CCS & the Ravenna Project

Although fossil fuels are the largest contributor to climate change, they are not the only source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In industry, energy-related emissions constitute the largest share of GHGs embedded in products. However, emissions from Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) – arising from chemical or physical transformations and the use of man-made GHGs in products – should not be overlooked. In 2023, IPPU accounted for about 9% of total EU emissions, ranking as the third-largest source after energy and agriculture. The rise of Industrial Carbon Management on the climate agenda reflects the recognition that decarbonising industry requires addressing more than just energy use.

Advanced recycling, resource efficiency, closed-loop material use and industrial symbiosis are critical for cost-efficient industrial decarbonisation – reducing upstream GHG impacts while enhancing strategic autonomy.

Yet residual emissions remain, particularly in Energy-Intensive Industries (EIIs) such as cement and chemicals. Even with energy and material substitution, some emissions are unavoidable – this is where a targeted use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) can play a limited role.

With global temperatures already exceeding the 1.5 °C threshold set by the Paris Agreement, CCS would deliver only a marginal contribution. Currently, the only commercially viable use of CO₂ injection is to support fossil fuel extraction – the sole context in which CO2 storage has historically proceeded without public funding. Outside this setting, CCS remains expensive and unlikely to become significantly cheaper. Its deployment would entail higher operating costs for connected industries and risk diverting investment from more effective decarbonisation options. Industrial decarbonisation should therefore prioritise electrification, circularity, efficiency, sufficiency, and demand-side measures. Combined with material substitution and process electrification, these approaches are often more cost-effective and could substantially reduce – if perhaps not eliminate – the need for CCS.

CO₂ should be treated as a regulated waste stream rather than a commodity. If carbon gets captured, permanent storage should be the default option, unless the CO₂ can be securely bound in products for centuries. CCS projects typically claim capture rates of 85–90%, leaving 10–15% of emissions unaddressed. Achieving higher capture rates becomes increasingly costly, and pilot projects worldwide have often fallen short, sometimes capturing only around 50% of emissions. Greater transparency is essential to verify actual capture rates and ensure they consistently achieve at least 90% to deliver meaningful climate benefits.

CCS also requires additional energy for capture, compression and transport, reducing net efficiency. Even if powered by renewables, this energy may be better used to directly electrify industrial processes. In practice, it means that CCS makes industries more energy-intensive without transforming their core operations.

In Italy, the Ravenna CCS project from SNAM and ENI faces concerns over extremely high costs and uncertain demand. Estimated costs for CO₂ injection and storage are €150–250 per tonne and the demand for the infrastructure remains unclear. Cost-effective alternatives may not have been fully explored in the area. While technically ambitious, its commercial feasibility and prioritisation over more efficient decarbonisation strategies are uncertain.

While proponents argue that the Ravenna CCS project could immediately capture up to 90% of CO₂ emissions. Among suggested applications regrouped as EIIs, rise also thermal power plants. An obscene idea. Applying CCS to thermal power plants is particularly illogical: it would require continuing to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity that is already costly, while piling up additional operational costs for capturing CO₂. The resulting electricity prices could destabilize markets based on marginal-cost pricing, whereas the same investment could more effectively decarbonise the energy system through renewables and storage solutions.

The project also claims that it will create a “sustainable ecosystem” and up to 45,000 jobs. This is misleading. While construction may generate temporary employment – as any infrastructure project – operational-phase jobs are limited and public funds used for CCS could achieve far greater climate and social benefits if redirected to projects that are cheaper, more scalable, and directly reduce emissions in communities impacted by industrial activities.

The project’s use of only 10% of existing gas infrastructure highlights the risk of underutilisation. Given the extraordinarily high cost of €38.4 billion over the project lifetime, this limited adaptation makes the project vulnerable to becoming a stranded asset. Moreover, the projected 16 million tonnes of CO₂ captured annually depends entirely on which facilities choose to connect, leaving substantial uncertainty about actual performance. The boasted €79 billion in economic benefits largely reflects maintaining existing industrial processes rather than creating additional value, and the same funding could instead partially or fully decarbonise using commercially available, cost-effective technologies.

In short, the Ravenna CCS project is technically ambitious but economically risky and environmentally marginal compared to available alternatives. It provides limited justification for diverting substantial public or private resources from more efficient decarbonisation pathways.

CCS should only be used as a complementary measure for unavoidable emissions and must never support fossil fuel extraction or use. Infrastructure must be safe, with robust monitoring and contingency protocols to prevent long-term environmental or public health risks. Capture rates should be publicly reported, monitored and enforceable to avoid misleading claims. The oil and gas industry must take responsibility for its climate impacts and fund the long-term management of storage sites. Any financial support should come from private investors and be guided by strict enforcement of the polluter-pays principle and extended producer responsibility. Finally, EU funds should not subsidise CCS where more cost-effective, reliable and commercially scalable decarbonisation options exist.