Results of the Slido survey
In the Slido survey, the participants could participate interactively. The answers given are shown in the following:
In which CCU-related field are you currently working in?
In the first question, the participants were asked whether and, if so, in which CCU area they work. 74 people participated in this question.
9% of the respondents indicated that they do not work in the CCU area. The remaining votes were distributed fairly evenly. 16% indicated that they work in the area of CO2 capture and the electrochemical conversion of CO2 respectively.
14% of the respondents work on biochemical CO2 conversion and 12% on CO2 mineralization. 9% reported working on chemical as well as photocatalytic CO2 conversion respectively. The remaining 14% of the respondents reported working in an "other" CCU area.
How long have you been working in the field of CCU?
The second question evaluated how long the participants have been working in the field of CCU. 74 participants answered the question.
Similarly to the first question, 9% indicated that they have not worked in the field of CCU so far. The majority responded that they have been working less than three years in the area of CCU (40%). This can be explained, for instance, based on the PhD students attending the conference. 20% of the respondents indicated that they have been working 3-5 or 5-10 years in the field of CCU respectively. Furthermore, 10% stated that they have more than 10 years of experience working in the field of CCU.
Which TRL would you rate your current technology/activities?
In the third question, the participants were asked to estimate the technology readiness level (TRL) of their current activities or technologies. 63 persons responded to that question.
As support, the following TRL scale was given:
- TRL 1: basic principles observed
- TRL 2: technology concept formulated
- TRL 3: experimental proof of concept
- TRL 4: technology validated in lab
- TRL 5: technology validated in relevant environment
- TRL 6: technology demonstrated in relevant environment
- TRL 7: system prototype demonstration in operational environment
- TRL 8: system complete and qualified
- TRL 9: actual system proven in operational environment
Together, 14% of the respondents stated that their activities should be referred to TRL 1 or TRL 2. The majority of the respondents considered a TRL 3 (32%), i.e. the experimental proof of concept. 24% rated their activities as TRL 4, i.e. the technology was validated in the lab.
Around 20% are in the status of validation or demonstration in relevant environments (TRL 5 or 6). 8% of the respndents referred to their activities as TRL 7, i.e. a system prototype was demonstrated in operational environment. Finally, one respondent (2%) considered the technology or activity as TRL 9, i.e. the system was proven in operational environment.
Which challenges have you been facing working in the field of CCU?
The fourth question allowed the respondents to communicate what challenges they see in their work in the field of CCU. The question was asked as a word cloud and 71 responses were given by 54 people. The size of the terms as well as the line thickness represent the frequency of mentioning certain terms. It can be seen that economic viability, efficiency, stability, regulations, and scale-up were mentioned most frequently.
However, there are terms, which have the same meaning but are written in a different way. In consequence, they are counted differently, e.g. „Stability“ und „Long term stability“. Thus, a seperate evaluation was performed and the results are shown subsequently.
The largest share of the challenges mentioned relates to financial aspects (23x). These include, for example, required subsidies and investments, but also energy prices or market values. Challenges around the scale-up of the technology are mentioned 9 times, e.g. in relation to the development of newer/larger reactors. Further challenges concern the (long-term) stability (8x) but also the achievable efficiencies or yields (7x).
There is also a need for improvement in the area of legislation, e.g. in the area of taxonomy or creditability of emissions (7x). Aspects around acceptance are also seen as challenging, for example stakeholder participation or fundamental skepticism towards CCU technologies (6x).
A more technical topic is comparability, especially with regard to measurement procedures, transparency and comparability of data (5x). Availability of (renewable) energy was identified as a challenge in three cases. Other challenges (3x) concerned e.g. greenhouse effects in general.
In your working environment, how would you rate the gender parity?
The fifth question asked how the gender distribution at the respective working environment was perceived. For this, a rating of very unbalanced (1), unbalanced (2), neutral (3), balanced (4) and very balanced (5) was asked. 67 people voted on this question and the results are shown below.
At their work, 12% of respondents rate the gender distribution as very unbalanced. 16% perceive the distribution as unbalanced. In contrast, 25% consider the distribution as neutral, whereas 46% perceive the distribution as balanced to very balanced. Looking at the average of the data, the result is a value of 3.3, meaning that gender parity is perceived on average as neutral with a slightly positive tendency.
Trying to improve gender parity, what could be changed?
In the sixth question, the respondents were asked to assess how the gender distribution could be improved. 34 responses were given and sorted into categories.
In total, 8 of the 34 responses were related to education in STEM subjects. The largest proportion of feedback (11x) dealt with the topic of enthusiasm and motivation: on the one hand, through special programs aimed at girls/women, and on the other hand, through female role models who create representation.
Further feedback concerned the topic of working conditions. Here it was suggested that flexibility should be made possible, especially with regard to mothers returning from parental leave. In addition, there were eight pieces of feedback that questioned the need to adjust gender parity or asked for a focus on subject expertise rather than gender.
What do you expect from the German carbon management strategy, e.g. contentwise?
In the last question, the respondents were asked for their expectations regarding the german carbon management strategy, which is currently in preparation. In total, 52 responses were given. These are shown in the following word cloud.
As expected, the responses were very diverse, with only the focus on funding standing out from the word cloud. The responses were again assigned to topic areas to allow for precise evaluation.
A quarter of the feedback (13x) concerned the topic of funding, both for basic research and for technologies at a higher technology maturity level (TRL > 7). Nine feedbacks addressed technological aspects expected in the carbon management strategy. In particular, the hope was expressed that a diversification of the technology mix will take place in order to avoid dependencies. A further nine responses dealt with the approach formulated in the strategy. No clear picture emerged here. For example, there were calls for faster action. On the other hand, it was already suspected that the strategy would be rather hesitant in formulating its goals. In general, however, it is hoped that flexibility and reliability will be made possible.
In addition to funding, reference was also made to the economy (7x), for example by taking future markets or value chains into account. In addition, the carbon management strategy is expected to make reference to regulations (4x), so that political framework conditions can be clearly defined and bureaucratic hurdles can be reduced. Four responses also expect a reference to ecology, e.g. through mandatory analyses of the CO2 footprint. In consequences, the hope was expressed that scientists will be more involved into descision making processes.
Further responses (2x) expect the carbon management strategy as starting point to finally get going.
