All three main technologiese for CO₂ capture are considered technologically feasible. However, integrated operation on commercial-scale power stations remains to be demonstrated. 

Costs are also an important consideration. At the moment, adding capture technology to coal- or gas-fired powerstations ads around  50% to the levelised cost of electricity. This number is expected to come down to 30-45% over the next 20 years. Radically new technologies and configurations may be able to improve this number even more substantially, but for now that is only speculation.

CO2 transport is possible by pipelines or ships.

Ships are the preferred option:

• for small locations
• for remote offshore locations
• when flexibility is required, for instance in start-up phases

 Ship transport yet needs to be demonstrated in a commercial scale operation.

For pipelines, their economic and safe design and operation needs to  be developed and demonstrated further. Special cases include:

• anticipated impurities in the CO₂ stream 
• variable load operation of the CO₂ sources

EASAC advises to have publics play an active part in the iterative proces of confidence building between developers of CO₂ storage sites and regulators. Long term safety of CO₂ storage is probably possible, but some uncertainties remain that need to be addressed not only technically, but also by paying attention to public concerns. Liability issues also need to be resolved.

The deployment rate of CCS in Europe depends on the availability of excellent geological site characterisation of a sufficient number of potential CO₂ storage sites. This challenge is bigger for saline aquifers than for mature and depleted oil and gas fields. The major part of estimated storage capacity rests in saline aquifers.

The current picture of CCS in Europe shows several problems:

• downsizing of, and delays in, demonstration plants
• continuing challenges to the economic viability of CCS

• difficulties of public acceptance
• expectation that confidence in the safety and permanence of CO₂ storage will build relatively slowly

All these challenges may constrain the possible locations and rates of development of transport and storage infrastructures.

Therefore, the prospects for CCS in Europe will realistically be in the lower end of the ranges considerd by the EC in establishing the CCS Directive, and more recently in the Roadmap 2050 exercise. CCS applications with favourable juxtapositions of sources, sinks and public acceptance stand the best chance to be realised in practice.

Unless decisive policy actions are taken to provide investors with sufficient confidence in returns over the lifetime of projects, CCS technology, capacity and infrastructure will not be developed fast enough. Suggestions to increase the financial viability of CCS include:

• develop funding mechanisms in addition to the ETS (e.g. feed-in tariffs, 'contracts for difference')
• extend the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to include alternative technologies such as BECCS and CO₂ utilisation (provided that the mitigation effect from the life cycle of these optins is significant and can be measured and proven)
• revisit the current rules for funding the capital and operational costs of EU demonstration plants