The silent climate catastrophe in war-torn Ukraine: CCS deployment potential in the country

Russia’s war on Ukraine will continue in 2024. The full-scale invasion has caused not only untold human suffering but also enormous economic losses. However, beyond the obvious and immediate effects, the war has also caused an impact on the climate nationally and regionally. The increased use of emission-intensive military vehicles, floods and droughts caused by the demolition of dams, forest cuts and fires, and attacks on oil reserves and infrastructure have all led to a notable increase in CO₂ emissions. Ukraine is fighting not only for its legal and economic existence but also for the European environmental future. 

Amidst the conflict, projects like CCS4CEE have also become a platform for raising awareness of the ongoing war, related CO₂ emissions and potential climate mitigation strategies, in this case – deploying CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies. The overall aim of the CCS4CEE project, funded by EEA and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation, was to raise awareness and renew the discussion on CCS in Central and Eastern Europe, leading to new policies and joint projects. However, in Ukraine, research was supplemented by an assessment of the impact of war and an analysis of various recovery scenarios for Ukraine. 

The challenge of climate change is a debate in all countries, including Ukraine. The cement, metallurgy, and energy industries still have a significant CO₂ footprint. Various ways to mitigate climate change include using renewable energy and biogas, applying hydrogen, and developing waste-to-energy technology.

Nevertheless, many of these methods are still unproven, not economically feasible on an industrial scale or do not solve the issue of process emissions (emissions released during industrial processes and on-site manufacturing) that is especially relevant in hard-to-abate industries like steel, metallurgy, and chemical industries. The goal of carbon capture and storage technologies is to lessen the existing adverse effects on the climate.

Moreover, there is also a potential for capturing and using CO₂ in various industries, such as methanol production, an emerging industry with significant demand for CO₂. As technologies continue to be tested and applied, CCS and CCU (carbon capture and utilisation) present viable options for this gradual transition towards a greener future.

While the official report on last year’s emission volumes is still being developed, our estimations indicate at least a 25% decline in emissions. This decrease is attributed mainly to the economic decline in Ukraine. Notably, there has been a consistent parallel between the country’s GDP and emissions due to limited efforts to reduce energy intensity. As a result, economic growth has historically been matched with increased emissions, and vice versa. The most significant decline is observed in the steel production and energy sector.

The energy sector, in particular, has faced multiple challenges, leading to reduced production. The initial mass migration (nearly 7 million people fleeing at the start of the war and about 3 million returning later) has impacted energy consumption patterns. 

The metallurgy industry’s significant geographical positioning in Eastern and Southeastern Ukraine, close to raw material sources, has exposed it to ongoing conflict. The industry faces operational restrictions due to constant artillery fire and severe logistical challenges, including a blockade of seaports and increased transportation costs to the EU.

Ukraine has primarily focused on renewables, biogas, and transitioning from coal to gas. Before the war, CCS was considered a relatively expensive technology for Ukraine. There were many cheaper solutions available that could also help to reduce CO₂ emissions. Like most economies with numerous challenges and outdated infrastructure, Ukraine has made few efforts to reduce energy intensity. Without commitments to go carbon-neutral within the next decade, Ukraine has looked at the next five to ten years, finding the most economic viability in energy efficiency and a slight shift to renewables. Meanwhile, the situation is different in Europe, as Western European countries have almost implemented all those changes and have significantly reduced CO₂ in the respective sectors. For Ukraine, CCS had not been a focus before the war. However, there were some economically viable ideas on CCS and CCU technologies, particularly for capturing CO₂ from gas produced in Ukraine and applying it in methanol production or the agricultural sector for greenhouses.

Although it may seem contradictory at first glance, immediate survival goals and long-term climate change improvement goals complement each other. Ukraine’s heavy reliance on gas and oil imports consumes a large portion of the budget and contributes to high energy poverty. Many buildings in Ukraine are inefficient, consuming twice as much heat as buildings in similar climate conditions in other European cities. Effective upgrade mechanisms can significantly reduce energy consumption. 

The government in Ukraine is working on different mechanisms to distribute more loans for heat system upgrades. As for energy-intensive generation and production capacities that have been demolished, there is no point in restoring them with traditional technologies. For example, if a large steel factory is to be rebuilt from scratch, applying new technologies is more economically viable. The same applies to the energy sector, where destroyed coal-powered heat generation, scheduled for decommissioning within five to seven years, should not be restored. Ukraine has no option but to rely on green technologies for economic recovery and development, as traditional technologies lack financing, and the state cannot afford to finance coal power.

The interest and public acceptance of CCS in Ukraine before the war was limited, mainly appealing to a niche audience. However, two companies, including Naftogaz, expressed interest previously. They explored CCS as part of their strategic transformation but did not proceed due to the lack of regulation on CO₂. 

The absence of a policy push from within and the overwhelming need for policy adoption and legislative development meant that the government, ministries, and responsible regulators lacked the capacity to process this.

For CCS to be introduced in Ukraine, the first step is to develop policy regulations on CO₂ and CO₂ storage, as currently, there are restrictions on storing and transporting CO₂ within the system. The goal is to utilise our internal resources, including CO₂, as much as possible rather than just emitting it into the environment. This approach can bring economic viability to various projects. For instance, gas producers might extract CO₂ from gas for methanol production, which can be further used in the chemical industry.