International Scientific Journal


The CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology is since more than ten years considered one of the key options for the future climate change mitigation. This paper discusses the implications for the further development of CCS, particularly with respect to climate change policy in an international geopolitics context. The rationale for developing CCS should be the over-abundance of fossil fuel reserves (and resources) in a climate change context. From a geopolitical point, it can be argued that the most important outcome from the successful commercialisation of CCS will be that fossil fuel-dependent economies with large fossil fuel resources will find it easier to comply with stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets (i.e. to attach a price to CO2 emissions). This should be of great importance since, from a geopolitical view, the curbing on GHG emissions cannot be isolated from security of supply and economic competition between regions. Thus, successful application of CCS may moderate geopolitical risks related to regional differences in the possibilities and thereby willingness to comply with large emission cuts. In Europe, application of CCS will enhance security of supply by fuel diversification from continued use of coal, especially domestic lignite. Introduction of CCS will also make possible negative emissions when using biomass as a fuel, i.e. in so called Biomass Energy CCS (BECCS). Yet, the development of BECCS relies on the successful development of fossil fuelled CCS since BECCS in itself is unlikely to be sufficient for establishing a cost efficient CCS infrastructure for transport and storage and because BECCS does not solve the problem with the abundant resources of fossil fuels. Results from research and development of capture, transport and storage of CO2 indicate that the barriers for commercialization of CCS should not be technical. Instead, the main barriers for implementation of CCS seem to be how to reach public acceptance, to reduce cost and to establish a high enough price on CO2 emissions. Failure to implement CCS will require that the global community, including Europe, agrees to almost immediately to start phasing out the use of fossil fuels, an agreement which seems rather unlikely, especially considering the abundant coal reserves in developing economies such as China and India. [Acknowledgements. The research on which the current work is based is funded by the project “Pathways to Sustainable European Energy Systems” and by the PLANETS project of the EU 7th Framework Program.]
PAPER REVISED: 2012-06-20
PAPER ACCEPTED: 2012-07-16
CITATION EXPORT: view in browser or download as text file
THERMAL SCIENCE YEAR 2012, VOLUME 16, ISSUE Issue 3, PAGES [655 - 668]
  1. ***, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007, Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge, UK
  2. Fee E, et al,. Scientific Perspectives after Copenhagen – Information Reference Document, Brussels, Belgium: European Union, 2010
  3. ***, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2005, ISBN: 92-64-00826-8
  4. ***, Long-Term Trend in Global CO2 Emissions, 2011 Report, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, 2011; European Union, 2011, JRC Technical Note number JRC65918, ISBN 978-90-78645-68-9
  5. IPCC, 2005, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, (Eds., B. Metz), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (available at
  6. ***,
  7. ***,
  8. ***,
  9. ***,
  10. Mollersten, K., Yan, J., Moreira, J. R., Potential Market Niches for Biomass Energy with CO2 Capture and Storage-Opportunities for Energy Supply with Negative CO2 Emissions, Biomass Bioenergy, 25 (2003), 3, pp. 273-285
  11. Rhodes, J. S., Keith, D. W., Engineering Economic Analysis of Biomass IGCC with Carbon Capture and Storage, Biomass Bioenergy, 29 (2005), 6, pp. 440-450
  12. Luckow, P., et al., Large-Scale Utilization of Biomass Energy and Carbondioxide Capture and Storage in the Transport and Electricity Sectors under Stringent CO2 Concentration Limit Scenarios, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 4 (2010), 5, pp. 865-877
  13. Gough, C., Upham, P., Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): A Review, Working Paper 147, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Manchester, UK, 2010
  14. Robinson, A. L., Rhodes, J. S., Keith, D. W., Assessment of Potential Carbon Dioxide Reductions Due to Biomass-Coal Cofiring in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 37 (2003), 22, pp. 5081-5089
  15. Hansson, J., et al., Co-Firing Biomass with Coal for Electricity Generation – An Assessment of the Potential in EU27, Energy Policy, 37 (2009), 4, pp. 1444-1455
  16. Svensson, R., et al., Transportation Systems for CO2 – Application to Carbon Capture and Storage, Energy Convers. Manage., 45 (2004), 15-16, pp. 2343-2353
  17. McCoy, S., Rubin, E. S., An Engineering Economic Model of Pipeline Transport of CO2 with Application Carbon Capture and Storage, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 2 (2008), 2, pp. 219-229
  18. van den Broek, M., et al., Designing a Cost-Effective CO2 Storage Infrastructure Using a GIS Based Linear Optimization Energy Model, Environmental Modelling& Software, 25 (2010), 12, pp. 1754-1768
  19. ***, Building cost curves for CO2 storage: European sector, Report 2005/2, IEA, 2005
  20. ***, Building cost curves for CO2 storage: North America, Report 2005/3, IEA, 2005
  21. Kjärstad, J., Johnsson, F., Ramp-up of Large-Scale CCS Infrastructure in Europe, Energy Procedia, 1, (2009), 1, pp. 4201-4208
  22. Dutschke, E., What Drives Local Public Acceptance – Comparing Two Cases from Germany, Energy Procedia, 4 (2010), pp. 6234-6240
  23. Wassermann, S., Schulz, M., Scheer, D., Linking Public Acceptance with Expert Knowledge on CO2 Storage: Outcomes of a Delphi Approach, Energy Procedia, 4 (2011), pp. 6353-6359
  24. ***, Limiting Global Climate Change to 2° Celsius – the Way Ahead for 2020 and beyond, European Commission, 2007, COM(2007)2 final
  25. ***, Towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen, European Commission, 2009, COM(2009) 39 final
  26. ***, A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050, European Commission, 2011, COM(2011) 112 final
  27. Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., Pathways for the European Electricity Supply System to 2050 – The Role of CCS to Meet Stringent CO2 Reduction Targets, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 4 (2010), 2, pp. 327-340
  28. ***, Eurostat,
  29. ***, European Energy and Transport – Trends to 2030, European Commission, 2007 update
  30. Capros, P., et al., Model‐Based Analysis of the 2008 EU Policy Package on Climate Change and Renewables, Primes Model – E3MLab/NTUA, Report to the European Commission – DG ENV,
  31. ***, European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), 2011, The Costs of CO2 capture – Post-Demonstration CCS in the EU, Summary report
  32. ***, “World Energy Outlook”, OECD/IEA, 2011, Paris. ISBN: 978-92-64-12413-4
  33. Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., CCS in the European Electricity Supply System – Assessment of National Conditions to Meet Common EU Targets, Energy Procedia, 4 (2011), pp. 5869-5876
  34. Odenberger, M., Johnsson, F., Pathways for the North European Electricity Supply, Energy Policy, 37 (2009), 5, pp. 1660-1677
  35. ***, European Commission, COM(2006) 843 final, 2006
  36. ***, Energy Technology Perspectives – Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, The International Energy Agency, 2008
  37. Stromberg, L., et al., Uptade on Vattenfall’s 30 MWth Oxyfuel Pilot Plant in Schwarze Pumpe, Energy Procedia, 1 (2009), pp. 581-589
  38. Hotta, A. et al., Development and Demonstration of Oxy-Fuel CFB Technology, Proceedings, 21st International Conference Fluidized Bed Combustion, Naples, Italy, 2012, Vol 1, pp. 333-340
  39. ***,
  40. Dooley, J., Dahowski, R. T., Davidson, C. L., Comparing Existing Pipeline Networks with the Potential Scale of Future U.S. CO2 Pipeline Networks, Energy Procedia, 1 (2009), pp. 1595-1602
  41. ***, Elementenergy,
  42. ***, EC,
  43. ***, EU-China Summit
  44. ***, U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate Change,
  45. How to Efficiently Implement CCS in Poland? Polish CCS Strategy, ed. A. Hink, Report, Demos EUROPA, Centre for European Strategy, Warsaw, 2011
  46. ***, European Commission, 2009, Directive 2009/31/EC
  47. ***, European Commission, 2009, 2009/29/EC
  48. ***, European Commission, 2009, 2003/87/EC
  49. Reiner, D. M., et al., American Exceptionalism? Similarities and Differences in National Attitudes Towards Energy Policy and Global Warming, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (2006), 7, pp. 2093-2098
  50. de Best-Waldhober, M., Daamena, D., Development of CCS Awareness and Knowledge of the General Public between 2004 and 2008, Energy Procedia, 4 (2010), pp. 6315-6321
  51. Ashworth,P, et al., From Research to Action: Now We Have to Move on CCS Communication, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 4 (2010), 2, pp. 426-433
  52. ***, CCS and Community Engagement – Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage Projects, World Resource Institute, 2010, ISBN 978-1-56973-756-9
  53. Kjärstad, J., Johnsson, F., Fossil Fuels: Climate Change and Security of Supply, International J. Sustainable Water and Environmental Systems, 2012, in press
  54. Dadhich, P., et al., Cost and Economic Potential, in IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage, 2005
  55. Correlje, A., van der Linde, C., Energy Supply Security and Geopolitics: A European Perspective, Energy Policy 34, (2006), 5, pp. 532-543

© 2024 Society of Thermal Engineers of Serbia. Published by the Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International licence