www.oeko.de

Current Situation and Ongoing
Projects on Carbon Capture andStorage and Carbon Capture andUtilization in Germany and Japan

Berlin, January 2022

FactsheetContribution to the research project Scientific orientation of theGerman-Japanese cooperation on selected climate protection
technologies within the framework of the German-Japanese climate protection declaration and the German-Japanese environment and energy dialogue forum

Authors
Öko-Institut
Martin Cames
Saleem ChaudryFriedhelm Keimeyer
Jürgen Sutter
Laura von Vittorelli
ECOS
Rumi Hasegawa
Johanna Schilling

Contact
info@oeko.de
www.oeko.de
Head Office Freiburg
P. O. Box 17 71
79017 Freiburg
Street address
Merzhauser Street 173
79100 Freiburg
Phone +49 761 45295-0
Office Berlin
Borkumstraße 213189 Berlin
Phone +49 30 405085-0
Office Darmstadt
Rhine road 95
64295 Darmstadt
Phone +49 6151 8191-0

ECOS Consult GmbH
Westerbreite 749084 Osnabrück
info@ecos.eu
https://www.ecos.eu+49 (541) 911 909 90

Enter text here

Table of Contents
Table of Contents

3

List of Figures

4

List of Tables

5

List of Abbreviations

5

1

Introduction

7

2

Background: general climate and energy policy strategies

7

2.1

Germany

8

2.2

Japan

10

3

CO2 origin

13

4

Carbon Capture and Storage

16

4.1

Situation in Germany

20

4.1.1

Overview

20

4.1.2

Recent initiatives

20

4.1.3

Abatement costs: capture, transport, storage

21

4.2

Situation in Japan

25

4.2.1

Overview

25

4.2.2

Recent initiatives

26

4.2.3

Abatement costs: capture, transport, storage

30

4.3

Comparison of Germany and Japan

30

5

Carbon Capture and Utilization

31

5.1

Situation in Germany

34

5.1.1

Overview

34

5.1.2

Recent initiatives

34

5.2

Situation in Japan

38

5.2.1

Overview

38

5.2.2

Recent initiatives

38

5.2.3

Potentials and limits for Carbon Capture and Usage (CCU) in Japan

43

5.3

Comparison of Germany and Japan

44

6

Regulatory framework

44

6.1

International regulatory framework

44

6.2

Situation in Germany

46

3Factsheet CCU & CCS

6.2.1

Historical development and EU legislation

46

6.2.2

Situation in Germany today

47

6.2.3

EU Emissions Trading System

48

6.2.4

Planned policies

48

6.3

Situation in Japan

49

6.4

Comparison of Germany and Japan

51

7

Conclusions

51

8

References

54

List of Figures
Figure 1:

Greenhouse gas emissions by gas

8

Figure 2:

Annual emissions by sector

9Figure 3:CO2 emissions from thermal power generation in Japan

11

Figure 4:

Japan´s Roadmap for Carbon Recycling Technologies

13

Figure 5:

Options for CO2 storage

17

Figure 6:

Indicative cost development curves for DACCS and BECCS

23

Figure 7:

Levelized cost of electricity generation

24

Figure 8:

Global expansion of renewable energies in GW

25

Figure 9:Overall scheme of Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project27

Figure 10: Schematic diagram of monitoring system

28

Figure 11: Overview of the use of atmospheric CO2 for CCU

33

Figure 12: Overview on the process routes of Kopernikus P2X

35

Figure 13: Process routes of Carbon2Chem

36

Figure 14: Overview of the Rheticus process

37

Figure 15: Captured CO2 as input for algae photosynthesis

39

Figure 16: Methane production by Hitachi Zosen Corporation

39

Figure 17: DAC project by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.

40

4

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 18: Regional Circular Carbon Society Model

42

Figure 19: Diphenyl carbonate production from CCU

43

Figure 20: Illustration of maritime zones

45

List of Tables
Table 1:

Outline of the 6th Basic Energy Plan

12

Table 2:

Cost ranges for capture, transport and storage

22

Table 3:

Monitored Items

28

Table 4:

Cost ranges for capture, transport and storage

30

Table 5:

Policy mechanisms and regulations of Germany

47

Table 6:

Policy mechanisms and regulations of Japan

50

List of Abbreviations
BECCS

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage

BImschG

German Federal Immission Control Law

BMU

Federal Ministry for the Environment (Germany)

BMWi

Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs (Germany)

CCS

Carbon Capture and Storage

CCU

Carbon Capture and Utilization

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

CO2eCarbon Dioxide Equivalents

DAC

Direct Air Capture

DACCS

Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

EOR

Enhanced Oil Recovery

ETS

Emissions Trading System

EU

European Union

5

Factsheet CCU & CCS

FT(S)Fischer Tropsch (Synthesis)

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

IGCC

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

HT

High Temperature

JPY

Japanese Yen

KSpG

German Federal Law for Carbon Dioxide Storage

LCOE

Levelized Cost of Electricity

LT

Low Temperature

LULUCF

Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

METI

Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (Japan)

MoEJ

Ministry of Environment (Japanese)

Mt

Mega tonnes, one million tonnes

NET

Negative Emission Technologies

NGCC

natural gas combined-cycle

PtX

Power-to-X

RWGS

Reverse Water Gas Shift (Reaction)

SC

Supercritical (CO2 extraction)

UBA

Umweltbundesamt (Germany)

USC

Ultra-supercritical (CO2 extraction)

USD

United States Dollar

6Factsheet CCU & CCS

1Introduction

With Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured from either point or dispersed sources and then stored underground for long-term disposal. Accordingly, the CO2 is nolonger emitted into or captured from the atmosphere and is thus not effective as a greenhouse gas.
With Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU), the captured CO2 is not stored underground but used
as input for chemical processes. It will finally be embedded in products and thus not be effective asa greenhouse gas throughout the lifetime of the products. While CCS can contribute to negativeemissions, CCU can provide a contribution to climate neutrality through climate neutral products,
which would otherwise contribute to global warming. However, both effects only occur when atmospheric CO2 is used, either directly captured from the air or indirectly via biomass.
It is disputed whether CCS is needed to achieve climate neutrality or not. While the IPCC (2018) in
its 1.5° report assumes that CCS and other Negative Emission Technologies (NET) will have to be
used to a greater or lesser extent, especially in the second half of this century, Germany’s Federal
Environmental Protection Agency (UBA 2019a) shows in its Rescue Study that climate neutrality inGermany can also be achieved with natural sinks alone (forests, wetlands, etc.). For Germany andall other countries, this presupposes that drastic mitigation policies are implemented. However, theinstruments to mitigate climate change that have been adopted so far are not sufficient to achieve
this goal by 2050. Current studies on achieving climate neutrality in Germany by 2045, therefore,
conclude that NET will also be necessary to achieve this goal (Prognos; Oeko-Institut; WuppertalInstitut 2021; ISI 2021; PIK 2021; dena 2021a). But both IPCC (2018, p 14) and UBA (2019b, p 9)
state: The later and the weaker mitigation measures are introduced, the greater the likelihood that,and the extent to which, NET will have to be deployed to achieve climate neutrality.
Against this background, BMUV aims as part of the project Scientific orientation of German-Japanese cooperation on selected climate protection technologies within the framework of the GermanJapanese Climate Protection Declaration and the German-Japanese Environment and Energy Dialogue Forum (FKZ UM18 18 40 40) to compile relevant data and information on CCS and CCU in
Germany and Japan with the view to enhancing understanding of the situation in the other country
and thus facilitate mutual learning and also to support and stimulate the political discussion onthese topics in both countries.
This factsheet begins with an overview of GHG emission trends, reduction targets, and key elements of the climate and energy strategies in both countries to facilitate the understanding how
CCS and CCU are embedded in these strategies (chapter 2). CCS and CCU overlap to some extent with regard to capturing CO2 but differ as to how the CO2 is treated after capturing. Before wescrutinize this background, recent initiatives and projects, potentials, etc. for CCS and CCU in bothcountries in chapters 4 and 5, we discuss the potential sources of CO2 (fossil, biogenic, ambientair) and the challenges involved with the different sources in chapter 3. The regulatory frameworks
for CCS and CCU in Germany and Japan are compared in chapter 6. Finally, in chapter 7 we compare the situation in both countries and draw conclusions for the political discussion.

2

Background: general climate and energy policy strategies

CCS and CCU are elements of the overarching energy and climate policy in both countries. Therefore, it is worthwhile to briefly summarize key elements of the energy and climate policies in which
the technologies are embedded before we provide overviews of both technologies and their developments in Germany and Japan.

7Factsheet CCU & CCS

2.1

GermanyIn April 2021, Germany’s climate policy was challenged by a decision of the Constitutional Court.
This concluded that the Federal Climate Change Act adopted in 2019 was incompatible with thefundamental rights and with the freedom of future generations because it did not provide reduction
targets and sufficient details on GHG reduction beyond 2030.1 Following this decision, the German
Parliament revised the Climate Change Act in June 2021, which now aims to become GHG-neutral
by 2045.2
From 1990 to 2020, GHG emissions decreased by 40.8% (Figure 1). CO2 emissions, 87% of total
GHG emissions, decreased by 38.8%. To achieve GHG neutrality by 2045 according to the revised
Climate Act, in 2030/2040 GHG emissions need to be 65%/88% lower than in 1990. In absoluteterms, GHG emissions must be reduced by 300 Mt CO2e within 10 years (-40.8% compared to 2020);
these were reduced by 510 Mt CO2e in the 30-year period between 1990 and 2020.
Figure 1:

Greenhouse gas emissions by gas

Source: UBA (2021b)

Germany’s Climate Change Act sets targets for each sector of the economy (Figure 2). Achievementof the targets will be monitored every year. If the targets are not met, the respective ministries needto develop appropriate policies which enhance the sector’s mitigation contribution and ensure thatthe targets are met in the future. Emissions in the energy sector must be reduced from 280 to 108
Mt CO2e (-61%) while industry emissions need to decrease from 186 to 118 Mt CO2e (-37%).

1

2

8

Constitutional complaints against the Federal Climate Change Act partially successful, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2021/bvg21-031.html;jsessionid=6853AA3B37857B5387D2BD57E0334A01.2_cid354.
Bundestag verschärft das Klimaschutzgesetz, https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw25-de-klimaschutzgesetz-846922.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 2:

Annual emissions by sector

Source: BMU (2021)

Together with the Federal Climate Change Act, the Climate Action Programme 2030 was adopted
in 2019. Key elements of the programme are (BMU 2019):• Renewable energies should contribute 65% to gross electricity generation in 2030.
• Power generation from coal should be phased out by 2038.
• Unavoidable GHG emissions such as from cement production or agriculture CCU and CCS will
be required.
According to recent studies, 40-100 Mt CO2 negative emissions will also be necessary to achieve
climate neutrality (Prognos; Oeko-Institut; Wuppertal-Institut 2021; ISI 2021; PIK 2021; dena 2021a).
Since particularly CCS is contentious in Germany, the programme announces both a dialogue process with relevant stakeholders to clarify the acceptance of these technologies and the promotion ofresearch and development in this area (105 mil. EUR in 2021, 120 mil. EUR/a in 2022-253).
Consideration of storing of CO2 in domestic sites stalled more than 10 years ago due to both safetyconcerns and the reluctancy to prolong the lifetime of fossil power generation. Recently, CCS has

3

Argus (2021): Germany launches CCUS support, https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2184819-germany-launches-ccus-support.

9Factsheet CCU & CCS

been reconsidered in the context of negative emissions for hard-to-abate sectors based on a clear
priority (dena 2021b):
1)
2)
3)

reducing GHG emissions,
CCS for hard-to-abate point sources such as cement or lime andcompensating hard-to-abate diffuse GHG emissions such as from agriculture through negativeemissions technologies.

After the federal elections in 2021, the new German government aims at enhancing the ambition ofseveral climate policy elements (SPD; B90/G; FDP 2021):• To accommodate the expected increase of the electricity demand due to electrolysers, battery
electric vehicles, heat pumps, etc., the gross electricity projection was increased to 680-750 TWh
in 2030. At the same time, 80% of this demand should be provided by renewable energies. For
fulfilling this target, the expansion of onshore wind power capacity would need to be tripled from2021 levels.
• The phase-out of coal power generation should be accelerated and should ideally be accomplished by 2030.
• With regard to CCS and CCU, the agreements states: “We also acknowledge the need for technical negative emissions and will develop a long-term strategy for dealing with the approximately
5% of unavoidable residual emissions.”
Bellona, a Norwegian environmental NGO active in Germany, welcomes the acknowledgement as
an important first step in the right direction but argues that the importance of the capture, transport,
use and permanent geological storage of storage of CO2 as well as the urgent need to develop alegal framework for CCS and CCU is underestimated in the agreement (Bellona 2021).
Industry stakeholders demand that the new government should develop a German strategy andregulatory framework for CO2 capture, transport and storage, to remove regulatory barriers for industrial CCU and CCS projects aiming at climate neutrality and introducing carbon contracts fordifference (CCfD) as a key funding instrument for industrial CCU and CCS projects aiming at climate
neutrality (Stiftung 2° et al. 2021).

2.2

Japan

In October 2020, Japan committed to becoming climate-neutral by 2050. The energy sector, which
is currently responsible for more than 80% of CO2 emissions, plays an essential role to achieve thistarget. The share of energy-related CO2 emissions amounts to over 40%.

10

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 3:CO2 emissions from thermal power generation in Japan

Source: MoEJ (2020a)

After a one-year-long discussion process, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (METI), which is responsible for energy policy, published the 6th Basic Energy Plan (METI
2021a). According to this plan, the share of renewable energies in the electricity supply shall reach36-38% by 2030 (Table 1), which corresponds to doubling the 18% share recorded of 2020. The
government's previous target was merely to increase the share of renewable energies in the grid to22-24% by 2030. At the same time, Japan aims to reduce its LNG imports. Japan's target for theshare of nuclear energy remains unchanged compared to the previous plan at 20-22%, while newfuels such as hydrogen and ammonia are to account for about 1% of the electricity mix (METI 2021a).

11

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Table 1:

Outline of the 6th Basic Energy Plan

Source: METI (2021a)

The new Basic Energy Plan thus explicitly provides for the promotion of decarbonised electricity
sources. However, to become climate-neutral by 2050, the continuation of thermal power generation
using coal and gas, combined with the application of Carbon Capture and Utilization or Storage(CCUS) is also envisaged in order to reduce the GHG emissions of remaining fossil power sources.
Against this background, METI views “carbon recycling”4 as a promising way of reducing nationalemissions and combating climate change. Therefore, the Ministry is actively promoting the development of relevant technologies. The Roadmap for Carbon Recycling Technologies (METI 2021c)
identifies technological challenges and sets targets and time frames for carbon recycling technologies (capture including direct air capture, transport, storage, reuse) to accelerate innovation in thisfield. According to the roadmap, the options and requirements for introducing CCU technologies inexisting coal-fired power plants by 2030 will be examined at first. The next step is to gather practicalexperience for the application of CCUS from 2040 onwards. At the same time, the costs for theprocesses are to be drastically reduced to a range of about 200-1,000 JPY/t CO2 (2-9 USD/t CO2).

4

12

Carbon Recycling refers to technologies that suppress CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by regarding
CO2 as a resource, separating and collecting it, and reusing it for making various products such as concrete, chemicals and fuels, https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2021/0726_003.html.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 4:

Japan´s Roadmap for Carbon Recycling Technologies

Source: Based on METI (2021c)

3

CO2 origin

As the terminology illustrates, CCS and CCU overlap to some extent: Both technological strategies
rely on CO2 which is somehow captured but differ in respect of what will be done with the CO2 once
it is captured. Under the CCS route, it will be stored long term while under the CCU route it will be
used in materials and products and thus also stored in a way that it does not contribute to global
warming. Therefore, CCS can contribute to negative emissions while CCS provides a contribution toclimate neutrality. Before looking at both routes in greater depth, we discuss where the CO2 maycome from and which challenges are involved the potential origins of CO2.
In principle, CO2 can originate from the following three sources (Minx et al. 2018):• Captured from waste gas streams of bio-based processes, e.g. biogas plants;• Captured from waste gas streams of industrial processes that are currently still based on fossil orgeogenic carbon sources, e.g. primary steel plants, cement plants, etc.;• Separated from the ambient air by Direct Air Capture (DAC).
In the case of biogenic carbon sources, the carbon comes from atmospheric CO2 that has beenbound into biomass by photosynthesis processes. Sustainable bio-based sources are limited inquantity and distributed on a small scale in terms of their occurrence. For this reason, bio-based CO2
sources are hardly suitable for CCS or CCU on a large scale as the carbon dioxide would have to
be transported to the corresponding CCU plants or CCS storage facilities and the costs for this would
be relatively high. One possible source is CO2 from large-scale fermentation processes (e.g. for the
production of alcoholic beverages: beer breweries, etc.) but nowadays the CO2 is often already captured and used further. For the long-term, (IRENA 2021) foresees that global consumption of bioenergy will increase to 100-150 EJ in 2050.

13

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Industrial point sources are large industrial facilities, such as steel mills or cement plants where
CO2 can be extracted from waste gas streams. They are usually preferred over direct air-capture
because the CO2 concentration here is more than 100 times greater than in atmospheric air. If thetargets of the Paris Climate Agreement are to be met, fossil carbon sources may no longer be usedin the long term. As a result, industrial point sources are also limited in the long term as large emitterssuch as primary steel production will no longer release CO2 by converting their processes. Certain
industrial processes where the CO2 is process-related, e.g. ethylene oxide production, will themselves have to be based on renewable5 CO2 sources in the long term, so it is rather unlikely that theCO2 released during synthesis will then be available to the market. It is much more likely that it will
be re-used as an input for the company's own process. In a transitional phase, however, there will
still be relevant industrial point sources of CO2, e.g. primary steel production, chemical production or
cement plants, where the capture of CO2 is attractive from an economic point of view, mainly because of the high concentration of CO2 at a single location and the low energy demand for CO2
capture, especially in plants where CO2 is already captured today, e.g. in ethylene oxide production.
Another industrial point source is the unavoidable CO2 emissions from geogenic carbon sources,
e.g. from lime burning in cement production. While there are some alternatives on the demand side
for cement (wood construction, reusage of cement, etc.), there are no alternative processes foreseeable with which CO2 emissions can in principle be avoided.
There are several types of processes for capturing CO2 from the air by means of Direct Air Capture (DAC), two of which have become established (Goeppert et al. 2012): A limited number of pilot
projects are being carried out and large-scale industrial plants are being planned or under construction.
• The High Temperature (HT) DAC process is based on aqueous solutions of strong bases assorbents and has a high heat requirement (~ 900 °C). The CO2 reacts with the bases to form thecorresponding carbonate (K2CO3, Na2CO3, CaCO3) with high selectivity and high yield (>99 %). In
the first process step, absorption, air is brought into contact with a sprayed solvent (e.g. sodiumhydroxide, NaOH, calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2 or potassium hydroxide, KOH) in a reaction chamber. In the second step, regeneration, the reaction product is converted, and the sorbent is recovered to be fed back into the absorption process. The CO2 bound at this stage in another chemicalintermediate is separated in a very energy-intensive process at up to 900 °C and is present at theend of the process at a pressure of usually 100-150 bar. In the process, purity levels of up to 97%
can be achieved so far (Fasihi et al. 2019).
• The Low Temperature (LT)-DAC process is based on an adsorption process with a solid sorbent,
e.g. supported organo-amines (polyethyleneimine [PEI], amino-trimethoxy silanes [TRI], branchedamino silicates [HAS]), and requires significantly lower temperatures (~ 100 °C) for regeneration(Fasihi et al. 2019). Here, the CO2 is reversibly bound to amine functional groups (-NH2). The
most common LT-DAC technology is temperature swing adsorption (TSA) and, like other DAC
methods, starts by drawing in atmospheric air through fans in the first step. The air is passed
through a solid filter material (cellulose fibres, amino polymers, etc.), which accumulates (adsorbs)
the CO2 from the air on its surface. When the filter material is fully loaded, it is heated up to 100 °C
in a second step to dissolve the CO2 from it. In this process, a purity level of up to 99.9% isachieved (Fasihi et al. 2019).

5

14

Renewable CO2 means CO2 that does not originate from fossil or geogenic sources but from biomass ordirectly from the air.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

The second technology requires significantly less energy to release the adsorbed CO2 and is thebasis for Climeworks' plants. But here, too, the energy input and current costs are significantly higher
than for CO2 capture from industrial point sources.
For (HT/LT) DAC systems, a reduction in electricity demand of 5/10 % and a reduced low-temperature heat demand of ~ 14 % every 10 years can be expected for the coming decades, based on
the values of currently existing systems (Fasihi et al. 2019). Currently, the largest energy demandis for the electric-powered fans to draw in the air as well as the heat for heating in the regeneration
phase. The LT-DAC processes all require a regeneration temperature of 70 - 100 °C, which allows
using waste heat from other industrial plants as a source of thermal energy attractive (Fasihi,
Efimova, & Breyer, 2019).
The exact demand for thermal and electrical energy varies depending on the plant design andsorbent. According to various scientific publications (Fasihi et al. 2019), the energy demand in2020 falls within the following range:
Electrical energy:

HT: 1.535 kWhel/t CO2 (= 5.633 kWhel/tC)
LT: 250 kWhel/t CO2 (= 918 kWhel/tC)

Thermal energy:

HT: 0 kWhth/t CO2
LT: 1.750 kWhth/t CO2 (= 6.422 kWhth/tC)

Compared to biomass-based NETs such as the Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage(BECCS), DAC plants use much less land (> 100 times), largely due to the land required for biomass cultivation (Sutherland 2019). The land use of DAC plants is currently calculated to bearound 0.4 - 1.5 km2/ Mt CO2/a, which is mainly the open space between CO2 collectors (Fasihi etal. 2019). Similar to the expansion of renewable energy, it must be assumed that if DAC technology becomes widespread, it will require a not inconsiderable amount of land (Cames et al. 2021),
which may lead to land use conflicts and emissions from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).
Regarding water consumption, the DAC technology types differ, as the HT process is assumed toconsume up to 50 m3/t CO2, whereas the LT processes generate water as a by-product (~ 1 - 2 t ofwater per tonne of CO2 captured, Fasihi et al. 2019). The latter is a decisive argument in favour of
LT-DAC technology, as water will be an even scarcer resource in the future and thus conflicts ofuse can be avoided. For biomass production in the case of use of biogenic carbon, water consumption would be many times higher.
Currently, the costs for DAC are still comparatively high, which is a barrier to investment. In order
to increase the effectiveness of the technology for achieving the German climate targets, the costs
must still fall significantly. Important factors that influence the economic efficiency include, among
others, the CO2 market price, the cycle time of the sorbent, the loading capacity (Sutherland 2019).
Overall, however, DAC is still a relatively new technology, which is why price reductions for operation by a factor of around three are expected based on future technical improvements, falling energy requirements (including coupling effects due to the possible use of low-temperature steam)and scaling, on which the learning rate and the implementation rate also have a decisive influence.
A significant reduction in capital expenditures (capex) can be assumed simply due to upcoming improvements in the sorbents with an expected tenfold increase in the reaction surface and thus aten-fold reduction in volume requirements (Fasihi et al. 2019). The assumed lifetime of DAC plants

15Factsheet CCU & CCS

is currently around 20 - 25 years (Cames et al. 2021). The capacity of captured CO2 per year isseen to be about a factor of three greater for HT DAC systems. In comparison, the capital expenditure for HT and LT-DAC plants is currently still almost the same. However, the option of waste heatutilization in LT-DAC plants is very promising as this reduces operational expenditures (OPEX),
making LT technology the more sustainable of the two options (Fasihi et al. 2019). According to(Fasihi et al. 2019), the costs for the plants, for which the energy requirements were also previously listed, are:CAPEX:OPEX:

4

HT: 815 EUR/t CO2/a (= 2.991 EUR/tC)
HT: 3,7%

LT: 730 EUR/t CO2/a (= 2.679 EUR/tC)
LT: 4,0 %Carbon Capture and Storage

With Carbon Capture and Storage, CO2 is captured (as pointed out in chapter 3) and subsequently
stored underground for long-term disposal. Hence CO2, e.g. from industrial processes, is no longer
released into the atmosphere and thus cannot be effective as a greenhouse gas. Via DAC CO2 iseven captured from ambient air; together with subsequent underground storage Direct Air Carbon
Capture and Storage (DACCS) leads to negative emissions. The storage of CO2 captured from processes of bioenergy production is referred to as BECCS.
Capturing CO2 from industrial processes usually leads to a reduced degree of effectiveness of theseprocesses mainly due to energy consumption of the capturing process. Basically, the overall efficiency decreases with both a lower CO2 concentration in the exhaust stream and with higher capturing rates (dena 2021b). The CO2 concentration in waste gas streams ranges from 30% for certain
industrial processes to 5% for natural gas power plants. The energy demand for capturing increases
disproportionally when increasing the capturing rate from 90 to 99%. This loss in overall effectiveness is reflected in the capture costs: The higher the amount of CO2 concentration rate of an industrial waste stream, the cheaper it is to capture the CO2. But as dena (2021b) points out, a highcapture rate increases the costs (section 4.1.3, Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden
werden.).
Methods of CO2 storage
Storage of CO2 commonly is conducted in rocks in the underground. There are different technicalprocesses already being used or under investigation for CO2 storage:• Storage inside depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs (Figure 5, number 1)• Storage in saline aquifers, i.e. deep, saline groundwater levels (Figure 5, number 3)• Storage in un-mineable coal beds (Figure 5, number 4)• Storage in the form of solid carbonate minerals within the pore volume of suitable rocks (Figure 5,
number 6)

16Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 5:

Options for CO2 storage

Source: IPCC (2005)

For storage inside depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and saline aquifers, CO2 is injected into the porevolume of rocks. For that purpose, boreholes are drilled inside the reservoir rock formations or preexisting boreholes from hydrocarbon production are reused. In hydrocarbon reservoirs this process
is often combined with enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The pressurised injection of CO2 facilitates therecovery of oil that cannot be extracted using conventional production technology. A geologic trap,
i.e. an upheaval of the reservoir rock and overlying sealing cap rock, the gas is kept underground.
Saline aquifers are deep reservoirs of groundwater that have no exchange with higher, used levelsof groundwater. According to dena (2021b) storage in saline aquifers can usually be done in depths
between 800 and 2,500 m below ground level. Due to the environmental conditions in that depth,
CO2 exists in a fluid or hypercritical state. Water in these depths is often enriched with dissolved Ionsand therefore is of a higher density than meteoric water of near-surface groundwater levels. In combination with overlying sealing caprocks the high saturation and density prevent the release of CO 2from the aquifer.
CO2 may be stored in coal beds that are likely to be un-mineable in the foreseeable future. The gas
could be injected into a coal bed via boreholes and be absorbed on the coal surface. This concept
is subject to scientific research.
In Iceland, the company Carbfix has been working on the storage of CO2 in basaltic rocks since2007. During the process water with dissolved CO2 is injected into basaltic rocks of the Atlantic mid-17

Factsheet CCU & CCS

ocean ridge. Due to the low pH, the water reacts with the silicate minerals of the basalt, forming
carbonates that mineralise within fractures inside the rock.
Besides storage in crustal rocks ocean storage and the forming of artificial carbonate minerals or
rocks are discussed.
Risks of CO2 Storage
The storage of CO2 underground is not without risk. In principle, there is always the possibility ofleakage from storage rocks. This risk is to be assessed differently, depending on the respective
process.
In the course of the Earth's history, oil or gas has naturally collected in hydrocarbon reservoir rocks,
mostly in the pore cavities of sedimentary rocks and has remained there for long periods of millionsof years. It can therefore be assumed that other gases that are stored there after the end of hydrocarbon production will also remain in place after the wells have been sealed. To ensure this, thetightness of the sealed wells is monitored by pressure measurements, gas sensors and temperature
measurements at the wellheads. It is important that the rocks of the reservoir, especially the sealing
cap rocks, are not damaged during oil or gas production. In principle, structures that have several
sealing geological barriers should always be envisaged for the storage of CO2. According to IPCC
(2018), it can be assumed that after 10,000 years, 70% of the stored CO2 will still be retained in thesubsurface; this corresponds to an average leakage rate of 0.003 % or 30 ppm (Cames et al. 2021).
A similar assumption can be made for storage in saline aquifers, as pore storage is also used undersimilar geological conditions.
The company Carbfix states that within 2 years 95% of the injected CO2 mineralises; leakage is
excluded after the formation of stable carbonate minerals. To what extent and over what periods oftime the carbonate minerals can re-enter the carbon cycle by dissolution after the end of storage andequilibration of the chemical milieu in the pore spaces of the basalt with the surrounding seawater is
not yet known.
To store CO2 underground, the CO2 must first be transported to the location of an injection well.
Transport can be by pipeline, but also by ship or by rail or road. There is also the possibility ofleakage during transport, for example during pipeline transport over long distances or to offshore
injection facilities. Leakages can be identified by the difference in the amount of gas between theinjection point and the withdrawal point. The risk of such leakages can be reduced by regular andcareful maintenance and constant monitoring of the pipelines.
Further risks exist during the injection process itself. For example, overpressure during storage canlead to contamination of groundwater or seismic activity (Fuss et al. 2018).
Monitoring of the reservoirs must be ensured during storage and in the long term. In this way, leakages can be detected at an early stage and counter-measures can be initiated.
Potentials and limits of CO2 Storage
CCS is a technological way of reducing CO2 emissions or even of generating negative emissions.
The storage of CO2 in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs is the most accessible option. Reservoirs
are available and easy to develop for the storage of CO2. Due to the previous extraction of oil orgas, the reservoir rocks and their geological situation are well known and characterised. The storage of CO2 in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs or in underground pore reservoirs is already prac-18

Factsheet CCU & CCS

tised on a small scale, e.g. in the USA in connection with EOR and in Norway in underground reservoirs in the North Sea. However, the volume of these reservoirs is limited. Kearns et al. (2017)
estimate the global capacity for practically accessible geologic storage to be between 8,000 and
55,000 Gt CO2. dena (2021b) calculate the storage capacity for Europe to be at least 300 Gt.
Suitable storage rocks are usually not located directly near large industrial CO2 producers. The
captured gas has to be transported to storage sides. From a global perspective, large hydrocarbon
reservoirs exist, for example, in the Middle East, North Africa, Siberia or the Gulf of Mexico. Large
producers of CO2 through industrial processes or energy generation, on the other hand, are located in the USA and the European and Asian industrial nations. This leads to long transportroutes for CO2 captured from processes.
Storage in deep saline aquifers is also linked to suitable site conditions. Suitable geological structures, dense barrier rocks and sufficient saturation of the groundwater must be present. In addition,these reservoirs must first be developed, i.e. extensive exploration of the subsurface is necessary
in order to locate and use suitable aquifers. The technology is still being researched. In Brandenburg (Germany), for example, storage in saline aquifers was carried out as part of a research project.6 With the invention of the Northern Lights7 project in Norway, commercial storage of CO2 indeep saline aquifers will be implemented on a larger scale in Europe.
Storage through mineralisation in basaltic rocks is currently being tested in Iceland (by Carbfix, seeabove). Since September 2021, a commercial plant has been in operation there that realises direct
air capture in connection with the mineralisation of the extracted CO2 underground, i.e. it enables
negative emissions.
Renewable energy and land requirements
Resources are also needed to implement CCS. Depending on the process, energy and land consumption as well as underground reservoirs are the main factors to be considered. For storage inpore reservoirs, CO2 must be dried and compressed. In the Carbfix process for storage in basalts,
the gas is dissolved in water. In all cases, pumps have to be operated to generate and maintain thenecessary pressure for injection.
Energy is also needed before the actual storage. DAC in particular is an energy-intensive process(section 3). The ambient air contains only about 0.04% CO2. Therefore, a correspondingly large
amount of air must be converted in order to extract CO2. Due to this low efficiency, a large technicaleffort is required in relation to the amount of gas produced. In order to achieve negative emissions,the energy used must also be generated in a climate-neutral way.
The above mentioned company Climeworks in Iceland uses energy from a geothermal power plant
for this purpose. At the sites of suitable pore storage facilities in depleted hydrocarbon deposits,
solar plants or wind turbines might have to be erected for this purpose. This leads to a high consumption of land. Solar plants in desert regions would potentially be dependent on regular cleaningof the surfaces with water, which leads to further consumption of resources.

6
7

Pilot project Ketzin, https://www.co2ketzin.de.
https://northernlightsccs.com/.

19

Factsheet CCU & CCS

For the storage of CO2 produced by bioenergy generation, the need for biomass in particular leads
to land consumption. In the case of large-scale industrial application, further problems can be expected, such as a reduction in biodiversity due to the large-scale cultivation of plants for BECCS.
The use of CCS to store CO2 from industrial processes also consumes energy. The capture of thegas reduces the efficiency of industrial plants. This means that additional energy is required for thesame production. Furthermore, transport of CO2 also requires energy; the construction of a pipeline
network is also associated with resource consumption. Since such a CO2 pipeline network does not
yet exist in Europe, transport will first have to be carried out by ship. This results in further CO2
emissions.

4.1
4.1.1

Situation in Germany
Overview

In Germany, the Federal Act Concerning the Demonstration of the Permanent Storage of Carbon
Dioxide regulates the research, testing and demonstration of technology for the permanent storageof carbon dioxide in sub-surface rocks (Kohlendioxid-Speicherungsgesetz - KSpG 2021). To date,there is no regulation for the commercial or industrial use of carbon dioxide storage in Germany.
A number of research projects dealt with the subject of CO2 storage. Between 2008 and 2011 theproject Information system on reservoir rocks in Germany – a base for the climate-friendly geotechnical and energetical use of the deep basement developed a nationwide coordinated overview ofareas with reservoir and caprocks worthy of study, with a focus on the permanent geological storageof CO2.
In Ketzin in the federal state of Brandenburg, a research team headed by the German ResearchCenter for Geosciences injected 67.271 tons of CO2 in porous rocks and investigated undergroundprocesses during injection and the subsequent propagation of CO2 inside the reservoir.8 From 2016
to 2020, scientists from the German Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel joined in the European research project STEMM-CCS9 on the monitoring of CO2 stored in sub-seabed reservoirs.
4.1.2

Recent initiatives

To date, the pilot reservoir of Ketzin is the only storage facility for CO2 in Germany. It is also the firststorage site for CO2 in the world that has been shut down permanently. The KSpG has been evaluated by the German federal government in 2018 (BMWi 2018). On CCS the evaluation report concludes that there is little acceptance within German society on the industrial use of CCS, mainly
because most of the storage capacity, i.e. suitable reservoir rocks, in Germany is situated onshore
and CCS, especially the danger of leakage, is seen as a threat to public health and safety.
With a view to European and international CCS initiatives, German companies are engaged in a
number of projects. Wintershall/DEA10 is cooperating with the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy
and Utilities and the Danish companies Maersk Drilling and INEOS Oil & Gas Denmark to develop
the offshore CO2 storage site Greensand11 in the North Sea. The project aims at storing CO2 indepleted oil and gas reservoirs. During a pilot phase, injection in the oil field Nine West is being used8

https://www.co2ketzin.de/en/pilot-site-ketzin/summary.
https://www.stemm-ccs.eu/.
10 https://wintershalldea.com/en/newsroom/offshore-ccs-planned-2025-project-greensand.
11 https://projectgreensand.com/.
920

Factsheet CCU & CCS

to demonstrate the feasibility of sub-seabed storage. Finally, up to eight million tons of CO2 per year
shall be stored. This corresponds to 25-40% of the Danish target on carbon reduction.
One of the largest producers of CO2 in Germany, RWE, and the Royal Dutch Shell company signed
a memorandum of understanding to cooperate in the field of green hydrogen production. Furthermore, the companies aim at decarbonising RWE’s gas- and biomass-power stations by capturing
and storing CO2 arising during energy production.12 Both companies already collaborate in the project NortH2 on the development of a green hydrogen supply chain.13
Another major German industrial producer of CO2, Heidelberg Cement, is currently engaged in building the first industrial-size CCS facility at a cement production facility in the world. In Brevik, Norway,
Heidelberg Cement plans to capture 400.000 t CO2 annually, which will subsequently be transported
to a storage site and permanently stored.14 For that purpose, the company cooperates with the stateowned Norwegian oil- and gas-company Equinor.
Equinor is currently developing the CCS project Northern Lights.15 With Northern Lights, Equinor willoffer the permanent burial of CO2 in reservoir rocks of the Norwegian continental shelf to industrial
producers in Europe, including the transport of captured CO2 by ship to an injection plant on theisland of Ljøsøyna west of Bergen. Northern Lights is part of the Norwegian CCS initiative Longship.16
After successfully storing more than 19 Mt CO2 inside the reservoir rocks of the Sleipner gas field,
CCS in rocks of the Norwegian North Sea is being upscaled by Longship. Starting with Northernlights, which shall be capable of storing 1.5 Mt CO2 a year from 2024 onwards, Norway wants tooffer a way of decarbonising industrial processes to emitters from all over Europe. Depending onmarket demand, Northern Lights shall be developed to a capacity of up to 5 Mt a year. Quality specifications for liquified CO2 and CO2 Cargo Quality Specifications are readily available for interested
industrial emitters through the project’s website as well as a mutual confidentiality and non-disclosureagreement to be signed by the Northern Lights and potential industrial partners.
4.1.3

Abatement costs: capture, transport, storage

In Germany, CCS was intensively discussed in the early years of this century, particularly as an
option for extending the lifetime of coal power plants (clean coal). However, the acceptance of thetechnology was limited because large majorities of the population have preferred decarbonisation
strategies to be based on renewable energies rather than fossil technologies. In 2019, the government and the coal industry agreed to phase-out electricity generation form coal by 2038 the latest,
although the end date might be advanced to “ideally” 2030 as stated by the incoming government in
2021. However, with a clear end date for coal and the view that negative emission technologies may
be required in the future to counterbalance GHG emissions, which are hard to abate, the interest in
CCS has increased again.

12

https://www.rwe.com/en/press/rwe-generation/2021-11-10-shell-and-rwe-want-to-drive-energy-transitionforward/.
13 https://www.north2.eu/en/
14 https://www.heidelbergcement.com/en/pr-15-12-2020.
15 https://northernlightsccs.com/.
16 https://northernlightsccs.com/about-the-longship-project/.

21Factsheet CCU & CCS

Table 2:

Cost ranges for capture, transport and storage
USD/t CO2

CapturePrice range
Post-combustion capture
Power plants
Iron & steel
CementBasic chemistry
Steam reforming
Oxyfuel combustion Capture
Power plants
Cement
IGCC: Per-combustion capture
DAC low temperature (2030)
DAC high temperature

Low

High

53
59
59
26
15

106
106
175
38
64

38
57
41
118
101

71
57
48
118
550

Distance
Truck
Train
Ship
Low capcity (2.5 Mt CO2/a)

180 km27
2

1,500 km
231
21

17

24

High capacity (20 Mt CO2/a)
Onshore pipeline
Low capcity (2.5 Mt CO2/a)

13

20

6

6

High capacity (20 Mt CO2/a)
Offshore pipeline
Low capcity (2.5 Mt CO2/a)

1

6

11

60

High capacity (20 Mt CO2/a)

4

20

Low

High

5
7

12
14

9
13

17
24

Low
54
76
73
43
32
123
117

High
142
142
211
73
99
248
585

Transport

Storage
Price range
OnshoreExploited oil and gas fields
Saline aquifere
Offshore
Exploited oil and gas fields
Saline aquifere
Total
Price range
Power plants
Iron & steel
CementBasic chemistry
Steam reforming
DAC low temperature (2030)
DAC high temperature
Source: dena (2021b), authors’ own calculation22Factsheet CCU & CCS

Against this background, dena (2021b) has analysed the most recent cost estimates for the individual
process steps involved in CCS (Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.). These
cost ranges included both capital and operational expenditure.
Capture costs mainly depend on the concentration of the source and thus on the technology of thesource and whether it is a point or a dispersed source. Point sources range from 15 to 175 USD/t CO2
with a realistic order of magnitude of 70 USD/t CO2 for point source. DAC is significantly more expensive but expected to become significantly cheaper in the future (Figure 6).
Figure 6:

Indicative cost development curves for DACCS and BECCS

Source: Honegger und Reiner (2018)

Transport costs depend on the mode of transport, the distance and the transport capacity, which
involve strong economies of scale with increasing transport capacities. On distances of 180 km, they
can be as low as 1 USD/t CO2 in pipelines but can also amount to 27 USD/t CO2 if the CO2 istransported with trucks.
The storage costs depend on both whether the sites are onshore or offshore and whether exploited
oil or gas fields or saline aquifers are used. However, the cost range is smaller than for the otherprocess steps involved. In addition, storage is likely to be the smallest cost component of the overall
CO2 avoidance costs through CCS.
For comparing the total avoidance costs for the different source, we have assumed the CO2 is transported over 800 km. The total avoidance costs vary significantly between point and dispersed
sources. For point sources, they range from 32 USD/t CO2 to more than 200 USD/t CO2. For dispersed sources, they range from more than 100 USD/t CO2 to more almost 600 USD/t CO2.
Dispersed sources are likely to be applied both as negative emissions technologies towards the midof this century and for generating climate neutral synthetic e-fuels for sectors which are hard to abate,e.g. aviation and shipping. For point sources, the avoidance costs have to be added to the production

23Factsheet CCU & CCS

costs. For electricity generation this is unlikely to be more cost-efficient than electricity generationfrom renewable energy since the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for many renewable technologies are currently already lower than those of fossil technologies (Figure 7).
Figure 7:

Levelized cost of electricity generation

Source: ISE (2021)

The figures include CO2 prices of about 40 USD/t CO2. CO2 prices are projected to grow further, withthe result that CCS may seem economically feasible in certain constellations. However, despite theprice growth this is unlikely to be the case in Germany since the LCOE of renewables are expected
to decline further; as a consequence, their capacity is likely to expand globally and in Germany fasterthan projected (Figure 8).

24Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 8:

Global expansion of renewable energies in GW

Source: WWF (2022)

4.2
4.2.1

Situation in Japan
Overview

CCS plays a key role in Japan‘s energy strategy for which METI is responsible. In its long-term
growth strategy based on the Paris Agreement, which was passed by the Cabinet in June 2019,Japan positioned CCS as a technology that “should be developed toward the introduction of CCS by
2030 on the premise of its commercialization, in particular for coal-fired power generation”.17 The 6th
Basic Energy Plan states that CO2 from thermal power generation must be recovered and stored
to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. For CCS, the roadmap for technical development, cost reduction as well as development of suitable sites shall be designed. The government is also working on
demonstration tests for liquid CO2 transportation by ships and optimizing networks among CO2 emissions source, recovering and storage sites (METI 2021b).

17

METI (2020): Report on Large-scale CCS Demonstration Project Compiled, https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2020/0515_004.html.

25Factsheet CCU & CCS

Japan's coastal areas are estimated to hold a geographical CO2 storage potential of about 150240 billion tonnes18 (ANRE 2020). Waters less than 200 m deep are of particular interest with anestimated capacity of about 146 billion tonnes and a further storage potential of about 90 billion
tonnes lies in waters with a depth of 200-1,000 m (MoEJ 2019). Overall, ongoing research estimatesthat there are several sites across the country where hundreds of millions to billions of tonnes of CO2
could be stored. However, further research and assessment is needed to give an accurate indicationof the amount of storage. As of March 2020, the following data was available (JCCS 2021):• Evaluation based on 3D survey data from 7sites: total approx. 9 billion tonnes;• Evaluation based on 2D survey data from 5 sites: total approx. 3 billion tonnes;• Evaluation based on rough estimate of 14sites: total approx. 43 billion tonnes.
While industrial areas with high CO2 emissions are mainly located in coastal areas on the Pacificside, areas suitable for CO2 storage are mainly located on the Sea of Japan side. Due to the resulting
long distance between emitters and the planned storage sites, the stored CO2 cannot be transported
via pipelines, but must be transported by ship (ANRE 2020).
Because of this problem, a demonstration project for the long-distance transport of CO2 is currently
planned which will transport captured, recovered, and then liquefied CO2 from a coal-fired power
plant in the city of Maizuru (Kyoto Prefecture) by ship over about 1,500 km to the storage site near
Tomakomai (Hokkaido). Transport of liquefied CO2 by ship at low temperature and low pressure has
not yet been realised in any country. Japan plans to pioneer the demonstration of CO2 shipments in
2024 (ANRE 2020).
4.2.2
4.2.2.1

Recent initiatives
CCS demonstration plant in Tomakomai, Hokkaido

Since 2012, Japan's first large-scale CCS demonstration project for CO2 capture (injection, storageand monitoring) has been running in Tomakomai (Hokkaido). In the project by METI, NEDO andJapan CCS Co. Ltd, part of the waste gas extracted by Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) from ahydrogen production plant of Idemitsu Kosan Co., is transported via pipeline to the neighbouring
capture plants. PSA waste gas has a CO2 content of 52%. The captured CO2 is then compressedand pumped via pipelines to two underground reservoirs located 3 to 4 km offshore under the seabedat different depths.

1826Japan's annual CO2 emissions are 1.19 billion tonnes, of which about 300 million tonnes are from coalfired power stations, http://www.env.go.jp/earth/ccs/ccus-kaigi/2-1_CCUS_storage.pdf.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 9:Overall scheme of Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project

Source: METI; NEDO; JCCS (2020)

The demonstration plant was commissioned in 2016. Since then, the behaviour of the injected CO2
has been repeatedly monitored by 3D and 2D seismic measurements in conjunction with various
seismic sensors (seabed cable, seabed seismometer and onshore seismometer). In advance, a survey of seawater and marine organisms was conducted in accordance with the Marine Pollution Prevention Act. Since the plant was commissioned in 2016, a total amount of 300,000 t CO2 was injected
into the ground by 22 November 2019. The injection was subsequently stopped for monitoring.

27

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 10:

SourceSchematic diagram of monitoring system

METI; NEDO; JCCS (2020)

Table 3:

Monitored Items

Equipment/Work

Monitored Items

Injection wells, facilities

Downhole: temperature, pressure wellhead: injection temperature, pressure, CO2 injection amount

Observation wells

Downhole: temperature, pressure, micro-seismicity, natural earthquakes

Ocean Bottom Cable (OBC)

Micro-seismicity, natural earthquakes, recording of 2D seismic surveys

Ocean Bottom Seismometers(OBS)

Micro-seismicity, natural earthquakes

Onshore seismometer

Micro-seismicity, natural earthquakes

2D seismic survey

Distribution of CO2 in reservoir

3D seismic survey

Distribution of CO2 in reservoir

Marine environmental survey

Marine data (physical, chemical properties, biological habitat, etc.)

Source: METI; NEDO; JCCS (2020)28

Factsheet CCU & CCS

4.2.2.2

CO2 separation: Biomass power plant in Omuta, Fukuoka

In October 2020, the demonstration operation of a CO2 capture and recovery plant started at a
50,000 kW biomass power plant of Sigma Power Ariake Co. Omuta City (Fukuoka Prefecture/Kyushu). More than 500 t CO2 are captured per day, which corresponds to about 50% of the plant's daily
CO2 emissions (MoEJ 2020c). 18 consortium partners, including major Japanese companies suchas Toshiba Energy Systems, Chiyoda Corp. and Mitsubishi Materials are involved in the project.19 It
is the first plant in Japan that can recover more than 50% of the CO2 emitted by a thermal power
plant. It uses an amine solution to absorb CO2 at low temperatures and releases it at high temperatures; CO2 is absorbed by the amine solution, and then it is discharged from the stack. The CO2
absorbed amine solution is then fed into the regeneration tower where it is heated in a boiler toseparate the amine solution returned to absorption column where the separation and recovery process is repeated (Sankei Newspaper, 2021). In the future, possible storage of the recovered CO2
will be considered (MoEJ 2020c).
4.2.2.3

CO2 separation: Osaki CoolGen

In the city of Osaki (Kyushu), a project is underway to develop and test various high efficiency-low
emission (HELE) technologies in thermal power generation. The project is being carried out by Osaki
CoolGen Corporation, which was founded in 2009 by the J-Power and Chugoku Electric Power Company. The Osaki CoolGen project, as it is called, builds on the knowledge and findings of the EAGLE
project which was completed in 2013. It aims to gradually demonstrate IGCC (Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle) technologies and CO2 capture in coal- and gas-fired power plants on a large scale:• Step 1: Oxygen-powered IGCC;• Step 2: IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) + CO2 Capture;• Step 3: IGFC (Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell Cycle) + CO2 Capture.
The power plant constructed in the first step has an efficiency of 40.8% HHV (gross calorific value),
which means that the target of 40.5% HHV has been exceeded.20 The objective for the second stepis to achieve a CO2 capture rate of more than 90% with a CO2 purity of 99%. The implementation of
step 2 and 3 took place from FY 2016 to FY 2022, FY 2018 to FY 2022.21 However, the results havenot been announced yet. The recovered CO2 will be liquefied. Ways to use the CO2 include for example, using it in tomato vegetable gardens, promoting research into the production of biofuel frommicroalgae or developing environmentally friendly concrete – these uses will release the fossil CO2
into the atmosphere.
4.2.2.4

Feasibility study for CCS in Australia

In October 2021, Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. (JOGMEC) and Mitsui & Co Ltd said
they would jointly conduct a feasibility study for CCS using Mitsui's facilities in Western Australia.
The study will focus on examining the possibilities for the production and export of ammonia. The

19

Toshiba Energy Systems & Solutions Corporation (2021): Adopted for the Ministry of the Environment "FY2021 Project to Promote the Creation of Circular Carbon Society Model through CO2 Recycling", https://www.toshiba-energy.com/en/info/info2021_0824.htm.

NEDO (2019): 世界初、石炭ガス化燃料電池複合発電（IGFC）の実証事業に着手. World's First Coal
Gasification Fuel Cell Combined Cycle (IGFC) Demonstration Project Launched,https://www.nedo.go.jp/news/press/AA5_101103.html.
21 NEDO (2020): 石炭ガス化燃料電池複合発電実証事業. Coal gasification fuel cell combined cycle power
generation demonstration project, https://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100932833.pdf.
2029

Factsheet CCU & CCS

basis for the production of the ammonia will be hydrogen, which is to be produced from the Waitsia
natural gas field. In addition, the two partners are also considering storing the CO2 which is released
into the nearby depleted gas field after ammonia synthesis. First, however, the study will examine
the effectiveness of CCS in the depleted gas field before further steps follow (Reuters 2021).
4.2.3

Abatement costs: capture, transport, storage

The Japanese Ministry of Environment (MoEJ) estimates CCS costs based on a 750 MW thermal
power plant depending on the CO2 capture technology used (Supercritical (SC), Ultra Supercritical(USC), Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)) andthe transport distance in km. The costs listed refer to 2014 and include recovery, liquefaction,transport, injection, storage, containment, and overgrowth costs (Table 4).
Table 4:

Cost ranges for capture, transport and storage
Transport distancekm

CCS costs
USD/t CO2

Avoidance costs
USD/t CO2

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle(IGCC)

185
600
970

68
75
80

123
133
142

Supercritical (SC)

185
600
970

78
85
90

131$
140
148

Ultra-Supercritical
(USC)

185
600
970

80
87
92

127
136
143

Natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC)

185
600
970

109
115
121

146
153
159

Source: MoEJ (2014)

On average, the estimated CCS costs are thus 90 USD/t CO2, and abatement costs of
139 USD/t CO2. It is striking here that the costs for the cheapest CCS technology IGCC are 55%
lower than the costs of NGCC, but the avoidance costs are only 15% lower (MoEJ 2014).
Based on CCS data from the Tomakomai project (section 4.2.2.1), costs were estimated for a practical model with an annual capacity of 1 Mt for hydrogen and ammonia production through IGCC
(Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle). The estimated CCS costs for this model are
54 USD/t CO2 with abatement costs of 64 USD/t CO2 (METI; NEDO; JCCS 2020).

4.3

Comparison of Germany and JapanThe approaches for achieving climate neutrality and the role of CCS in this context are quite different
for Japan and for Germany. Japan is focusing on both capturing CO2 from fossil power plants andexploring storage capacity domestically but also abroad in Australia.
Germany’s new government aims at phasing-out electricity generation from coal “ideally” by 2030.
Natural gas power plants are considered as a bridging technology with the trajectory of their conversion to green hydrogen as soon as possible. In addition, consideration of storing of CO2 in domestic
sites stalled more than 10 years ago and is being reconsidered in the context of negative emission

30

Factsheet CCU & CCS

or for hard-to-abate sectors based on a clear priority: 1) reducing GHG emissions, 2) CCS for hardto-abate point sources such as cement or lime and 3) compensating hard-to-abate diffuse GHG
emissions such as from agriculture through negative emission technologies.

5

Carbon Capture and Utilization

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) is the separation of carbon dioxide (CO2) and its subsequent
use in further chemical processes.
Carbon-based energy sources and chemicals will play an important role in a future, defossilised
industrial society, but they will then no longer be produced on the basis of oil, natural gas and coal,but on the basis of biomass or from CO2 based on DAC via power-to-X technologies (PtX). Possible
carbon sources have already been listed and discussed in chapter 2; the energy for the productionof PtX materials will in future generally be provided via electrolytically generated hydrogen. Importantfields of application for PtX technologies are those sectors in which no more efficient, alternativetechnologies are available or in which carbon carriers are needed for material use, especially in the
sectors of transport, basic chemicals and industry. Some PtX technologies are already developed tothe point where they can be considered for use on an industrial scale, e.g. Fischer-Tropsch processes for the synthesis of hydrocarbons based on synthesis gas or olefin synthesis from methanol
based on synthesis gas.
Apart from the metals sector, basic chemicals is the most energy-intensive industrial sector in Germany. A special feature here is that energy sources are not only used for energy, but also for materialuse. For a future sustainable basic chemicals industry, water and CO2 will form the new raw material
basis, which will be converted by means of PtX technologies using renewable electricity. Importantorganic basic materials in the chemical production chains are, for example, methanol and the highvalue chemicals (HVC) ethylene, propylene, butane, and butadiene as well as the aromatics benzene, toluene, and xylene.
In a broader sense, synthesis gas is a mixture of gases used for chemical synthesis, e.g. the mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen for ammonia synthesis. In a narrower sense, the term is used for
mixtures of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (CO/H2) in varying proportions (Arpe 2007). This synthesis gas, which is used e.g. for methanol synthesis, is conventionally obtained from natural gas bymeans of steam reforming, but also from coal and other carbon sources. In addition to the reverse
water gas shift reaction (RWGS, see below), other processes for providing synthesis gas from CO2
are currently under development, e.g. low-temperature electrolysis of CO2 and high-temperature coelectrolysis (DECHEMA 2019). In low-temperature electrolysis, CO2 is reduced to CO (cathode reaction) and H2O is oxidised to oxygen (anode reaction). In small quantities, H2 is also formed at thecathode. The desired H2/CO ratio can be adjusted by adding H2. In high-temperature co-electrolysis,
the two reactions of electrolytic hydrogen production and CO production by a reverse water-gas shift
reaction (RWGS) are carried out simultaneously in one reactor. Different synthesis gas compositions
can be produced by varying temperature, pressure, input and other operating parameters.
Methanol is one of the most important basic chemicals that serves as a starting material for numerous other applications in organic chemistry. Methanol is produced on a large scale from synthesisgas (CO/H2) in a long-established process. The raw methanol produced is then purified from waterand other by-products by means of distillation. Synthesis gas is also used for production of synthetic
methanol. The process is long-established and does not require changes when using synthesis gas

31Factsheet CCU & CCS

obtained from CO2. A new approach is the direct methanol synthesis from the two feedstocks H2 andCO2 in a single-stage process without the generation of a synthesis gas. The direct process showshigher energy efficiency compared to conventional methanol synthesis (Anicic et al. 2014; LUT 2017)
but is still in the development stage.
Synthetic methane (CH4) is produced from hydrogen and carbon dioxide via a process called"methanation". This can be accomplished via a chemical synthesis with the help of a catalyst (Sabatier process) or biologically with the help of microorganisms (Oeko-Institut 2019). The chemical-catalytic methanation takes place in an exothermic reaction at a temperature of more than 200° C. The
waste heat can be used, for example, for CO2 capture from the air (LUT 2017). Biological methanation via microorganisms is carried out at 35 - 70 °C in an aqueous environment. Both technologies
are not yet available on an industrial scale (Wuppertal Institut; ISI; IZES 2018; Prognos; OekoInstitut; Wuppertal-Institut 2021).
There are currently two common processes for producing synthetic fuels from CO2 and hydrogen:
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) and synthesis via methanol. In an FTS, a synthesis gas is producedwith the RWGS at an operating temperature of around 1,000 °C, the gas is then converted into a
mixture of different hydrocarbons. This mixture is then separated into the desired products in a refining process. The RWGS itself is an exothermic process that generates waste heat at a temperature level of approximately 220 °C. At the same time, the RWGS reaction requires a heat supply at
a temperature level of around 1,000 °C. This heat is provided via renewable electricity (IWES 2017).
While FT synthesis is a long-established process that is nowadays mainly used to produce fuelsfrom coal and natural gas, the RWGS reaction is predominantly still at a demonstration plant level(Timmerberg und Kaltschmitt 2019; UBA 2016). The future relevance of synthetic fuels is predominantly seen in the field of aviation and maritime transport and to a lesser extent for heavy-dutytransport (DECHEMA 2019). For passenger car transport, electromobility is a much more cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels compared to synthetic fuels (Agora Verkehrswende 2018), which
also requires significantly less renewable electricity, which is why the large-scale use of synthetic
fuels in individual transport is considered unlikely.
The climate neutrality of CCU processes is achievable in the long term under the condition thatcarbon originates from air (DAC) or sustainable biomass22 and all process energy is 100% renewable. Carbon capture from air is in many cases still at the level of demonstration plants and is currently
being scaled up to large-scale industrial use. This is a key technology in the use of PtX applications.
Because biogenic processes cannot be scaled up to the same scale and because of the quantity
limitation of sustainable biomass, the use of biogenic CO2 in the production of PtX applications islimited. Industrial point sources based on fossil or geogenic carbon sources are not GHG-neutral
CO2 sources, especially since under the current framework conditions it is not ensured that the useof these CO2 sources does not undermine emission reductions in these industrial sectors.
The German Federal Environment Agency (UBA 2021a) also does not view CCU applications as a
substitute for the reduction of fossil greenhouse gas emissions and emphasises that unavoidable
greenhouse gas emissions, e.g. from cement and lime production, must be compensated in order to22

32

Since emissions from LULUCF can occur with cultivated biomass, this is strictly speaking only correct for
waste biomass.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

achieve greenhouse gas neutrality. CCU measures cannot contribute to compensation here.23 Provided that CO2 from the atmosphere is used as a carbon source, whether directly via DAC or indirectly via sustainable biomass, CCU technologies can in principle be operated in a greenhouse gas
neutral manner. Figure 11 shows an overview of the greenhouse gas neutral use of CO2 from theatmosphere for CCU.
Figure 11:

Overview of the use of atmospheric CO2 for CCU

Source: UBA (2021a)

Natural limitations
The actual production processes for PtX technologies do not require much land. At the same time,
relevant land is required for CO2 capture from the air and, above all, for the provision of renewable

23

When used in building materials, a long-term storage of the carbon can be achieved.

33

Factsheet CCU & CCS

electricity. The available land or the social acceptance for the use of land is a limiting factor for the
expansion of PtX technologies in Germany and other densely populated countries (Oeko-Institut e.
V. 2019). For this reason, and also because of the lower production costs, the production of synthetic
fuels can be expected primarily at preferred locations in sparsely populated areas. PtX technologies
have a much lower land use than the use of cultivated biomass as a feedstock: in the case of onshore
wind power plants, some of the land used can continue to be used for agriculture and thus in theorder of magnitude of other industrial processes. Some regions in the world, which are often discussed as preferred locations for the production of synthetic fuels due to their high solar radiation,e.g. the MENA region, South Africa, Australia or the southwest of the USA, are among the driest
regions on earth (Schmidt et al. 2016). Agricultural land with nutrient-rich soils and good climaticconditions should not be claimed for power generation and CO2 provision. With regard to the sustainability requirements for carbon storage in the soils and for biodiversity, assessment criteria such
as High Conservation Value24 (High Carbon Stock Approach)25 and Key Biodiversity Areas26 aresuitable.
Hydrogen electrolysers require pure water as input. Solar energy plants have an additional and far
greater water consumption than wind energy plants due to the necessary cleaning of the solar cells
or the parabolic mirrors. Another water requirement arises from the cooling of the synthesis plants.
For the production of synthetic fuels, this water requirement amounts to around 70 litres per litre offuel (Malins 2017). From a sustainability perspective, it is therefore important that the use of new PtX
plants should not negatively affect the availability, cost and quality of the drinking water supply at the
production sites. Instead, the construction of new water infrastructure, e.g. a seawater desalination
plant, could improve water availability for the local population, provided that negative environmental
effects are addressed.

5.1
5.1.1

Situation in Germany
Overview

In Germany, a number of research and development projects involving large industrial companies
and scientific institutes investigate and further develop various processes for the use of CO2. In
recent years, the public sector has provided considerable funding for such projects, for example via
the Climate Protection Fund or the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. In addition to projects that focus on synthetic fuels, especially synthetic kerosene, other projects focus on a variety ofchemical intermediates and final products from the range of chemical applications.
5.1.2
5.1.2.1

Recent initiatives
Kopernikus P2X

In the joint project Kopernikus P2X27, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education andResearch, various "Power-to-X" concepts are being researched and have been further developedsince 2016. The aim is to implement selected technologies on an industrial scale. In Phase II since

https://hcvnetwork.org.
http://highcarbonstock.org.
26 http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home.
24
25

27

34

https://www.kopernikus-projekte.de/projekte/p2x.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

2019, the project, which is coordinated by DECHEMA, RWTH Aachen University and Forschungszentrum Jülich, focuses on two technology pathways: "hydrogen as an energy vector" and"synthesis gas as an energy vector" (Figure 12). Examples of products from CO2 and H2 which arebeing targeted in the joint project with the participation of numerous companies and research institutions are synthetic kerosene, polyurethane (e.g., for coatings, foams, and adhesives) or hexanol,and hexanoic acid, whose derivatives can be used as valuable chemical products for cosmetics.
Figure 12:

Overview on the process routes of Kopernikus P2X

Source: Ausfelder and Dura (2021)

5.1.2.2

Carbon2Chem

The Carbon2Chem28 project (coordination: thyssenkrupp AG, MPI-CEC and FhG-UMSICHT) is investigating how CO2 from steelmaking gases can be converted into precursors for fuels, plastics or
fertilizers. Since 2016, various industrial companies (including thyssenkrupp, Linde, Covestro, Evonik) have been working with the Max Planck Society, the Fraunhofer Society and universities todevelop a solution that can be used worldwide to convert the waste gases from blast furnaces into
precursors for fuels, plastics or fertilizers, e.g. methanol, urea or higher alcohols (Figure 13). The
hydrogen required for this purpose is also produced by the companies from green electricity using
an electrolyser. In the second phase of the project, the focus will be on other CO2 sources such as
cement plants and waste incineration plants.

28

https://www.fona.de/de/massnahmen/foerdermassnahmen/carbon2chem.php.

35Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 13:

Process routes of Carbon2Chem

Source: Schlüter and Geitner (2020)

5.1.2.3

Rheticus

The Rheticus29 research project (Figure 14) grew out of the Kopernikus P2X project. Project partners are Evonik Operations GmbH and Siemens Gas and Power GmbH & Co. KG. The aim of the
project is to produce chemicals from CO2 and water. In a first step, CO2 and water are converted intohydrogen and carbon monoxide using renewable energy in a co-electrolysis process. In the second
step, this synthesis gas is used as input for a fermentation process in which bacteria of the genus
Clostridium extract is used to produce specialty chemicals such as butanol and hexanol from carbon
monoxide.

29

36

https://www.kopernikus-projekte.de/projekte/rheticus.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 14:

Overview of the Rheticus process

Source: Green Car Congress30

5.1.2.4

NAMOSYN

The joint project NAMOSYN31 has investigated technologies for the production of synthetic fuelsfrom CO2 and H2, in particular Oxymethylene Ether (OME) for use in diesel engines since 2019. The
project under the coordination of DECHEMA is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education
and Research and conducted with the participation of numerous companies and research institutions, including AUDI AG, BASF SE, BP Europa SE, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH,
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V., Evonik Technology & Infrastructure GmbH, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V., Linde AG, Mitsubishi Hitachi
Power Systems Europe GmbH, Robert Bosch GmbH, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, RWE Power AG,
RWTH Aachen, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Technische Universität München and Umicore
AG & Co. KG.
5.1.2.5

KEROSyN100

In the KEROSyN10032 research project, a network of six partners from industry and science is investigating the production of synthetic kerosene and other synthetic fuels. Led by the Advanced
Energy Systems Institute (AES) of the University of Bremen, the project involves Chemieanlagenbau
Chemnitz GmbH (CAC), the industrial partners Raffinerie Heide GmbH and SKL Engineering & Contracting GmbH. Scientific partners are the TU Bergakademie Freiberg, the DLR - Institute for Networked Energy Systems e.V. and IKEM - Institute for Climate Protection, Energy and Mobility e.V.
In a demonstration plant at the site of the project partner Raffinerie Heide, a synthesis gas is produced from CO2 from direct air capture and hydrogen from water electrolysis using renewable energy

30Green Car Congress (20/10/2019): Evonik and Siemens launch phase 2 of Rheticus: butanol, hexanol
from CO2 and water using renewable electricity and bacteria, https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/10/20191020-rheticus.html.
31 http://namosyn.de/.
32 https://www.cac-synfuel.com/en.

37

Factsheet CCU & CCS

from wind power. Synthetic fuels are produced from this synthesis gas via the intermediate step ofmethanol synthesis.
5.1.2.6

Production of synthetic kerosene in Werlte/Emsland

On 4 November 2021, a production plant for the production of synthetic kerosene for aviation was
inaugurated in Werlte/Emsland in northern Germany.33 The plant produces a carbon-neutral e-fuelusing renewable energy from a biomethane plant fed with food waste and DAC-based CO2. The
fuel is then transported from Emsland to a refinery in Hamburg where it is processed into Jet A1
paraffin. The project is based on a cooperation of the climate protection organisation Atmosfair with
the Lufthansa Group and Kühne+Nagel.
5.1.2.7

Other initiatives

Within the funding initiative “CO2 as a Sustainable Carbon Source - Pathways to Industrial Utilization(CO2-WIN)”34 research and development projects are funded that focus on the use of CO2 as a sustainable carbon source to broaden the raw material base of the German economy and safeguard it
against supply crises.
The thematic focal points of the funding are• Carbonation and mineralization: Production and evaluation of marketable products through thecarbonation of CO2 as well as the development of suitable carbonation processes for natural minerals, industrial slags or concretes.
• Artificial photosynthesis: direct use of solar energy for the chemical reduction of CO2, for example
by means of integrated systems for artificial photosynthesis• Electrochemical conversion of CO2: development of innovative electrocatalytic processes for thechemical reduction of CO2 with a realistic perspective of transfer to industrial practice• Chemical and biotechnological conversion of CO2: Development of biotechnological or chemicalbiotechnological processes for the material utilization of CO2.

5.2
5.2.1

Situation in Japan
Overview

Like Germany, there are a number of CCU projects being realized in Japan, which are mostly at thescale of a demonstration plant.
5.2.2
5.2.2.1

Recent initiatives
CCU from waste power generation

In Japan, a CO2 capture and recovery system has been installed for the first time at a waste incineration plant in Saga city on Kyushu Island. The recovered CO2 is sold to an algae grower who uses

33
34

38

According to its own information, the world's first plant for the production of synthetic paraffin.
https://www.fona.de/de/massnahmen/foerdermassnahmen/co2-als-nachhaltige-kohlenstoffquelle.php.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

the CO2 for photosynthesis of Haematococcus algae, which is used as an ingredient in cosmetics
and dietary supplements (Figure 15).
Figure 15:

Captured CO2 as input for algae photosynthesis

Source: (MoEJ 2020a)

5.2.2.2

Methane production from hydrogen and CO2 by Hitachi Zosen Corporation

To produce synthetic methane, CO2 from a waste incineration plant is converted with hydrogen fromrenewable energy sources (Figure 16). The project aims to establish commercial-scale CCU technologies by 2023. The demonstration plant will begin operation by 2022 (MoEJ 2020b).
Figure 16:

Methane production by Hitachi Zosen Corporation

Source: Hitachi Zosen Corporation (2020)

5.2.2.3

Ethanol conversion by using biocatalysts

Syngas is synthesized from CO2 from waste treatment plants and hydrogen from renewable energy
sources. Ethanol is then produced from this syngas using a microbial catalyst. This involves a special

39Factsheet CCU & CCS

strain of microorganisms from Sekisui's cooperation partner, LanzaTech. These microorganisms ferment gases such as CO and H2 and convert them into ethanol. The reaction rate of converting gases
is more than 10 times faster than naturally occurring protists and no special heat or pressure isrequired. Toshiba Energy Systems & Solutions Corporation (Toshiba ESS) received an order fromSekisui Chemical, Co. Ltd. for the plant, which will be used in a bioenergy recycling test plant (ethanol
conversion) in KujiCity in Iwate Prefecture. The plant is scheduled to begin operation at the end of
FY 2021 (MoEJ 2020b).
5.2.2.4

R&D Project for DAC by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.

It is a demonstration project of a previously difficult-to-use carbon cycle model using a low-concentration CO2 capture system and special solid absorbents to implement a direct air capture (DAC),
see Figure 17. (MoEJ 2020b). Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. and the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) have agreed with Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. to constructa pilot-scale test facility (40 t CO2/day scale) for the CO2 separation/recovery system at Kansai Electric Power's Maizuru Power Station, and to start the test operation in FY 2022.35
Figure 17:

DAC project by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Source: MoEJ (2020b)

35

40

Kawasaki Heavy Industries (2020): 石炭火力発電所における省エネルギー型二酸化炭素分離・回収システムのパイロットスケール実証試験を開始. Start of pilot-scale demonstration test of energy-saving carbon dioxide separation and capture system at coal-fired power plant, https://www.khi.co.jp/pressrelease/detail/20200924_1.html.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

5.2.2.5

Creation of Circular Carbon Society Model through CO2 Recycling

Toshiba Energy Systems & Solutions Corporation, Toyo Engineering Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd., Japan CCS Co. Ltd., and All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd. have proposed
a “Regional CO2 Resource Utilization Study Business Through Electrolysis Utilizing Artificial Photosynthesis Technology” in response to the call for “FY 2021 Project to Promote the Creation of Circular Carbon Society Model through CO2 Recycling” by MoEJ.
The six companies have previously cooperated to combine the CO2 electrolysis technology developed by the Toshiba Corporate Research & Development Center for the conversion of carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon monoxide (CO) with the Fischer Tropsch synthesis (FTS) technology used tosynthesize liquid fuel from CO and hydrogen to produce Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and to
study carbon recycling business models using P2C (Figure 18). Toshiba Energy Systems and Solutions Corporation will build a prototype of a full-scale CO2 electrolysis unit and conduct a demonstration operation of the unit at the company Hamakawasaki Operations in Kawasaki City (Kanagawa
Prefecture). Based on this, the implementing companies will create a basic plan to utilize theirknowledge, technology, related plant equipment, and other resources to demonstrate the entire process from the separation and collection of CO2 to the production and consumption of SAF at potentialsites in Japan including in Tomakomai City in Hokkaido Prefecture.36

36

Toshiba Energy Systems & Solutions Corporation (2021): Adopted for the Ministry of the Environment"FY2021 Project to Promote the Creation of Circular Carbon Society Model through CO2 Recycling".

41

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 18:

Regional Circular Carbon Society Model

Source: Toshiba Energy Systems & Solutions Corporation37

5.2.2.6

The Carbon Dioxide Capture & Conversion (CO2CC) Program

As part of a NEDO project, the Asahi Kasei Corporation began in 2015 with the construction of avalidation plant in Mizushima verify its newly developed process to produce diphenyl carbonate(DPC) via dialkyl carbonate (DRC) to overcome the problems which conventional process to produce
polycarbonate uses highly toxic phosgene. (Figure 19). The stability and operability as an industrial
process was also confirmed through over 1,000 hours of continuous operation. Asahi Kasei has
successfully established the non-phosgene process using CO2 as a safe feedstock, enabling not
only reduced energy consumption but also reduced CO2 emissions. The project operated from FY
2014 to FY 2016.38
The DRC process for DPC is using catalysts to obtain DRC from CO2 and alcohol, and then obtain
DPC from DRC and phenol. Asahi Kasei has validated the feasibility of the DRC process for DPC
through continuous operation to assess catalyst cycling and catalytic performance in both the DRC

37

Toshiba Energy Systems & Solutions Corporation (2021): Adopted for the Ministry of the Environment"FY2021 Project to Promote the Creation of Circular Carbon Society Model through CO2 Recycling",https://www.toshiba-energy.com/en/info/info2021_0824.htm(24/08/2021).
38 Asahi Kasei (2017): Demonstration of validation plant for DRC process to produce DPC, a monomer ofPC, https://www.asahi-kasei.com/news/2017/e170807.html (07/08/2017).

42Factsheet CCU & CCS

step, which produces DRC from CO2 and alcohol, and the DPC step, which produces DPC from
DRC and phenol, as well as reactor performance and the system to recycle unreacted feedstocks.39
Figure 19:

Diphenyl carbonate production from CCU

Source: Asahi Kasei40

The outcomes of the projects are as follows
1) Confirmed stability and operability as an industrial process through over 1,000 hours of continuous operation.
2) Reduced energy consumption and CO2 emission compared with the conventional process for
Polycarbonate.
3) Establishment of a production process using CO2 as a safe feedstock instead of highly toxic
phosgene. The carbonyl group of polycarbonates is obtained from CO2 rather than from phosgene as with the conventional process.
5.2.3

Potentials and limits for Carbon Capture and Usage (CCU) in JapanAt the Davos Economic Summit in January 2019, then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe explicitly
expressed interest in CCU, marking the beginning of METI's promotion of carbon recycling. The
mentioned Roadmap for Carbon Recycling Technologies (METI 2021c) was created as a direct result of PM Abe's declaration. The aim is to disseminate basic technologies and products by 2030
that are already established, such as polycarbonate and bio-jet fuel. Other products such as chemicals, including olefins, benzene, toluene, and xylene, which are not yet in use but promise high CO2
recycling rates, are to be introduced in practice by 2050, according to the roadmap.41

39

Asahi Kasei (2017): Demonstration of validation plant for DRC process to produce DPC, a monomer ofPC, https://www.asahi-kasei.com/news/2017/e170807.html.
40 Asahi Kasei (2017): Demonstration of validation plant for DRC process to produce DPC, a monomer ofPC, https://www.asahi-kasei.com/news/2017/e170807.html.
41 Mizuho Research and Technologies (2020): CO 有効利用（CCU）の国内外の動向. National and interna2
tional trends in the effective use of CO2 (CCU), https://www.mizuho-ir.co.jp/publication/report/2020/mhir20_ccu_03.html.

43Factsheet CCU & CCS

5.3

Comparison of Germany and JapanIn Germany and Japan, there are many efforts in the industry to move away from fossil fuels andtowards sustainable carbon sources. In both countries, projects are carried out that use industrial
point sources or direct air capture as a carbon source. There is a lot of research at the laboratorylevel, but also more and more applications are reaching the scale of a pilot plant or even a demonstration plant. Projects based on chemical synthesis as well as those based on biological processes
are being developed in both countries. Neither in Germany nor in Japan has the level of large-scaleindustrial production been reached so far. As the costs for CO2 capture and especially the costs forhydrogen supply are still very high, CCU production processes are not yet economically viable.

6

Regulatory framework

CCS is partially regulated in international law, with regards to CCS activities under the sea. Other
than that, the regulatory framework is country-specific; in Germany the framework is strongly influenced by the EU. The utilization part of CCU does not have a specific regulatory framework (yet).

6.1

International regulatory framework

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS), permits states to exploit
the sea outside of their territorial waters within 200 nautical miles (exclusive economic zone, EEZ),
though there are certain environmental obligations specified in the Convention on the Prevention ofMarine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) and its Protocol(London Protocol). Japan and Germany, as well as most European countries are parties to the London Protocol (IMO 2019). The London Protocol’s Annex I was amended to explicitly allow for “Carbon
dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration”, but only in sub-sea-bed
geological formations, the storage in the water column is therefore not permitted (Stoll und Lehmann2008). The London Protocol further specifies that it must consist “overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide”
and “no wastes or other matter are added for the purpose of disposing of those wastes or othermatter”. Furthermore, the “Objectives and General Obligations of this Protocol set out in articles 2
and 3” must be followed. That includes inter alia a waste prevention audit and consideration of waste
management options, an assessment of potential effects, an application process by the State andthe obligation to put in place a monitoring and mitigation plan. The Protocol’s Members agreed in2012 on very specific guidelines that need to be followed (IMO 2012).

44Factsheet CCU & CCS

Figure 20:

Illustration of maritime zones

Source: BGR42

Art. 6 of the London Protocol forbids “the export of wastes and other matter to other countries for
dumping or incineration at sea”. This strict ban of the use of other countries sub-seabed storage wassoftened in recent years. In 2009, some parties tried to amend the Protocol to allow the export ofcarbon for CCS, but as only few countries have ratified the amendment, it is not in force yet.43 In thefollowing years, specific issues with the transboundary movement of carbon were clarified until in
2019, the parties to the London Protocol adopted a resolution to allow provisional application of the2009 amendment (IEAGHG 2021). It still needs to be ratified. It states that carbon export is allowed
if,“2 Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the export of carbon dioxide streams for disposal in accordancewith Annex 1 may occur, provided that an agreement or arrangement has been entered into by
the countries concerned. Such an agreement or arrangement shall include:
2.1 confirmation and allocation of permitting responsibilities between the exporting and receiving
countries, consistent with the provisions of this Protocol and other applicable international law;and2.2 in the case of export to non-Contracting Parties, provisions at a minimum equivalent to thosecontained in this Protocol, including those relating to the issuance of permits and permit conditions for complying with the provisions of Annex 2, to ensure that the agreement or arrangement

42

Implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Zusammenarbeit/TechnZusammenarb/Projekte/Abgeschlossen/Archiv/Sektorvorhaben_Ueberregional/1018_2006-2122-7_Ueberregional_SeerechtskonventionenUNCLOS_en.html.
43 https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/CCS-Default.aspx.

45

Factsheet CCU & CCS

does not derogate from the obligations of Contracting Parties under this Protocol to protect andpreserve the marine environment.
A Contracting Party entering into such an agreement or arrangement shall notify it to the Organization.”44
The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR
Convention), to which Germany is a member, has the same regulations for CCS as the London
Protocol (Stoll und Lehmann 2008).

6.2
6.2.1

Situation in Germany
Historical development and EU legislation

Two attempts to regulate CCS in Germany failed, due to very diverse interests and opinions acrossparties, federal states as well as a strong public opposition (BMWi 2018; Dieckmann 2012). In 2009,
the EU issued a directive for the storage of CCS (CCS Directive).45 The existing environmental
framework was changed to allow for sequestration and transport of carbon, changes were madeinter alia in the Large Combustion Plants Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Directive, and the Industrial Emissions Directive.46 For the storage of carbon, the CCS Directive sets
new procedural requirements throughout the life cycle of CO2 storage facilities (exploration, operation, closure), and requirements regarding geological formations, and changed the EU water andwaste legislation.47 Member States are able to opt-out of CCS altogether or designate certain sites.
Germany used the later and is therefore required to conduct assessments regarding the available
storage capacity within its territory (Kohls et al. 2015). In 2019, Germany reported 75 Gt storage
capacity in major gas fields and between 20-115 Gt in saline aquifers, though 80% of those aquifers
are currently not accessible as they belong to federal states that ban CCS (EC 2019).
The CCS Directive needed to be transferred in national law by 2011, which provided political pressure to reach a political compromise. The third attempt for a German CCS law worked in August
2012. It covers all aspects of the CCS chain, changing the German Federal Immission Control Act(BImschG) and providing a legislation for carbon dioxide storage (KSpG).

See text of “Resolution on the amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol” at
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/CCS-Default.aspx.
45 Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geologicalstorage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No
1013/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 114–135, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0031.
46 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/carbon-capture-use-and-storage/legal-framework-safe-geologicalstorage-carbon-dioxide_en.
47 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/carbon-capture-use-and-storage/legal-framework-safe-geologicalstorage-carbon-dioxide_en.
4446Factsheet CCU & CCS

Table 5:

Policy mechanisms and regulations of Germany

Category

Main law(s)Regulation of
CO2 sequestration

Federal Immission Control Act (BImschG)

Regulation of
CO2 transport

KSpG (permit)

Regulation of CO2 in- KSpG, CCS Directive. The KSpG puts three limits on the sequestration
jection and post-injec- (1) amount of carbon, (2) possibility for federal states to opt-out and (3)tion site care and clo- deadline for application requests. The most important federal states
opted out and the deadline has passed, no project was realized
sureManagement of liabili- Regarding Liability to the Environment: Eu Environmental Liability Dities, including longrective48 and national laws, regarding liability to property and health:term storage liability KSpG (Dieckmann 2012)
Other significant reguETS Directive49
lations
Source: Authors’ own compilation

6.2.2

Situation in Germany today

All aspects of the CSS chain are covered by German law (Dieckmann 2012). There is no special law
for utilization; however, it is covered by current environmental law.
6.2.2.1

Sequestration and Transport

The central legislation for sequestration is the Federal Immission Control Act, that was changed by
the German CCS law (Dieckmann 2012). It regulates the permit system for building new plants withcarbon sequestration or refurbishing existing. Whenever large plants (300 megawatts or more) arebuilt or refurbished, a check for CCS compatibility is required or space must be reserved for building
sequestration or transport facilities later on. The KSpG regulates the permit system for transport
pipelines. Permits for cross-border pipelines depend inter alia on the observance of the EU-CCS
Directive by the other state. Environmental impact assessments are necessary (Dieckmann 2012).
While the German CCS law has a deadline for the application for CCS storage permits, this does
not apply to new sequestration or transport facilities (BMWi 2018). The German and EU legislation
did not take CCU into account; as a result, the wording of the KSpG, for example, only refers totransport pipelines for storage.
6.2.2.2

Storage

The KSpG regulates carbon storage in Germany as well as in the explicit economic zone in the sea.
The KSpG foresees a two-step process for site identification: first by the agencies of the federal
states and then by private companies. In the first step, potential environmental impacts need to beassessed on a precautionary basis (Kohls et al. 2015). The legislation sets extensive prerequisites

48

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/carbon-capture-use-and-storage/legal-framework-safe-geologicalstorage-carbon-dioxide_en.
49 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/87/oj.

47

Factsheet CCU & CCS

for the application process, such as an environmental impact assessment, a safety demonstration,a monitoring concept, a decommissioning, and an aftercare concept. The KSpG includes extensive
liability requirements regarding damages to persons or property. In case of harm, the company
needs to prove that the facility ran according to its permit, and that it is plausible something or someone else is responsible for the harm that occurred. That is stricter than general German environmental civil liability law. The law also requires the company to prove financial security, in the form of an
insurance or security.
The KSpG puts three limits on the sequestration: (1) the amount of carbon, (2) the possibility forfederal states to opt-out, and (3) an application deadline for permit requests. The amount of carbon
is limited to 4 Mt of carbon per year, and 1.3 Mt/a per plant. This would have amounted to 3 mediumsized CCS facilities (BMWi 2018). But those federal states with the most potential for carbon sequestration used the opt-out clause (like Niedersachsen and Schleswig-Holstein) or previously
passed laws to discourage any CCS activities (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) (BMWi 2018). The deadline for the application for permits was 31/12/2016; no applications for a permit were made (BMWi2018).
6.2.3

EU Emissions Trading System

Since 2015, sequestration, transport, and storage installations have been included in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS); carbon that is safely stored is considered as “not emitted” under the
EU ETS.50 In general, this does not apply to CCU facilities. In 2017, the European Court of Justiceruled that carbon dioxide which was “transferred to another installation for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate” could not be included “in the emissions of the lime combustion installation”.51 It reasoned that “emissions” under the EU ETS Directive are only those that are released tothe atmosphere.52 This led some scholars to believe that all CCU installations would be exemptedfrom EU ETS (Ehrmann 2017). So far, the Emissions Trading System Monitoring and Reporting
Regulation was only adapted with regard to this specific case.53
6.2.4

Planned policies

The Coalition Agreement of the German government which took office in 2021 contains no statements on the regulation of CCS and CCU activities. The coalition plans to “actively follow” the EU

50

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/carbon-capture-use-and-storage_de.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/de/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0460 “The second sentence of Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reportingof greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil and point 10(B) of Annex IV to that regulation are invalid in so far as they systematically include
the carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred to another installation for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate in the emissions of the lime combustion installation, regardless of whether or not that CO2 is released into the atmosphere.”
52 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/de/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0460 See 32 “ According to Article
3(b) of Directive 2003/87, ‘emissions’ are, for the purposes of that directive, defined as the release ofgreenhouse gases into the atmosphere from sources in an installation. It follows from the very wording ofthat provision that, for there to be an emission within the meaning of that provision, a greenhouse gas
must be released into the atmosphere.” and 42 ”Those provisions thus lead to the CO2 transferred in suchcircumstances being regarded as falling under the definition of ‘emissions’ within the meaning of Article
3(b) of Directive 2003/87, despite not always being released into the atmosphere. By the second sentence of Article 49(1) of Regulation No 601/2012 and point 10(B) of Annex IV to that regulation, the Commission therefore broadened the scope of that definition.”
53 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-000634_EN.html.
5148

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Commission's debate on the Carbon Removal Certification Guidelines.54 This encompasses natural
as well as technical solutions.55 A call for evidence will be launched in January, the legislative proposal by the EU Commission is planned for the end of 2022.56
A number of new legislation pieces proposed by the EU Commission shall improve the demand for
CCU technology. The EU Commission proposed:• Changing the ETS Directive to include‒ Reg. synthetic fuels based on CCU to avoid the double counting of emissions‒ Reg. CCU products that permanently bind carbon• Increasing the demand for synthetic fuels for the aviation sector (ReFuelEU)• Setting a sub-target for renewable fuels from non-biological origin in the renewable energy directive (EC 2021).
The EU Commission outlines its plans to achieve 5 Mt removal of carbon annually by 2030 in its
Communication on “Sustainable Carbon Cycles” (EC 2021).

6.3

Situation in Japan

Japan modified and ratified the Marine Pollution and Disaster Prevention Act in 2007. This established an application system for the disposal of CO2 below seabed and enabled the capture andstorage of CO2 in subsea formations in Japan. With the approval of the Tomakomai demonstration
project (section 4.2.2.1), the law was applied for the first time.
Under the permit system, an operator must submit results of a preliminary assessment of the impact
of CCS on the marine environment and monitoring plans.
Under the Marine Pollution Prevention Law, where leakage occurs the permit holder is required totake corrective action. The permit holder must report immediately to the MOE any results outside
the permitted ranges for CO2 migration or seawater/marine ecosystem impacts, together with remediation plans for remedy the situation. Regular monitoring is then required until results settle within
the expected range.57

54

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/future-german-governments-key-climate-and-energy-plans2021-coalition-treaty.
55 https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-set-up-scheme-encourage-co2-removal-atmosphere2021-12-15/.
56 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6687.
57 Global CCS Institute (2016): Japan's legal and regulatory framework for CCS, https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/news-media/insights/japans-legal-and-regulatory-framework-for-ccs/.

49Factsheet CCU & CCS

Table 6:

Policy mechanisms and regulations of Japan

Category

Main law(s)Regulation of
CO2 transport

Under consideration by the Japanese government
In Japan, the application provisions for underground storage of CO2 arefound in the Marine Pollution Protection Law and only cover offshore,
sub-seabed storage. There are no provisions for onshore geo-sequestration.

Under the Marine Pollution Protection Law, the provisions applicable tothe subsea bed storage of CO2 are focused on protecting the marine environment from any adverse impacts of sub-seabed storage activities
Regulation of CO2 in- and are not specifically aimed at promoting CCS as a low-carbon techjection and post-injec- nology. This reflects the fact that the CCS provisions were enacted intion site care and clo- 2007 to comply with Japan’s international obligations to implement theamendment to Annex I of the London Protocol that included CO2 streams
sure
as wastes or other matter that may be considered for ocean dumping.
For example, an application for sub-seabed CO2 storage is made to the
Minister of the Environment and is assessed, largely, from an environmental perspective. Re-permit is required every 5 years.
Other than the regulations above, existing regulations are applied for
METI’s Tomakomai CCS Demonstration project operation but there is no
regulation for post-injection and closure.
Management of liabilities, including longUnder consideration by the Japanese government
term storage liability
Source: GCCSI (2020)

Since there are no specific laws and regulations for CCS in Japan, the Law on the Safety of HighPressure Gases and the Law on Safety and Health in Industry apply to carbon capture and recovery
plants.
There are also no specific safety standards for injection drilling; the Mining Safety Act applies here.
It is still being examined whether the right to use the underground should be defined in a similar way
to the mining law. In general, long-term responsibilities are not defined in Japan. The only exception
is the Marine Pollution Prevention Act, which provides for continuous monitoring of the storage site
by the operator; or over the period in which CO2 is stored (METI; NEDO; JCCS 2020).
The lack of specific legislation and the complex application of existing laws make CCS cumbersome
and time-consuming. The review of a possible unification of laws for CCS has started with Japan's
declaration of climate neutrality by 2050 and is, therefore, expected to take some time.58

58

50

Sankei Biz (2021): ＣＯ２地下貯留へ新法 政府法律一本化を検討 民間参入、普及に弾み. New Law on
CO2 Underground Storage: government considers consolidating the legislations,
https://www.sankeibiz.jp/business/news/210103/bsc2101032253001-n1.htm.

Factsheet CCU & CCS

6.4

Comparison of Germany and Japan

There are some similarities between Germany and Japan due to common international law obligations. Those projects that are within, or rather, under the sea, have quite similar regulations. The
London Protocol’s Obligations and Guidelines are quite extensive. As there are no current CCS
projects in Germany, it cannot be determined whether the practical application of these guidelines issimilar.
Germany has an extensive framework for CCS, especially for the storage of carbon, which is currently not used. This is not due to the laws being overly strict or complicated, but due to the possibilityof political opt-outs of CCS on a sub-national level. Japan, meanwhile, has few specific CCS regulations. Those that do exist are due to international obligations (London Protocol). In Germany/theEU, these international obligations were transferred into the CCS Directive, creating a unified application process for both land and seabed storage facilities, while giving special considerations to thecircumstances on land (e.g. change of the EU water legislation) and other existing obligations e.g.
regarding environmental impact assessments. Regarding the sequestration of carbon, Germany/EU
adjusted their existing environmental framework and permit system.

7

Conclusions

Both countries are committed to climate neutrality. Japan envisages achieving this goal by 2050
while Germany has recently enhanced its ambition and now plans to achieve climate neutrality by
2045. Japan plans to increase the share of renewable energies to electricity production to almost
40% by 2030, while Germany’s new government increased the 2030 target from 65% to 80%. This
corresponds with different strategies in terms of power generation from fossil sources. While Germany aims at decommissioning the last coal power plant by 2030, it is planned that coal power willcontribute 19% to Japan’s electricity generation.
On the way towards a decarbonized economy, both countries also envisage important contributionsof Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU), though with somewhat different roles.
Carbon capture and storage
Japan has developed a roadmap for capturing CO2 and is focusing on both capturing from large
point sources including fossil power plants and exploring storage capacity domestically but alsoabroad with the view to establish supply chains for ‘blue’ hydrogen and to extend fossil power generation beyond 2050.
Germany does not have a similar roadmap yet because the consideration of CO2 storage in domestic
sites stalled more than 10 years ago. CCS is currently being reconsidered in the context of negativeemissions for balancing GHG emissions from hard-to-abate sectors based on a clear priority: 1) reducing GHG emissions, 2) CCS for hard-to-abate point sources such as cement or lime and 3) compensating hard-to-abate diffuse GHG emissions such as from agriculture through negative emissions
technologies.
Carbon capture and utilization
In both countries, Germany and Japan, there are many research projects for the use of CO2 at thelaboratory level. More and more of these projects are now reaching the scale of pilot or even demonstration projects. However, neither in Germany nor in Japan has the level of large-scale industrial

51

Factsheet CCU & CCS

production been reached yet. Projects based on chemical synthesis as well as those based on biological processes are being developed in both countries. As the costs for CO2 capture and especiallythe costs for hydrogen supply are still very high, CCU production processes are not yet economically
viable.
Regulatory framework
There are some similarities between Germany and Japan due to common international law obligations. Those projects that are within the territory of the countries including maritime sovereign zones
have quite similar regulations. The London Protocol’s Obligations and Guidelines are quite extensive. As there are no current CCS projects in Germany, it cannot be determined whether the practicalapplication of these guidelines is similar. Germany has an extensive framework for CCS, especiallyfor the storage of carbon, which is currently not used. This is not due to the laws being overly strict
or complicated, but due to the possibility of political opt-outs of CCS at the regional level. Japan, on
the other hand, has few specific CCS regulations, mainly those that do exist are due to international
obligations (London Protocol). In Germany, those international obligations were transferred in the
EU’s CCS Directive, creating a unified application process for both land and seabed storage facilities,
while giving special consideration to the circumstances on land (e.g., change of the EU water legislation) and other existing obligations e.g. regarding environmental impact assessments.
The considerations illustrate that CCS and CCU are being actively discussed in both countries. Deliberations of these technologies started earlier in Japan than in Germany. From a German perspective, it would be worthwhile scrutinizing the experiences gained so far in Japan in this respect. Froma Japanese perspective, it may be interesting to assess Germany’s approach to the expansion ofrenewable energies in a country with similar resource endowments and the role envisaged for negative emission technologies.
Overall
Besides the differences and similarities of both countries’ approaches to CCS and CCU, we candraw the following more general conclusions from the deliberations above:• CCS and CCU processes overlap to some extent: Under the CCS route, CO2 will be stored for thelong term while under the CCU route it will be stored in products and prevent a contribution to
global warming throughout the lifetime of the product. Therefore, CCS can contribute to negativeemissions while CCU can contribute to maintaining climate neutrality, provided that all energy
used in the upstream stems from renewable energies and does induce global worming indirectly
and provided that the CO2 used does not stem from fossil sources but only from the ambient air.
• If mitigation instruments are not sufficient, DAC-based CCS as a negative emission technology
can be a way of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 or, if targets are missed, can help to reduce
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the second half of this century to bring the temperatureback down to 1.5° Celsius.
• The abatement costs of CCS and CCU are relatively high compared to other abatement options.
In this respect, emission reductions should take priority. They should therefore be applied primarily
to the hard-to-abate sectors, e.g. cement, lime (CCS), aviation and maritime transport (CCU).

52

Factsheet CCU & CCS• CCS and CCU are dependent on resources (storage capacity, land) whose theoretical potential islarge but nevertheless limited and partly claimed by other uses. Beyond the high costs, a focuseduse of both technologies is also required for this reason.
Individual process steps of the technologies are already used on an industrial scale, but others areat the beginning of their technological development cycle. Therefore, no significant reduction contribution of these technologies can be expected by 2030.

53Factsheet CCU & CCS

8References

Agora Verkehrswende (ed.) (2018): Kasten, P. Ein Kostenvergleich zwischen batterie-elektrischen
und verbrennungsmotorischen Pkw als Klimaschutzoption für das Jahr 2030, Ein Kurzstudie im
Auftrag der Agora Verkehrswende. Oeko-Institut e. V. Berlin, 2018. Online available athttps://www.agora-verkehrswende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2017/Die_Kosten_synthetischer_Brenn-_und_Kraftstoffe_bis_2050/Agora_Verkehrswende_Kostenvergleich_WEB.pdf.
Anicic, B.; Trop, P.; Goricanec, D. (2014): Comparison between two methods of methanol production from carbon dioxide. In: Energy 77, pp. 279–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.069.
ANRE (2020). CO2 を回収して埋める「CCS」、実証試験を経て、いよいよ実現も間近に. CCS is close
to becoming a reality after demonstration, 25 Dec 2020. Online available athttps://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/about/special/johoteikyo/ccs_tomakomai_2.html.
Arpe, H.-J. (2007): Industrielle organische Chemie, Bedeutende Vor- und Zwischenprodukte 6.,
vollst. überarb. Aufl. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. Online available at http://swbplus.bszbw.de/bsz254126898cov.htm.
Ausfelder, F.; Dura, H. (2021): Optionen für ein nachhaltiges Energie-System mit Power-To-XTechnologien, Transformation - Anwendungen - Potenziale, 2021. Online available athttps://dechema.de/dechema_media/Downloads/Positionspapiere/DEC_P2X_II_V06_Online_small.pdf, last accessed on 9 Jan 2022.
Bellona (2021). Koalitionsvertrag – Auftrag an die neue Bundesregierung, einen wettbewerbsfähigen klimaneutralen Industriestandort Deutschland aufzubauen?, 2021. Online available athttps://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/5/2021/12/Koalitionsvertrag.pdf, last accessedon 9 Jan 2022.
BMU - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (2019): Klimaschutzprogramm 2030 der undesregierung zur Umsetzung des Klimaschutzplans 2050, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit. Online available at https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1679914/e01d6bd855f09bf05cf7498e06d0a3ff/2019-1009-klima-massnahmen-data.pdf?download=1, last accessed on 9 Jan 2022.
BMU - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (2021): Lesefassung
des Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetzes 2021 mit markierten Änderungen zur Fassung von 2019,
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit. Online available athttps://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/ksg_aendg_2021_3_bf.pdf, last accessed on 9 Jan 2022.
BMWi - Bundeswirtschaftsministerium (ed.) (2018). Evaluierungsbericht der Bundesregierung überdie Anwendung des Kohlendioxid- Speicherungsgesetzes sowie die Erfahrungen zur CCSTechnologie (19/6891), 21 Dec 2018.
Cames, M.; Chaudry, S.; Göckeler, K.; Kasten, P.; Kurth, S. (2021): E-fuels versus DACCS, Total
costs of electro-fuels and direct air capture and carbon storage while taking into account direct
and upstream emissions and environmental risks. Berlin, 2021.
DECHEMA (2019): Ausfelder, F.; Dura, H. 2. Roadmap des Kopernikus-Projektes „Power-to-X“:
Flexible Nutzung erneuerbarer Ressourcen (P2X). Optionen für ein nachhaltiges Energie-System mit Power-to-X-Technologien. Nachhaltigkeitseffekte – Potenziale – Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten. Frankfurt am Mai, 2019.

54

Factsheet CCU & CCS

dena - Deutsche Energie-Agentur (ed.) (2021a). dena-Leitstudie - Aufbruch Klimaneutralität, Eine
gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe. Berlin, 2021. Online available at https://www.dena.de/fileadmin/dena/Publikationen/PDFs/2021/Abschlussbericht_dena-Leitstudie_Aufbruch_Klimaneutralitaet.pdf.
dena - Deutsche Energie-Agentur (ed.) (2021b). Technische CO2-Senken, Kurzgutachten im Rahmen der dena-Leitstudie Aufbruch Klimaneutralität, erstellt von der Prognos AG, 2021. Online
available at https://www.dena.de/fileadmin/dena/Publikationen/PDFs/2021/Kurzgutachten_dena-LEITSTUDIE_AUFBRUCH_KLIMANEUTRALITAET_Prognos.pdf, last accessedon 9 Jan 2022.
Dieckmann, N. (2012): Das neue CCS-Gesetz – Überblick und Ausblick. In: NVwZ, pp. 989–995.
EC - European Commission (2019): Report from the Commission to the Euoprean Parliament andthe Council on the Implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (COM(2019) 566 final). Brussels, 31 Oct 2019. Online available at https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/carbon-capture-use-and-storage/implementation-ccs-directive_de, lastaccessed on 10 Jan 2022.
EC - European Commission (ed.) (2021). Sustainable Carbon Cycles SWD(2021) 450 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2021) 800
final), 15 Dec 2021.
Ehrmann, M. (2017): Teilweise Ungültigkeit der Verordnung über die Überwachung von und die
Berichterstattung über Treibhausgasemissionen - Anmerkung. In: NVwZ, pp. 295–299.
Fasihi, M.; Efimova, O.; Breyer, C. (2019): Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture
plants. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 224, pp. 957–980. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086.
Fuss, S.; Lamb, W. F.; Callaghan, M. W.; Hilaire, J.; Creutzig, F.; Amann, T.; Beringer, T.; deOliveira Garcia, W.; Hartmann, J.; Khanna, T.; Luderer, G.; Nemet, G. F.; Rogelj, J. et al.
(2018): Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. In: Environ. Res. Lett.
13 (6), p. 63002. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
GCCSI - Global CCS Institute (2020): Rassool, D. Overview of organisations and policies supporting the deployment of large-scale CCS facilities, 2020. Online available at https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Overview-of-Organisations-and-Policies-Supportingthe-Deployment-of-Large-scale-CCS-Facilities-1.pdf, last accessed on 24 Dec 2021.
Goeppert, A.; Czaun, M.; Surya Prakash, G. K.; Olah, G. A. (2012): Air as the renewable carbon
source of the future: an overview of CO2 capture from the atmosphere. In: Energy & Environmental Science 5 (7), p. 7833.
Hitachi Zosen Corporation (2020). Methanation Technology as CCU business By Hitachi Zosen
Corporation., 2020. Online available at http://www.env.go.jp/earth/ccs/Speech9a.pdf.
Honegger, M.; Reiner, D. (2018): The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. In: Climate Policy 18 (3), pp. 306–321. DOI:
10.1080/14693062.2017.1413322.
IEAGHG (2021): Exporting CO2 for Offshore Storage, The London Protocol’s Export Amendment
and Associated Guide-lines and Guidance, 2021.

55

Factsheet CCU & CCS

IMO - International Maritime Organization (2019): Map of current LC-LP Parties. Online available athttps://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/London-Convention-Protocol.aspx, lastaccessed on 3 Jan 2022.
IMO (2012): Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Streams for Disposal into SubSeabed Geological Formations, in “Report of the Twenty-Ninth Consultative Meeting and theSecond Meeting of the Contracting Parties, 2012. Online available athttps://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/CCS-Default.aspx., last accessed on 6
Jan 2022.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C, An IPCC
Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geneva, 2018. Online available at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf, last accessed on 24 Jun 2021.
IPCC (2005): Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers. A Special Reportof Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Online available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage/, last accessed on 2 Mar 2020.
IRENA - International Renewable Energy (ed.) (2021): Gielen, D.; Gorini, R.; Prakash, G.; leme,R.; Ferroukhi, R.; Lehr, U.; Casals, X.; Hawila, D.; Parajuli, B.; Press, e. Wolrd Energy Transition Ooutlook - 1.5°C Pathway. Abu Dhabi, 2021. Online available at https://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Jun/IRENA_World_Energy_Transitions_Outlook_2021.pdf.
ISE - Fraunhofer Institut für Solare Energiesysteme (2021). Levelized Cost of Electricity, Renewable Energy Technologies, 2021. Online available at https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2021_Fraunhofer-ISE_LCOE_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf, last accessed on 11 Jan 2022.
ISI - Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (2021): Langfristszenarien, Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung. Online available at https://www.langfristszenarien.de, last accessed on 20 Dec 2021.
IWES - Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (ed.) (2017): Pfennig, M.;
Gerhardt, N.; Pape, C.; Böttger, D. Mittel- und Langfristige Potenziale von PtL und H2-Importen
aus internationalen EE-Vorzugsregionen, Teilbericht im Rahmen des Projektes: KLIMAWIRKSAMKEIT ELEKTROMOBILITÄT - Entwicklungsoptionen des Straßenverkehrs unter Berücksichtigung der Rückkopplung des Energieversorgungssystems in Hinblick auf mittel- und langfristige Klimaziele. Kassel, 2017. Online available at http://www.energieversorgung-elektromobilitaet.de/includes/reports/Teilbericht_Potenziale_PtL_H2_Importe_FraunhoferIWES.pdf, last accessed on 12 Nov 2021.
JCCS (2021). 貯留適地調査について. Survey of suitable storage sites., 2021. Online available at
http://www.env.go.jp/earth/R3ccus/ENVCCS_R02_1-6_JCCS.pdf.
Kearns, J.; Teletzke, G.; Palmer, J.; Thomann, H.; Kheshgi, H.; Chen, Y.-H. H.; Paltsev, S.; Herzog, H. (2017): Developing a Consistent Database for Regional Geologic CO2 Storage Capacity
Worldwide. In: Energy Procedia 114, pp. 4697–4709. DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1603.

56

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Kohlendioxid-Speicherungsgesetz - KSpG (2021): Deutscher Bundestag. Kohlendioxid-Speicherungsgesetz vom 17. August 2012 (BGBl. I S. 1726), das zuletzt durch Artikel 22 des Gesetzes
vom 10. August 2021 (BGBl. I S. 3436) geändert worden ist, Kohlendioxid-Speicherungsgesetz- KSpG.
Kohls, M.; Lienemann, A.; Warnke, M.; Wittrock, E. (2015): Umweltvorsorge bei der unterirdischen
Speicherung von Kohlendioxid. In: ZUR, pp. 140–148.
LUT - Lappeenranta University of Technology (2017): Fasihi, M.; Bogdanov, D.; Breyer, C. Longterm hydrocarbon trade options for Maghreb core region and Europe, Renewable Energy based
synthetic fuels for a net zero emissions world. Lappeenranta, 2017.
METI - Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (2021a). Outline of Strategic Energy Plan, 2021.
Online available at https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/others/basic_plan/pdf/6th_outline.pdf.
METI - Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (2021b). エネルギー基本計画, 2021. Online available at https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/category/others/basic_plan/pdf/20211022_01.pdf, last accessed on 19 Jan 2022.
METI - Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (2021c). カーボンリサイクル技術ロードマップ.
Roadmap for Carbon Recycling Technologies., 2021. Online available athttps://www.meti.go.jp/press/2021/07/20210726007/20210726007.pdf.
METI - Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry; NEDO; JCCS (2020). Report of Tomakomai CCS
Demonstration Project at 300 thousand tonnes cumulative injection., 2020. Online available athttps://www.japanccs.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/report202005_overview_en.pdf.
Minx, J. C.; Lamb, W. F.; Callaghan, M. W.; Fuss, S.; Hilaire, J.; Creutzig, F.; Amann, T.; Beringer,
T.; Oliveira Garcia, W. de; Hartmann, J.; Khanna, T.; Lenzi, D.; Luderer, G. et al. (2018): Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. In: Environmental Research Letters
13 (6), p. 63001. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b.
MoEJ - Ministry of the Environment Japan (2020a). 電気事業分野における地球温暖化対策の進捗状況の評価結果について. Progress of Global Warming Countermeasures in the Electric Utility
Industry Results of the Assessment., 2020. Online available athttps://www.env.go.jp/press/files/jp/114277.pdf.
MoEJ (2014). ＣＣＳの円滑な導入手法の検討. Study of methods for the smooth introduction of
CCS., 2014. Online available at https://www.env.go.jp/earth/ccs/h26mat05.pdf.
MoEJ (2019). 環境配慮型 CCS 実証事業貯留技術について. Environmentally Friendly CCS Demonstration Project., 2019. Online available at http://www.env.go.jp/earth/ccs/ccus-kaigi/21_CCUS_storage.pdf.
MoEJ (2020b). CCUS and Hydrogen in Japan ー Overview of Policies and Project ー, 2020. Online
available at http://www.env.go.jp/earth/ccs/Keynote%201.pdf.
MoEJ (2020c). CCUS を活用したカーボンニュートラル社会の実現に向けた取り組み. Using the
CCUS Towards a carbon-neutral society Initiatives to achieve a carbon neutral society., 2020.
Online available at https://www.env.go.jp/earth/brochureJ/ccus_brochure_0212_1_J.pdf.
Oeko-Institut (2019): Heinemann, C.; Kasten, P.; Bauknecht, D.; Bracker, J. F.; Bürger, V.; Emele,
L.; Hesse, T.; Kühnel, S.; Seebach, D.; Timpe, C. Die Bedeutung strombasierter Stoffe für den

57

Factsheet CCU & CCS

Klimaschutz in Deutschland. Zusammenfassung und Einordnung des Wissenstands zur Herstellung und Nutzung strombasierter Energieträger und Grundstoffe. Freiburg im Breisgau, 2019.
Oeko-Institut e. V. (2019): Kasten, P.; Heinemann, C.; Seebach, D.; Sutter, J. Kein Selbstläufer:
Klimaschutz und Nachhaltigkeit durch PtX. Diskussion der Anforderungen und erste Ansätze fürNachweiskriterien für eine klimafreundliche und nachhaltige Produktion von PtX-Stoffen., Impulspapier im Auftrag des BUND im Rahmen des Kopernikus-Vorhabens „P2X“. Berlin, 2019.
PIK - Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (2021). Ariadne Report - Deutschland auf dem
Weg zur Klimaneutralität 2045, Szenarien und Pfade im Modellvergleich, 2021. Online available
at https://ariadneprojekt.de/media/2021/10/Ariadne_Szenarienreport_Oktober2021_lowres.pdf,
last accessed on 20 Dec 2021.
Prognos; Oeko-Institut; Wuppertal-Institut - Wuppertal-Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie (2021).
Klimaneutrales Deutschland 2045, Wie Deutschland seine Klimaziele schon vor 2050 erreichen
kann. Berlin, 2021. Online available at https://static.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2021/2021_01_DE_KNDE2045/KNDE2045_Langfassung.pdf, last accessed on 24 Jun
2021.
Reuters (2021). Japan’s JOGMEC, Mitsui to study feasibility on CCS in Western Australia., 2021.
Online available at https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japans-jogmec-mitsui-study-feasibility-ccs-western-australia-2021-10-04/.
Schlüter, S.; Geitner, C. (2020): Simulation of Methanol and Urea Production from Catalytic Conversion of Steel Mill Gases. In: Chemie Ingenieur Technik 92 (10), pp. 1403–1415. DOI:
10.1002/cite.202000068.
SPD - Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands; B90/G - Bündnis 90/Die Grünen; FDP - Freie Demokraten (2021). Mehr Fortschritt wagen, Bündnis für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit Und Nachhaltigkeit, 2021. Online available at https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Koalitionsvertrag/Koalitionsvertrag_2021-2025.pdf, last accessed on 9 Jan 2022.
Stiftung 2° et al. (2021): CO2-Strategie für einen klimaneutralen Industriestandort Deutschland,
2021. Online available at https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/21091729/20211004_CCU_CCS_Koalitionsverhandlungen.pdf, last accessed on
9 Jan 2022.
Stoll, P.-T.; Lehmann, F. (2008): Die Speicherung von CO 2 im Meeresuntergrund – die völkerrechtliche Sicht. In: ZUR, pp. 281–286.
Sutherland, B. R. (2019): Pricing CO2 Direct Air Capture. In: Joule 3, pp. 1569–1577. Online available at https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(19)30316-2.pdf, last accessed on 6 Jan
2022.
Timmerberg, S.; Kaltschmitt, M. (2019): Untersuchung zum PtX-Hochlauf, Wie schnell kann PtX
produziert werden?, VDI Expertenforum Schifftechnik - Antriebe der Zukunft. Technische Universität Hamburg. Hamburg, 29.03.2019. Hamburg, 2019.
UBA - Umweltbundesamt (2019a). Wege in eine ressourcenschonende Treibhausgasneutralität,
RESCUE-Studie (Climate Change, 2019/36), 2019. Online available at https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/rescue_studie_cc_362019_wege_in_eine_ressourcenschonende_treibhausgasneutralitaet_auflage2_juni-2021.pdf,
last accessed on 17 Sep 2021.

58

Factsheet CCU & CCS

UBA - Umweltbundesamt (2019b): Treibhausgasneutralität in Deutschland bis 2050, Politikpapier
zur RESCUE-Studie, Umweltbundesamt. Online available at https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/uba_hgp_treibhausgas_2050_11-112019_bf.pdf, last updated on 23 Dec 2021.
UBA - Umweltbundesamt (2021a): Purr, K.; Garvens, H.-J. Contribution to the discussion on theevaluation of Carbon Capture and Utilisation, 2021. Online available at https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/479/publikationen/211108_uba_hg_carbon_bf.pdf.
UBA - Umweltbundesamt (2021b): Treibhausgas-Emissionen seit 1990 nach Gasen, Umweltbundesamt. Online available at https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/dateien/2_abb_thg-emissionen-seit-1990-nach-gasen_2021_0.pdf, last accessed on 8 Jan 2022.
UBA - Umweltbundesamt (ed.) (2016): Schmidt, P.; Weindorf, W.; Roth, A.; Batteiger, V.; Riegel, F.
Power-to-Liquids, Potentials and Perspectives for the Future Supply of Renewable Aviation Fuel
(Background). Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik; Bauhaus Luftfahrt. Dessau-Roßlau, 2016.
Wuppertal Institut; ISI - Fraunhofer Institut für System- und Innovationstechnik; IZES - Institut für
ZukunftsEnergieSysteme (2018): Viebahn, P.; Zelt, O.; Fischedick, M.; Wietschel, M.; Hirzel, S.;
Horst, J. Technologien für die Energiewende, Technologiebericht, Band 2. Teilbericht 2 zum
Teilprojekt A im Rahmen des strategischen BMWi-Leitprojekts „Trends und Perspektiven derEnergieforschung“ (Wuppertal Reports, 13.2). Wuppertal, 2018.
WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature (2022). Megatrends der globalen Energiewende II, Stationen
einer Erfolgsgeschichte und die veränderte Rolle Deutschlands, 2022. Online available athttps://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Klima/WWF-Bericht-Megatrends-derglobalen-Energiewende.pdf, last accessed on 12 Jan 2022.

59