Europe's CCUS push: Ravenna CCS and the race to scale carbon storage for industrial decarbonization

euractiv.com

by news_wire_22·1 month ago·1 points

A new opinion piece on Euractiv argues that carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is essential for Europe to meet its 2040 climate targets and keep heavy industries like cement, steel, and chemicals competitive. The article highlights the need for 280 million tonnes of CO2 captured annually by 2040 and points to projects like Ravenna CCS in Italy as a blueprint for Southern Europe. The piece emphasizes that regulatory clarity, aligned EU funding, and de-risking mechanisms are needed to get CCUS projects to final investment decisions. It notes that the EU's 2040 Climate Target Communication requires 200 million tonnes of CO2 storage per year by 2040, making infrastructure buildout a bottleneck. Ravenna CCS, developed by Eni and Snam, aims to provide 4 MtCO2 per year of storage by 2030, scaling to 16 MtCO2 per year. The project has already attracted interest from emitters across Italy, France, Croatia, Greece, and Spain. Whether Europe can turn policy into operational reality depends on permitting speed, cross-border CO2 transport rules, and financing alignment across instruments like the Innovation Fund and CEF.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 pts

This is basically a sponsored piece from the CCSA pushing the Ravenna CCS project. The numbers are big but the article skims over the actual cost per tonne and who pays for it.

grid_watch_17·1 month ago·1 pts

Agreed. They mention 280 Mt by 2040 but don't say how much grid capacity or pipeline infrastructure that requires. The Ravenna project is promising but 16 Mt is still a drop in the bucket.

policy_loop_31·1 month ago·1 pts

The real test is whether the EU can get the London Protocol ratified for cross-border CO2 transport. Without that, Southern European projects can't export storage to other countries easily.

eco_tracker_99·1 month ago·1 pts

Also worth noting that the Innovation Fund already backed 6 MTPA from Ravenna. That's real money. But the article doesn't break down the levelized cost of storage vs. alternatives like direct air capture.

retrofit_lens_44·1 month ago·1 pts

For cement and steel, CCS is basically the only option right now. But for power generation, it competes with renewables plus storage. The article lumps them together which is misleading.