This Spring, Dutch engineers embarked on a major industrial feat at the Port of Rotterdam, positioning a colossal drill to bore beneath the seawall.
This marked a significant step in Europe’s most advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiative, known as Porthos. The project, a 1.3-billion-euro joint venture between state-owned entities and the Port of Rotterdam Authority, aims to capture and store millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) beneath the North Sea.
On September 2, the project’s stakeholders, including top officials from Shell, ExxonMobil, and Dutch climate minister Sophie Hermans, will showcase Porthos to the public, despite its delayed and unfinished state. By 2026, Porthos is expected to handle 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually, a figure that represents 10 percent of the port’s emissions and 1.5 percent of the Netherlands’ total CO2 output.
Porthos comes with a hefty price tag: Dutch taxpayers will foot at least 4 billion euros in subsidies to support the project. Proponents argue that CCS is crucial for meeting climate targets, but critics see it as a costly gamble that benefits major polluters more than the environment.
The technology behind CCS, while promising in theory, has a troubled track record. Many flagship projects have suffered from cost overruns, delays, and failure to meet capture targets. Despite this, developers view Porthos and its larger sister project, Aramis, as critical components of a future European CCS network that could eventually transport CO2 from industrial regions across the continent to storage sites under the seabed.
Subsidies and Skepticism
The reliance on government subsidies is a central concern. Under the European Emissions Trading System (ETS), companies like Shell and Exxon are required to buy credits for their CO2 emissions. By using Porthos, they can reduce the number of credits they need to purchase, potentially saving millions. However, if the cost of storing CO2 via Porthos exceeds the price of ETS credits, the Dutch government will cover the difference, meaning these corporations face minimal financial risk while the public bears the cost.
Critics argue that this arrangement not only represents a significant financial burden for taxpayers but also raises questions about the effectiveness of CCS in combating climate change. The Porthos project has become a litmus test for whether carbon capture can genuinely reduce emissions or if it merely extends the life of the fossil fuel industry under the guise of climate action.
Ambitious Targets, Uncertain Outcomes
The European Union has ambitious plans for carbon capture as part of its Net Zero Industry Act, which mandates the development of 50 million tonnes of annual CO2 storage capacity by 2030, expanding to 450 million tonnes by 2050. Yet, environmental groups and experts doubt the feasibility of these targets. As of now, Europe captures only 2.7 million tonnes of CO2 annually, far short of what is required.
Furthermore, CCS projects like Porthos and Aramis are often experimental, with uncertain timelines and outcomes. For example, Shell’s commitment to Porthos involves capturing emissions from a yet-to-be-built biofuels plant, which has already faced delays. Similarly, Exxon’s contribution hinges on an experimental fuel cell technology that has yet to prove its efficacy on a large scale.
The Bigger Picture
While CCS is often presented as a temporary solution to buy time for industries to transition away from fossil fuels, there is growing concern that these projects will entrench reliance on fossil fuels rather than reduce it. The billions of euros being invested in CCS could potentially be better spent on accelerating the adoption of renewable energy and other more effective climate solutions.
Berte Simons, a director at Dutch state-owned gas company EBN, acknowledges that CCS is not a permanent fix. “There needs to be an end date to using CCS from fossil sources,” she said. “The sooner fossil fuel companies can green their portfolios, the better.”
As Europe pushes forward with these ambitious but contentious projects, the debate over the role of carbon capture in climate strategy is likely to intensify. Will these investments pay off in the fight against global warming, or will they merely prolong the status quo? For now, the answer remains uncertain, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
