{"id":49957,"date":"2026-04-01T15:25:32","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T13:25:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.swecobelgium.be\/?post_type=blog&p=49957"},"modified":"2026-04-01T15:59:56","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T13:59:56","slug":"making-ccs-work-insights-from-real-industrial-projects","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/www.swecobelgium.be\/en\/news\/making-ccs-work-insights-from-real-industrial-projects\/","title":{"rendered":"Making CCS Work: Insights from Real Industrial Projects"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n
\n
\n

Share on: <\/p>\n

<\/div><\/div> <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
\n\t
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is often promoted as a key solution for hard-to-abate emissions, but moving from plans to real-world projects is rarely straightforward. What makes implementation so challenging in practice? To explore this, we spoke with two Sweco experts who bring complementary perspectives. Andrea Leoni, a project manager with long experience across multiple carbon capture technologies, now leads Sweco\u2019s Industry group in Oslo. Joren Monsieur, a process engineer and sustainable technologies expert, with focus on the technical side. In this expert talk, they discuss why CCS is challenging, and what it takes to make projects succeed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n\t
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Turning CCS Ambition into Execution<\/h2>\n

The building blocks for CCS have been in place for years, yet progress on real projects has been slower than expected. The gap between technical feasibility and large-scale implementation remains significant. This raises a key question:<\/p>\n

Why are CCS projects still not moving forward at the pace we need?<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Andrea Leoni<\/strong>: These projects face a combination of technical, economic, and regulatory barriers that slow down deployment. CCS is technically and systemically complex and requires CO\u2082 to be seen as more than a waste stream with no value. Companies face high CAPEX and energy costs, which are often not competitive with current EU ETS prices. At the same time, unclear policies, storage uncertainties and shifting political priorities add further risk\u2014making it difficult for companies to commit. This is reflected in recent developments such as the 2026 Danish CCUS Fund tender, where 9 out of 10 prequalified companies chose not to submit a bid. In this case, the issue was not just risk, but how it was allocated: the framework placed a disproportionate share of the risk on the companies. Without a more balanced approach and real risk-sharing mechanisms, it becomes very difficult for projects to move forward.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n\t
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
What hurdles do you encounter when moving from idea to execution?<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Andrea<\/strong>: CCS projects are very complex and must be managed professionally, with due care. They require a high level of maturity<\/strong> from the outset, but in practice that is often underestimated, which can lead to cost increases as the project develops. We have seen this in several Norwegian projects, where early-stage decisions had significant impacts later. Another challenge is that, while much of the focus is initially on the capture of technology, many of the risks<\/strong> that materialise during execution actually sit outside the capture plant itself<\/strong>, particularly around integration, transport and storage.<\/p>\n

Many solutions are marketed as \u2018end-of-pipe\u2019 and plug-and-play, but in practice this is rarely the case. Without careful planning and mitigation, integrating carbon capture into an existing plant will almost always impact operations. Project governance<\/strong> also plays an important role. Many emitters are organised around operations and are not set up to manage large-scale CAPEX projects. This increases execution risk. Combined with challenging financing conditions, this often leads to long development timelines.<\/p>\n

Joren Monsieur:<\/strong> According to information from Fluxys from early 2024, specific requirements are imposed on the quality of CO\u2082 before it can be injected into the network. The CO\u2082 must be at least 95% pure. Contaminants such as oxygen (O\u2082), NOx, SOx, and water may only be present in very low concentrations, typically limited to a few tens of ppm. Strict limits also apply to other components, such as H\u2082S. If these substances are present in the CO\u2082 stream, they must be removed beforehand. The type and concentration of impurities determine which combination of pre-treatment technologies is most suitable.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

Finding the Right Approach<\/h2>\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
So how do you find a suitable solution?<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Joren<\/strong>: We start with a thorough characterisation of the gas stream. When a client wants to apply CCS to an installation (for example, flue gas from a stack), we assess:<\/p>\n