Carbon removal technologies are key to reaching the EU 2050 climate targets as renewable technologies only will not be sufficient.

While energy efficiency and renewables are in the long term the most sustainable solutions both for the security of supply and climate change mitigation, global greenhouse gas emissions cannot be reduced as they need to be to reach the Paris Agreement objective, if we do not also use other options such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage.

Timing is crucial. About a third of existing coal-fired power capacity in Europe will be replaced within the next 10 years. However, internationally, the energy consumption of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico will lead to a major global demand increase, which is likely to be met in large part from fossil fuels. The capacity to deal with these very substantial potential emissions must urgently be developed.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a combination of technologies that capture CO₂ and then safely stored it underground in suitable geological formations.

Carbon capture and storage is a suite of technological processes which involve capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the gases discarded by industry and transporting and injecting it into geological formations.

CCS can be applied to biomass or fossil fuel power plants and CO₂-intensive industries such as cement, iron and steel, petrochemicals, oil and gas processing and others. After capture, the CO₂ is transported to a suitable geological formation where it is injected, with the aim of isolating it from the atmosphere for good.

There are storage options other than geological storage, such as storage in the water column and mineral storage. Storage in the water column is considered to present a high environmental risk and the directive on the geological storage of CO₂ bans it within the Union.

An option to capture CO2 is to take it directly from the air, which is called direct air capture (DAC). The main challenge in this process is that the concentration of CO2 in the ambient air is rather low (around 400ppm). The advantage of direct air capture is that it allows capturing CO2 when and where there are no point sources. DAC uses engineering processes relying on chemical capture to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from the atmosphere into a separating agent that is regenerated with heat, water, or both. The CO2 is subsequently desorbed from the agent and released as a high purity stream. The combination of DAC and CCS is called DACCS and has the potential to deliver carbon removals.

BECCS (bio-energy carbon capture and storage) is the combination of generating energy from biomass and carbon capture and storage. Apart from the feedstock being specifically bio-based, the technologies deployed for capturing, transporting and storing the CO2 are the same as for CCS. The CO2 for BECCS can stem from biological processes such as fermentation (e.g. for the production of biofuels) but also from the combustion of biomass for the generation of heat and power. BECCS has the potential to deliver carbon removals.

Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) is a process where the captured CO₂ is used as a resource to create valuable products.

The utilisation of carbon dioxide in production processes refers to technologies and procedures, which use CO₂ as a feedstock rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. The large-scale expansion of CCU technologies will require large volumes of renewable energy and low-carbon hydrogen at competitive prices. It is essential that research and development improve the efficiency of using renewable energy to produce CCU products.

The Commission is committed to addressing CCU in the wider context of establishing an EU regulatory framework on carbon removals, which it will propose by the end of 2022. The Commission will explore the development of a regulatory framework for the certification of carbon removals based on robust and transparent carbon accounting to monitor and verify the authenticity of carbon removals, in order to incentivise the uptake of carbon removal and increased circularity of carbon, in full respect of the biodiversity objectives.

In order to avoid a rebound effect, where the captured CO₂ in products is emitted back into the atmosphere, CCU products should substitute similar products on the market made from fossil feedstock.

Large quantities of CO₂ are already consumed through reaction with ammonia to produce urea, a key ingredient in fertilisers. This is an established and commercially viable technology that already produces the annual global supplies of urea, and is therefore a saturated market. Similarly, CO₂ is used in the production of soda drinks and beer. However, CO₂ is immediately released into the atmosphere when these products are used.

The further climate mitigation potential of CCU products depends on the substitution of similar products on the market made from fossil feedstock. Otherwise CCU products would simply create a rebound effect with more material use and CO₂ emissions. Novel CCU applications are studied such as using CO₂ as a feedstock and convert it into polymers, building materials, chemicals and synthetic fuels. The market for all possible CO₂ utilisation options is several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of CO₂ released into the atmosphere each year from anthropogenic sources, see figure below from the EC Chief Scientific Advisors on Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies.

The separate elements of capture, transport and storage of CO₂ have all been demonstrated, but integrating them into a complete process and bringing costs down remain a challenge. Most novel CCU technologies are not yet commercialised.

The only two commercial CO₂ storage projects are the Sleipner project in the North Sea and the Snøhvit project in the Barents Sea, both by Equinor. Both projects involve stripping CO₂ from natural gas – a process which is already carried out before the gas can be sold – and storing it in underground geological formations. The two projects were spurred on by the Norwegian tax on CO₂ which was significantly higher than the cost per tonne of CO₂ stored in the geological formations.

CCU technologies on the other hand only exist on pilot scale. The large-scale expansion of CCU technologies will require large volumes of renewable energy and low-carbon hydrogen at competitive prices. Therefore, these developments will need to go hand in hand to reap the environmental and economic promise of CCU technologies.

The ZEP Platform The European Zero Emissions Technology & Innovation Platform, a stakeholder initiative supported by the Commission, has identified many full-scale demonstration projects that could go ahead once the necessary economic framework is in place, such as for Porthos and Northern Lights.

Carbon capture utilisation and storage is not economical due to its high costs and lacking business model.

The cost of CCS and CCU involves partly capital investment on equipment to capture, utilise, transport or store CO₂, and partly the cost of operating this equipment to utilise or store the CO₂ in practice, such as the amount of energy required to capture, transport and convert or inject the CO₂. At current technology prices, upfront investment and operating costs are about 30 to 70 % (i.e. several hundred million euros per plant) greater than for standard plants. The high variation is due to the cost dependence on carbon source, location and transportation mode. The costs for carbon capture and utilisation are even higher because of complex conversion processes.

The capture component, in particular, is an expensive part of the process, as illustrated in the figure below. E.g. flue gas from coal or gas-fired power plants contains relatively low concentrations of CO₂ (10-12% for coal and around 3-6% for gas). The subsequent amount of energy needed to capture the gas makes the process costly. Therefore, the cost remains an important barrier to the take-up of carbon capture. However, higher concentration of CO₂ in some industrial flue gas streams, advancements in research for new capture technologies, and learning from demonstration plants will reduce costs of carbon capture in the future.

IEA, Levelised cost of CO₂ capture by sector and initial CO₂ concentration, 2019, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/levelised-cost-of-co2-capture-by-sector-and-initial-co2-concentration-2019

CCS costs can be covered currently partly through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and partly through private and public funding. Currently, the ETS does not reward CCU due to lack of evidence and methodologies.

In the early phase, CCS demonstration projects will require additional finance on top of the incentive provided by the carbon market because the current cost of the technology is substantially higher than the carbon price. To catalyse this additional finance, decisive financial commitment from industry will be crucial and Member State support measures play a major role.

The costs of CCS are expected to decrease once there are a number of operational large-scale demonstration plants. With the strengthened carbon signal due to the increased 2030 and 2050 climate ambition, it should become cheaper to apply CCS rather than to release CO₂ in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, CCU is solely relying on private and public funding. The Commission is investigating the possibility to develop an EU certification system for carbon removals, which may also cover certain CCS and CCU applications not currently supported by existing legislation, such as CCS in combination with biomass, direct air capture or CCU building materials.

CCS is supported through the Emission Trading Directive and the CCS Directive, as well as through funding schemes. As of 2021, the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive will encourage fuels produced by CCU.

In view of the importance of early demonstration of CCS and given that a number of projects may require some public funding, the Environmental State Aid Guidelines enable the use of State aid.

The Emission Trading Directive foresees that Member States should use at least 50% of their auctioning revenues to finance the fight against climate change. In addition, from 2020 to 2030, 450 million EU allowances as well as any unspent funds from the NER300 programme will be made available under the Innovation Fund to support low-carbon technologies, including CCS and CCU. Furthermore, as of 2021, the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive will encourage fuels produced by CCU.

CO₂ captured and stored will not considered as “emitted” under the ETS.

The ETS provides the main incentive for CCS deployment. According to the EU legal framework, CO₂ that is captured and safely stored is considered as “not emitted” under the ETS. Since the 2015 amendment to the Emissions Trading Directive, capture, transport and storage installations are explicitly included in the ETS.

No. 

It is up to each operator to decide whether it makes commercial sense to deploy CCS or CCU, depending on the carbon price, the price for green products and the cost of the technology. The CCS Directive enables carbon capture and storage by providing a framework to manage environmental risks and remove existing legislation barriers. There is no specific EU legislation for CCU.

The CO₂ can be geologically stored by trapping it in rock formations, by dissolving it in water found in geological formations or through chemical reactions with rock formations to minerals.

There are four main mechanisms to trap CO₂ in geological formations.

1. Structural trapping, which is the presence of an impermeable cap-rock which prevents CO₂ from escaping from the outset.
2. Residual CO₂ trapping, where CO₂ is trapped by capillary forces in the interstices of the rock formation, which develops about 10 years after injection.
3. Solubility trapping, where the CO₂ dissolves in the water found in the geological formation and sinks because CO₂ dissolved in water is heavier than normal water. This becomes important between 10 and 100 years after injection.
4. Mineral trapping happens when dissolved CO₂ chemically reacts with the rock formation to produce minerals.

Typical sites are depleted oil and gas fields and saline aquifers. The permitting procedure includes a two-step review by the Member State authority and the Commission.

The two main geological formations that can be used for CO₂ storage are depleted oil and gas fields, and saline aquifers (groundwater bodies whose salt content makes them unsuitable for drinking water or agriculture).

Site selection is the crucial stage in designing a storage project. Member States have the right to determine which areas of their territory are free to be used for CO₂ storage. When exploration is required to generate the necessary information, exploration permits must be issued on a non-discriminatory basis, valid for two years with the possibility of extension.

A detailed analysis of the potential site must be carried out according to criteria specified in Annex I of the CCS directive, including modelling the expected behaviour of CO₂ following injection. The site can be only used if this analysis shows that under the proposed conditions of use there is no significant risk of leakage, and that no significant health or environmental impacts are likely to occur.

The initial analysis of the site is done by the potential operator, who then submits the documentation to the Member State competent authority in the permit application. The competent authority reviews the information and if it is satisfied that the condition is met, issues a draft permit decision.

For the early storage projects, the directive includes an additional safeguard. To ensure consistent application of the directive across Europe and promote public confidence in carbon capture and storage the draft permits are reviewed by the Commission. The Commission's opinion is public (see here or here), but the final permitting decision remains with the national competent authority according to the subsidiarity principle.

In 2020, Europe reached 1/10.000^th of its total capacity, thus a lot of storage is still available. Once the storage sites are filled, they are closed and monitored.

The capacity per storage sites varies. In Europe, we have 300 GtCO₂ storage reservoirs available, of which until 2020 only 35.4 MtCO₂ was used. According to the in-depth assessment for the Clean Planet for All Communication [add link: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_an…], we would need between 201 and 606 of MtCO₂ storage per year in 2050 to reach EU climate neutrality objective, as shown in the figure below. Once the storage sites are filled, they are closed and monitored.

The EU regulations on storage are limited within the EU and EEA.

The directive can only regulate storage within the European Union and the European Economic Area. If the CO₂ that is stored in these regions is in accordance with the directive, then the emitted CO₂ will be considered as “not having been emitted” under the ETS. Storing CO₂ emissions outside the European Union is not banned but any emissions stored as such will not receive any credits under the ETS, providing little incentive to store carbon dioxide abroad.

The probability of leakage at appropriately selected and managed storage sites is minimal.

The risk of leakage depends on the site in question. The IPCC Special Report on CCS concluded that the fraction of CO₂ retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and likely to exceed 99% over 1000 years. In other words, the probability of leakage at appropriately selected and managed storage sites is minimal.

The requirements for on-site selection are designed to ensure that only sites with minimal risk of leakage are chosen. The review of draft permit decisions by the Commission provides additional confidence that the requirements will be implemented consistently across the EU. Besides, the operators are required to set up a monitoring plan to verify that the injected CO₂ is behaving as expected.

According measures need to be taken to return the site to a safe state. The leaked CO₂ will be subtracted from the Emissions Trading Allowances.

If, despite the precautions taken in selecting a site, the site does leak in practice, corrective measures must be taken to rectify the situation and return the site to a safe state. Emissions Trading Allowances must be surrendered for any leaked CO₂, to compensate for the fact that the stored emissions were credited under the ETS as not emitted when they left the source. Finally, the requirements of the Environmental Liability Directive on repairing local damage to the environment will apply in the case of leakage.

The Member State authority is responsible for carrying out routine annual inspections.

The competent authority in the Member States must ensure that inspections are carried out to verify that the provisions of the directive are observed. Routine inspections must be carried out at least once a year, involving the examination of the injection and monitoring facilities and the full range of environmental effects from the storage complex. Besides, non-routine inspections must be carried out if any leakage has been notified or if the operator's annual report to the competent authority shows that the installation is not compliant with the directive.

After injection finishes as planned, the site is closed and the post-closure monitoring period commences. After 20 years or less, if the site is stable, the private operator can request transfer of responsibility to the state.

Geological storage will extend over much longer periods than the lifespan of an average commercial entity. Arrangements are needed to ensure the long-term stewardship of storage sites. The directive allows the responsibility of the site to be transferred to Member State control in the long term. However, the polluter pays principle requires that the operator retain responsibility for a site while it presents a significant risk of leakage. Also, rules are needed to ensure that no distortion of competition arises from different Member State approaches.

Under the directive a storage site shall be transferred to the state when

1. all available evidence indicates that the CO₂ will be completely contained for the indefinite future,
2. a minimum period before transfer to be determined by the competent authority has elapsed,
3. a financial contribution for the post-transfer period covering at least the costs for monitoring for 30 years has been made, and
4. the site has been sealed and the injection facilities have been removed.

As this is the second key decision in the lifecycle of a storage site (the first being the decision to permit the site for use), a Commission review is foreseen at this stage, too.