A continuation of the article https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/oglekla-uztversana-un-uzglabasana-modes-tendence-vai-iespeja-i-dala
9. What are the risks?
The German National Academy of Sciences writes: “Possible risks include small, local earthquakes, the movement of salt water underground and its entry into groundwater, as well as CO₂ leakage, as a result of which some of the CO₂ would return to the atmosphere, reducing the efficiency of its capture. Many experts consider that in properly implemented projects and in suitable locations, with the risks professionally managed, those risks are low.” (Erlach et al. 2022) The IPCC assumes that each year less than 0.001% will escape of the CO₂ stored in suitable structures; accordingly, if CCS is implemented carefully, its risks are relatively low.
One of the problems – CCS requires a great deal of water. Power stations that use CCS consume 25-200% more water than power stations without CCS technology, whereas solar and wind power stations effectively consume no water while they operate.
CCS requires an amount of water that is linked to higher energy consumption and the need to cool the equipment. The construction of CCS facilities in very dry regions (for example, the south-western United States or South-East Asia), or on rivers where the risk of low water levels is increasing, could in summer force power stations to reduce output or shut down altogether. This problem could be eased if water were used or recycled more efficiently.
Many research projects are studying how, and whether, CCS can be used safely on a larger scale. For example, CO₂ storage underground is not easy to put right if problems arise (IPCC 2022, AR6, WG3, summary for policymakers, C.11.3).
10. Does it make sense to use CCS?
The various technologies need to be considered separately, namely CCS on the one hand, and BECCS and DACCS on the other. In principle, these technologies are needed to mitigate climate change. All the pathways the IPCC has considered for limiting the global temperature rise to below 2 °C or 1.5 °C include some form of CCS.
Firstly, the BECCS and DACCS technologies can remove from the atmosphere CO₂ that could be dealt with through nature-based solutions such as large-scale afforestation, because new forests do not accumulate enough carbon dioxide. Climate change is rapidly increasing the risk of forest fires, threatening the potential of forests to store carbon safely. Forestry or agricultural measures require large areas of land, so their potential is limited. According to the IPCC, technological methods that can be used as carbon sinks are important, in particular bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS).
Because of the high costs and labour involved, the use of these forms of CCS is possible only to a limited extent and cannot replace cutting emissions by other means. Volume 3 of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report refers in general terms to carbon dioxide removal (CDR): “Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to achieve net zero CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions at both global and national level, offsetting “hard-to-abate” residual emissions [...] As part of ambitious mitigation strategies at global or national level, gross CDR can perform three different functions, complementing emissions reduction:
- reducing the net amount of CO₂ or greenhouse gas emissions in the near future;
- offsetting “hard-to-abate” residual emissions, for example CO₂ from industrial activity and long-distance transport, or CH₄ and nitrogen oxides from agriculture, to help achieve net CO₂ or greenhouse gas emissions in the medium term;
- achieving net negative CO₂ or greenhouse gas emissions in the long term, if used at a level that exceeds annual residual emissions (IPCC 2022, AR6, WG3, Box TS.10, Technical Summary).
The IPCC considers that there must be an expansion of those CCS variants that are also regarded as carbon sinks (BECCS and DACCS).
Researchers agree: if climate change mitigation targets are to be met in the medium and long term, certain industrial processes will require conventional CCS, because those processes cannot be made climate-neutral in any other way, or can be only with great difficulty. In cement production, for example, the IPCC sees no alternative to using CCS if the necessary emissions reduction is to be achieved. In the long term, CCS and the use of CO₂ as a material (CCU) in IPCC scenarios for decarbonising industry are of decisive importance, but only in combination with, for example, a switch to emission-free energy, greater energy efficiency and a move to a circular economy.
Research into CCS, and its development, are progressing too slowly to slow global warming to the extent required. In its summary for policymakers, the IPCC writes: “CCS deployment currently faces technological, economic, institutional, ecological, environmental and socio-cultural barriers. Current global rates of CCS deployment are far lower than in the modelled scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C. These barriers could be reduced by enabling conditions such as policy instruments, greater public support and technological innovation.” (IPCC 2022, AR6, WG3, summary for policymakers, C.4.6)
11. Is CCS suitable for fossil fuel power stations?
In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, CCS does not feature in the scientific debate on energy. It is rarely discussed whether CO₂ capture could be a solution for gas-fired power stations, or whether it could be used in producing hydrogen from natural gas. For coal-fired power stations, CCS is no longer seriously discussed (unlike in earlier years). This is due to the high cost of the technology and the poorly developed infrastructure. Expanding the use of renewable energy sources is currently considerably cheaper and less complicated. The decision to phase out coal in electricity generation has made the subject a moot point.
In some countries, CCS can help the shift to a more climate-friendly energy supply, particularly where renewable energy is not readily available. At the same time, the available storage options could also make other methods more attractive, such as bioenergy with capture and storage (BECCS), and ultimately speed up the phasing out of fossil fuels.
12. What is the European Union's position on CCS/CCU?
CCS is returning to Europe as the bloc strives for climate neutrality. The European Commission has stressed the important place of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in meeting the EU's climate targets. In February 2024 the EC published a proposal for a European industrial carbon management strategy, setting out guidelines for the capture, transport, trading, permanent storage and use of carbon as a basis for the path to climate neutrality by 2050.
The EC plans to create a “single European market for industrial carbon management”, with the aim of scaling up volumes over the coming decades so that by mid-century the remaining greenhouse gas emissions are captured and stored, or balanced out.
As part of the ambitious proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040, the European Commission has called for the widespread introduction of CCS, using as the main incentive the gradually rising carbon price in the emissions trading system (ETS). The strategy* envisages capturing 450 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2050, of which 250 million will be stored underground.
The remaining captured CO₂ will be processed into synthetic fuels (e-fuels) for aviation, and used in the chemical industry and in plastics production, gradually replacing fossil resources and creating sustainable carbon cycles. The 2040 impact assessment states that by mid-century some 150 million tonnes of CO₂ will be used for e-fuels and a further 60 million tonnes for synthetic materials, although a large share of this carbon will end up back in the atmosphere.
Interest in CCS continues to grow in Europe. According to the Global CCS Institute, at the end of 2023 there were 119 CCS projects at various stages of development, construction or operation. Four projects are currently operating in the EU, Norway and Iceland. The German Economics Ministry notes that the leading countries in this field are Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway, where projects are under way that could be coordinated with one another.
North Sea areas remain the preferred locations in the EU for CO₂ storage, although Denmark and Poland are also considering storage on land. Other countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Belgium, are not considering storage on land.
Despite the progress, the EU's active storage capacity is still tiny, and only pilot tests have been carried out so far. For example, in spring 2023 the Danish “Greensand” project demonstrated the injection of CO₂ into a tunnel. The plan is to store up to 1.5 million tonnes a year by 2025-2026, rising to 8 million tonnes a year by 2030.
13. Is CCS banned in Germany?
CCS is partly banned in Germany, and the government is working to adapt the legal framework to make it easier to apply CCS and CCU technologies. At present the rules are fragmented, with separate provisions for the capture, ₂ storage and transport of CO.
Capture: Germany has had CCS pilot projects, such as the “Schwarze Pumpe” (“black pump”) capture demonstration plant in Brandenburg. Although there are currently no carbon capture plants in Germany, under the Federal Emission Control Act it would already be possible to obtain the necessary permit.
Storage: At present it is not possible to start a CO₂ storage project in Germany. The 2012 CO₂ storage act, which implemented the EU minimum requirements for the capture, transport and ₂ storage of CO, did in theory permit limited research and pilot projects. However, many federal states imposed regional bans, and by the act's 2016 deadline not a single project application had been submitted.
Transport: Large-scale transport of CO₂ in Germany is currently held back by the lack of dedicated pipeline infrastructure, so trains, lorries and ships have to be used. The government acknowledges that outdated rules and legal uncertainty have hindered the development of such infrastructure, and it has undertaken to carry out reforms. CO₂ transport is regulated by the storage act and, in addition, by dangerous goods legislation.
The government has classified the technology as mature and safe. The previous government's draft carbon management strategy focuses on sectors with hard-to-abate emissions, such as cement, lime and basic chemicals production and waste incineration, as well as on applications where “electrification or a switch to hydrogen is not cost-effective in the foreseeable future”. CCS/CCU at gas-fired power stations would also be permitted, but would not receive state support. The previous government planned to enable CO₂ storage on an industrial scale both beneath the seabed and abroad, but not on land.
The new government has announced that it will continue efforts to make CCS/CCU possible in Germany, and it is expected to base its work largely on the draft laws prepared by the previous German leadership, which must now be reintroduced in parliament.
According to information from the CCS lobbying organisation Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP), five CCS/CCU projects in Germany could start operating by 2030 if a supportive policy and financial framework is put in place (position as of March 2025). In two of the projects CCS is used in industry, while another is researching and trialling CO₂ pipeline infrastructure.
The German economics ministry stressed that the use of CCS/CCU must be in line with the greenhouse gas reduction targets and with climate neutrality by 2045. A questions and answers section states that increasing capacity by 2030 appears realistic if the legislative amendments come into force quickly.
14. Why does this text reflect the “scientific consensus”?
Scientists have gathered a great deal of information on the effectiveness of the various technologies; it can be found, for example, in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report, which runs to more than 2000 pages.
To underline the importance of choosing sources, this project's questions and answers cite sources in an “academic style”, to remind readers that the information given in the summary reflects the scientific consensus as accurately as possible.
With that aim in mind, the sources are ranked in an order in which relevance matters far more than the date of publication:
1) Wherever possible, the texts are based on the IPCC, which provides a highly reliable summary and assessment of the state of research.
2) In second place come comprehensive meta-studies (studies that assess many other studies), as well as synthesis reports by large research consortia or organisations, which usually involve a wide range of participants and intensive review processes.
3) In third place, individual studies have been used that are published in recognised scientific journals which guarantee peer review, meaning that every publication is checked by competent specialists.
These questions and answers, and other information, are based on material published by the German-language Klimafakten project, written by journalists and double-checked by the relevant experts. The editorial compilation was led by the Cleanenergywire specialist Toralf Staud, with support from the Marga und Kurt Möllgaard-Stiftung and the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt.
* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:6c154426-c5a6-11ee-95d9-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF