CCS and CCUS in Switzerland: Study Highlights Need for Action

Hazardous waste incineration and certain chemical and pharmaceutical processes generate CO₂ emissions that are difficult or even impossible to avoid using current technology. A new study by BAK Economics and the German Energy Agency (dena), commissioned by scienceindustries, concludes that reliable political and regulatory frameworks are essential for the economic deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in Switzerland. Without them, the vast potential of this technology will remain untapped — with consequences for both Switzerland's climate goals and its industrial competitiveness.

Hazardous waste incineration plants (SAVA) are among the few industrial sectors where CO₂ emissions cannot be fully avoided for technical reasons. The same applies to certain production processes in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, where CO₂ may arise as a by-product of chemical reactions. For these sectors, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are emerging as a key climate solution. The new study by BAK Economics and dena, commissioned by scienceindustries, is the first to provide a detailed analysis of Switzerland's investment needs, cost structures, and potential funding instruments for CCS — reaching a clear conclusion: without targeted financial support, CCS projects are not economically viable.

CCS as a Key Technology — But at High Cost

The study shows that by 2030, the cost of avoiding CO₂ emissions in SAVA plants will range between CHF 381 and 739 per tonne — far above expected CO₂ prices in the emissions trading system (ETS). Transport and storage costs are the main cost drivers, accounting for more than half of total costs. A more affordable infrastructure is not expected before 2035. Although avoidance costs are projected to decline by 2050, a significant funding gap will still remain.

Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD): The Most Promising Instrument

Current subsidy programs are insufficient to close this gap. The study therefore identifies Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) as a particularly effective funding instrument. CCfDs compensate for the difference between actual avoidance costs and the CO₂ price — and, uniquely, they also take transport and storage costs into account. Best-practice examples from Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands offer valuable insights into how such a model could be designed.

Combining Support Measures and Phased Introduction to Ensure Fair Financing of the Transition

The study recommends a combination of investment and operating subsidies, along with the gradual introduction of Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD). For scienceindustries, one thing is clear: the path to CO₂-neutral production must be realistic, internationally compatible, and economically viable. This analysis provides a solid foundation for a fact-based political dialogue and for developing effective solutions that will enable Switzerland to achieve its climate targets without jeopardizing key industries.