria and their weightings, along with the performance scores, were integrated to calculate a final weighted MCA score for each technology. This resulted in a final ranking of the technologies based on their overall MCA scores for each stakeholder.
HTL and FP are potential alternatives to the HEFA pathway to produce SAF, each with different advantages and disadvantages. Technically and economically, HEFA currently outperforms due to its maturity and lower costs. At the same time, HTL and FP offer potential environmental and social benefits, particularly in terms of the kind of feedstocks used and the possibilities of by-product valorisation. The preference for each technology varies between stakeholders, indicating the need for a balanced approach that integrates multiple perspectives in SAF implementation decision-making. This research provides actionable insights for advancing SAF technologies and supports the broader goal of achieving sustainable aviation.
The research objective is to compare HTL and FP with HEFA. A literature review identified three main knowledge gaps: (1) a lack of studies on the social impacts of HTL and FP, (2) the absence of stakeholder involvement in evaluating these technologies, and (3) the need for updated data integration to effectively compare HTL and FP with established SAF technologies like HEFA. This study addresses these gaps using a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to provide a holistic evaluation across a multi-temporal timescale while considering diverse stakeholder perspectives.
The study employed a four-phase methodology. The first phase began with the identification of stakeholders through desk research. The second phase involved establishing the criteria for the MCA via a literature review focusing on four main dimensions: environmental (Global Warming Potential and use of by-products), economic (capital expenditure, operating expenditure, and feedstock price), technical (technology readiness level and efficiency), and social (safety and social impacts related to feedstock use). The stakeholders assigned the weightings of each criterion relative to the others during structured interviews using the Best-Worst Method (BWM). In the third phase, each technology was assessed against the established criteria through detailed analysis using specific methods. Based on the findings of the analysis, SAF experts assigned performance scores to each technology per criterion. Finally, in the fourth phase, the criteria and their weightings, along with the performance scores, were integrated to calculate a final weighted MCA score for each technology. This resulted in a final ranking of the technologies based on their overall MCA scores for each stakeholder.
HTL and FP are potential alternatives to the HEFA pathway to produce SAF, each with different advantages and disadvantages. Technically and economically, HEFA currently outperforms due to its maturity and lower costs. At the same time, HTL and FP offer potential environmental and social benefits, particularly in terms of the kind of feedstocks used and the possibilities of by-product valorisation. The preference for each technology varies between stakeholders, indicating the need for a balanced approach that integrates multiple perspectives in SAF implementation decision-making. This research provides actionable insights for advancing SAF technologies and supports the broader goal of achieving sustainable aviation.