The analysis presented in this report is based on emissions data retrieved from the E-PRTR emissions data from the year 2017. The year 2017 was chosen as it comprises the most complete data set, where all countries had had the opportunity to re-report and confirm emission numbers.
Moreover, the E-PRTR database includes emissions from biogenic sources, which are relevant from a CCS perspective.
Due to the incompleteness of the E-PRTR emissions data set in years after 2017, it is not possible to compare emissions from that database to identify trends or outliers that can impact the estimates presented in the report. As a result, emissions data from the EU-ETS database from 2017 and 2019 was used. Specifically, the industrial ‘Combustion of fuels’ emissions was used. This covers the emissions released as a direct result of the combustion of fuels used for heating in plants emitting more than 100 ktCO2/year. These emissions were compared to identify trends and outliers.
Table 38: EU-ETS emissions comparison
EU-ETS ‘Combustion of Fuels’ emissions comparison
FI SE NO DE UK NL PL EE LT LV
Comments The decline in
emissions between due to large decrease in the use of natural gas and by the heat & power
195 Clean Energy Wire, “Germany’s CO2 emissions set to fall markedly in 2019 as energy use declines”
196 IEA Emissions Database
197 Interview with Tallinn University CCS professor
198 IEA Emissions Database
199 National Energy and Climate Plan of Latvia
Box 1 - A note on emissions comparison
Emissions compared below are based on values from the EU-ETS emissions database from the years 2017 and 2019 respectively. The emissions are the confirmed unadjusted values. have been used as a tool to identify potential countries with severe reductions in emissions and thus potentially need to have emissions values adjusted to reflect the countries’ current emission-level. The E-PRTR database does not fully cover both 2017 and 2019 for all countries that have been analyzed. As a result, the EU-ETS emissions database has been used instead. The datasets included in this database have all been confirmed and the database covers all countries that have been analyzed in this report.
The general trend among all countries included in the analysis is a decline in emissions which is expected due to the global focus on reducing GHG emissions. Events or actions causing substantial drops in emissions have all been addressed in our calculated estimates.
In Germany, 70% of the emissions are caused by the heat & power sector, which is currently going through a transition away from coal and oil towards natural gas and zero-emission technologies. This has been accounted for in the estimates for CCS potential as CCS on coal and oil power plants have been assumed to be zero due to the phase-out of coal and oil in Germany by as early as 2030 and 2038 at the latest. The United Kingdom, Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania all have power sectors going through similar transitions, which have also had certain power generation technologies excluded due to expected decommission before CCS reaches maturity. This is done because retrofitting CCS technology to plants scheduled for decommissioning would be ineffective as only insignificant amounts of CO2 emissions would end up being captured by the CCS system. Fitting CCS technology to a newer plant which is expected to run for a long time, would yield larger amounts of captured carbon and make more sense as an investment as a result.
Latvia is the only country that has had its emissions increased. This is due to the country’s national energy strategy, which is currently focusing on achieving a larger share of energy independence. Currently, Latvia imports approximately 70% of the country’s electricity mostly from Sweden and any domestic production of electricity would as a result increase the emissions of Latvia. Moreover, Latvia’s emissions are insignificant compared to, e.g. Germany and Poland and has, as a result, had a low impact on the overall CCS potential estimates.
Technical assumptions for CCS potential
Estimation of CCS potential within each country is based on CO2 emissions from large sources, multiplied by technically capturable share (country-based adjustments have been applied where necessary (country-based on Ramboll’s technical insights), and again multiplied by the expected share of CO2 that will be stored (estimated CCS share).
In the definition of the technical capture potential, this report applied some general assumptions for technically capturable volumes connected with the power & heat plants and plants within the energy-intensive industries in Europe.
Table 39: Assumptions underlying technically capturable volume (technical capture potential) across the analysed countries
Sector Industry Significance of CCS CCS application200
Technical capture potential %
201
Power and heat
generation Power and heat plants, including fossil, biomass-fired plants etc.
In general, LOW for fossil-fired plants, as the focus is typically on renewable power generation.
However, for some European countries currently heavily relying on coal power generation, CCS on coal power plants could be an attractive option.
MEDIUM/HIGH for biomass plants (incl. incineration plants) due to interest for BECCS that can provide
CCS can be used in thermal power and heat plants regardless of the fuel used during combustion is fossil or renewable. The technology can be retrofitted to existing plants or applied to newly constructed plants by collecting and ‘cleaning’ the flue gasses from the stacks.
Up to ~90%
200 Based on Ramboll’s technical insights and external research (mainly The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Carbon Neutral Europe, Carbon Limits, 2020)
201 Share of volumes that are technically feasible to capture; Input based on Ramboll’s technical insights and external research (mainly The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Carbon Neutral Europe, Carbon Limits, 2020)
67
negative emissions compensating some industry and agricultural emissions hard to abate.
Energy-intensive industry
Iron and steel (incl. other ferrous metals)
MEDIUM; Both CCS and hydrogen can be applied.
Hydrogen replacing fossil fuels is expected to be the preferred option. However, if hydrogenfrom natural gas (blue hydrogen) is applied, then CCS is key.
CCS can be applied to current blast furnaces in the steel-making process responsible for most of the CO2 emissions in the iron and steel industry, enabling up to 50%
reduction of emissions. Alternatively, direct smelting technology could be used to concentrate CO2 generation further, enabling higher amounts of emissions reduction.
Up to ~60%
Refineries HIGH as emissions from refining and mineral oil
and gas are hard to abate. CO2 production from refineries is spread over multiple stacks with varying CO2 emission amounts making it infeasible to capture CO2 from all sources.
Up to ~50%
Mineral production (mainly cement, but also glass ceramics etc.)
HIGH, CCS is key in the cement sector as there are no other ways to reduce the process emissions significantly. While the use of biomass instead of fossil fuels can reduce some emissions, BECCS would still be relevant to provide negative emissions).
In the cement sector, 60-65% of CO2 is generated during the heating process due to the combustion of fuels providing heat and because of a reaction within the cement during the heating process.
Up to ~50%
Chemicals MEDIUM; Mostly transitional solution as renewable energy sources can be applied; In general, the chemical industry is prioritising CCU over CCS.
CCS can be applied to process emissions as well as emissions from fuel combustion. Application varies due to high diversity of the sector.
Ammonia and blue hydrogen production produce a relatively pure CO2 stream, potentially allowing for very high capture rates.
Up to ~50%
Pulp & paper HIGH; Pulp and paper industry in most cases utilise production residuals/biomass as energy input in processing; BECCS here would be key here to compensate for emissions from other industries where they are harder to abate. Pulp and paper plants are often located close to coastline and rivers (as they need water in production), and this makes it potentially easier to transport CO2
During the chemical pulping process, woodchips are cooked by burning by-products from the paper-making process. Installing CCS technology can be applied to capture carbon from flue gasses.
Up to ~90%
Estimated CCS share reflects what is actually expected for CCS given alternatives (CCU, renewable energy, heat pumps etc), and is based on high-level qualitative and country-specific analysis (interviews and available research).
Box 2 – Estimated CCS share
Note that table below presents the maximum estimated capturable share, i.e. peak share expected after years of gradual ramp-up.
Overview of assumptions for CO2 emissions from large sources, technical potential and estimated CCS share per country are presented in the table below. See appendix for more information on estimated CCS share.
Table 40: Overview of assumptions for CO2 emissions, technical potential, and estimated CCS share (peak estimates) potential per country
Note: * CO” emissions in Estonia (EE), have been adjusted in relation to the source (E-PRTR), as the CO2 emission from power and heat sector (20.7 Mt in 2017 according to E-PRTR) is outdated since several fossils fuel-driven plants were close in the past couple of years. Therefore, a more representative number is 7.9 Mt.
Industry Sub-industry
Thermal power and heat generation 16,9 90% N/A 11,7 90% N/A 14,2 90% 50% 263,8 90% 5% 99,7 90% 10%
WtE plants 0,2 90% 90% 4,8 90% 90% 0,0 90% N/A 16,4 90% 50% 9,9 90% 80%
Steel & iron production/ferrous metals 1,5 60% 60% 4,1 60% 0% 2,5 60% 50% 28,6 60% 20% 6,7 60% 50%
Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc) 0,0 N/A N/A 0,7 N/A N/A 2,7 N/A N/A 1,7 N/A N/A 0,0 N/A N/A
Mineral oil and gas refineries 3,1 50% 50% 2,7 50% 50% 2,6 50% 75% 21,1 50% 30% 10,8 50% 25%
Chemicals production 0,7 50% 50% 1,0 50% 25% 1,5 50% 25% 24,6 50% 30% 4,8 50% 25%
Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production) 0,0 50% N/A 0,0 50% N/A 0,0 50% N/A 0,0 50% 0% 0,6 50% 25%
Pulp & paper 20,3 80% 80% 22,8 80% 80% 0,2 80% 50% 0,0 80% N/A 0,0 80% N/A
Mineral production (cement) 1,3 90% 90% 2,8 90% 90% 1,2 90% 90% 25,0 90% 50% 7,2 90% 90%
Mineral production (lime, plaster, ceramics, glass etc) 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A 0,5 90% 90% 0,9 90% N/A 1,0 90% 90%
Food processing 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A 0,8 90% N/A 1,2 90% 50%
Other Other 2,9 N/A N/A 0,7 N/A N/A 0,0 N/A N/A 23,3 N/A N/A 4,4 N/A N/A
Total 46,8 51,3 25,4 406,2 146,3
FI SE NO DE UK
Steel & iron production/ferrous metals 0,0 60% N/A 7,1 60% 30% 0,0 60% N/A 0,0 60% N/A 0,0 60% N/A
Non-ferrous metals (aluminium, copper and zinc etc) 0,0 N/A N/A 1,2 N/A N/A 0,0 N/A N/A 0,0 N/A N/A 0,0 N/A N/A
Mineral oil and gas refineries 10,6 50% 90% 1,7 50% 50% 0,0 50% N/A 1,7 50% 0% 0,0 50% N/A
Chemicals production 16,9 50% 75% 1,0 50% 10% 0,0 50% N/A 0,0 50% N/A 0,0 50% N/A
Chemicals production (fertiliser/ammonia production) 0,0 50% 75% 1,7 50% 10% 0,0 50% N/A 2,6 50% 30% 0,0 50% N/A
Pulp & paper 0,0 80% N/A 0,0 80% N/A 0,0 80% N/A 0,0 80% N/A 0,0 80% N/A
Mineral production (cement) 0,5 90% 90% 6,8 90% 50% 0,6 90% 90% 0,7 90% 90% 0,0 90% N/A
Mineral production (lime, plaster, ceramics, glass etc) 0,1 90% N/A 2,1 90% 40% 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A
Food processing 0,9 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A 0,0 90% N/A
69