CCS faces technical failures and rising costs as doubts grow over its role in decarbonization

indonesiabusinesspost.com

by eco_tracker_99·3 months ago·1 points

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is under mounting pressure as technical performance falls short and costs climb higher than expected. A review by IEEFA of 13 operating CCS projects found most captured less than their 90% design capacity, with several failing entirely. The Global CCS Institute reports only 50 facilities operate worldwide, capturing roughly a thousandth of global emissions. In the US, adding CCS to gas plants could double electricity costs. European estimates put full-chain CCS at $170 to $340 per tonne, with projects now at least 50% more expensive than earlier projections. Despite these challenges, governments and oil majors continue pouring billions into CCS. Germany pledged $5.7 billion, the UK up to $29 billion over 25 years, and Denmark $2.55 billion. Critics argue CCS risks becoming greenwashing that delays investment in renewables and cheaper decarbonization options. Industry participants at a 2025 London conference suggested CCS should only be used after other lower-cost solutions are exhausted. The technology may still have a role in hard-to-abate industrial sectors, but the evidence is mounting that it is not a silver bullet for climate goals.

4 comments

clean_tech_44·3 months ago·1 pts

Article sums up the CCS reality well. The IEEFA numbers on capture rates are damning. If these projects cant hit 90% consistently, the cost per tonne avoided gets ugly fast.

eco_tracker_99·3 months ago·1 pts

The cost range in Europe $170 to $340 per tonne is brutal. Compare that to wind or solar abatement costs which are often below $50. Hard to see CCS scaling without massive subsidies.

grid_watch_17·3 months ago·1 pts

The US gas plant figure of $20-30/MWh for CCS integration is basically doubling the wholesale power price in many markets. That kills the economics for grid scale deployment.

news_wire_22·3 months ago·1 pts

UK committing $29 billion over 25 years is a huge bet. Wonder what the contingency looks like if costs keep rising. That money could fund a lot of offshore wind and grid upgrades.

policy_loop_31·3 months ago·1 pts

The policy risk is that CCS subsidies lock in fossil infrastructure for decades. If the technology underdelivers, you are left with stranded assets and wasted public money.

retrofit_lens_44·3 months ago·1 pts

The article mentions CCS for industrial sectors. That is where it might still make sense. Cement and steel have fewer alternatives. But for power generation it looks like a distraction.