Carbon capture and storage

This article is about removing CO₂ from industrial flue gas. For processes that remove and sequester CO₂ from the atmosphere, see Carbon dioxide removal.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a process by which carbon dioxide (CO₂) from industrial installations is separated before it is released into the atmosphere, then transported to a long-term storage location.^[1]: 2221 The CO₂ is captured from a large point source, such as a natural gas processing plant and is typically stored in a deep geological formation. Around 80% of the CO₂ captured annually is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a process by which CO₂ is injected into partially-depleted oil reservoirs in order to extract more oil and then is largely left underground.^[2] Since EOR utilizes the CO₂ in addition to storing it, CCS is also known as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS).^[3]

With CCS, carbon dioxide is captured from a point source, such as an ethanol refinery. It is usually transported via pipelines and then either used to extract oil or stored in a dedicated geologic formation.

Oil and gas companies first used the processes involved in CCS in the mid 20th century. Early versions of CCS technologies served to purify natural gas and to enhance oil production. Subsequently, CCS was discussed as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Around 70% of announced CCS projects have not materialized,^[2] with a failure rate above 98% in the electricity sector.^[4] As of 2024 CCS was in operation at 44 plants worldwide,^[5] collectively capturing about one-thousandth of world anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.^[6] Plants with CCS require more energy to operate, thus they typically burn additional fossil fuels and increase the pollution caused by extracting and transporting fuel.

In strategies to mitigate climate change, CCS plays a small but critical role. Other ways to reduce emissions such as solar and wind energy, electrification, and public transit are less expensive than CCS and also much more effective at reducing air pollution. Given its cost and limitations, CCS is envisioned to be most useful in specific niches. These niches include heavy industry, plant retrofits, and natural gas processing. ^{[7]: 21–24} In electricity generation and hydrogen production, CCS is envisioned to complement a broader shift to renewable energy.^{[7]: 21–24} CCS is a component of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, which can under some conditions remove carbon from the atmosphere.

The effectiveness of CCS in reducing carbon emissions depends on the plant's capture efficiency, the additional energy used for CCS itself, leakage, and business and technical issues that can keep facilities from operating as designed. Some large CCS implementations have sequestered far less CO₂ than originally expected.^[8][6] Additionally, there is controversy over whether CCS is beneficial for the climate if the CO₂ is used to extract more oil.^[9] Fossil fuel companies have heavily promoted CCS.^[10] Many environmental groups regard CCS as an unproven, expensive technology that will perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels. They believe other ways to reduce emissions are more effective and that CCS is a distraction.^[11] Other environmental groups support the use of CCS under certain circumstances.^[12]

Some international climate agreements refer to the concept of fossil fuel abatement, which is not defined in these agreements but is generally understood to mean use of CCS.^[13] Almost all CCS projects operating today have benefited from government financial support. Countries with programs to support or mandate CCS technologies include the US, Canada, Denmark, China, and the UK.

Terminology

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines CCS as:

"A process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from industrial and energy-related sources is separated (captured), conditioned, compressed and transported to a storage location for long-term isolation from the atmosphere."^[14]: 2221

The terms carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) are closely related and often used interchangeably.^[9] Both terms have been used predominantly to refer to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) a process in which captured CO₂ is injected into partially-depleted oil reservoirs in order to extract more oil.^[9] EOR is both "utilization" and "storage", as the CO₂ left underground is intended to be trapped indefinitely. Prior to 2013, the process was primarily called CCS. In 2013 the term CCUS was introduced to highlight its potential economic benefit, and this term subsequently gained popularity.^[9]

Around 1% of captured CO₂ is used as a feedstock for making products such as fertilizer, fuels, and plastics.^[15] These uses are forms of carbon capture and utilization.^[16] In some cases, the product durably stores the carbon from the CO₂ and thus is also considered to be a form of CCS. To qualify as CCS, carbon storage must be long-term, therefore utilization of CO₂ to produce fertilizer, fuel, or chemicals is not CCS because these products release CO₂ when burned or consumed.^[16]

Some sources use the term CCS, CCU, or CCUS more broadly, encompassing methods such as direct air capture or tree-planting which remove CO₂ from the air.^[17][18][19] In this article, the term CCS is used according to the IPCC's definition, which requires CO₂ to be captured from point-sources such as the flue gas of a power plant.

History and current status

Global proposed (grey bars) vs. implemented (blue bars) annual CO₂ captured. Both are in million tons of CO₂ per annum (Mtpa). More than 75% of proposed CCS installations for natural-gas processing have been implemented.

Plans to add CCS to Bełchatów Power Station were cancelled in 2013.^[20] Over 98% of plans to use CCS in power plant have failed.^[4]

In the natural gas industry, technology to remove CO₂ from raw natural gas has been used since 1930.^[21] This processing is essential to make natural gas ready for commercial sale and distribution.^[7]: 25 Usually after CO₂ is removed, it is vented to the atmosphere.^[7]: 25 In 1972, American oil companies discovered that large quantities of CO₂ could profitably be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).^[22] Subsequently, natural gas companies in Texas began capturing the CO₂ produced by their processing plants and selling it to local oil producers for EOR.^[7]: 25

The use of CCS as a means of reducing anthropogenic CO₂ emissions is more recent. In 1977, the Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti proposed that CCS could be used to reduce emissions from coal power plants and fuel refineries.^[23][24] The first large-scale CO₂ capture and injection project with dedicated CO₂ storage and monitoring was commissioned at the Sleipner gas field in Norway in 1996.^[7]: 25

In 2005, the IPCC released a report highlighting CCS, leading to increased government support for CCS in several countries.^[25] Governments spent an estimated USD $30 billion on subsidies for CCS and for fossil-fuel-based hydrogen. ^[26] Globally, 149 projects to store 130 million tonnes of CO₂ annually were proposed to be operational by 2020. Of these, around 70% were not implemented.^[2] Limited one-off capital grants, the absence of measures to address long-term liability for stored CO₂, high operating costs, limited social acceptability and vulnerability of funding programmes to external budget pressures all contributed to project cancellations.^[27]: 133

In 2020, the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated, “The story of CCUS has largely been one of unmet expectations: its potential to mitigate climate change has been recognised for decades, but deployment has been slow and so has had only a limited impact on global CO₂ emissions.”^[7]: 18

By July 2024, commercial-scale CCS was in operation at 44 plants worldwide.^[5] Sixteen of these facilities were devoted to separating naturally-occurring CO₂ from raw natural gas. Seven facilities were for hydrogen, ammonia, or fertilizer production, seven for chemical production, five for electricity and heat, and two for oil refining. CCS was also used in one iron and steel plant.^[5] Additionally, three facilities worldwide were devoted to CO₂ transport/storage.^[5]

Eighteen facilities were in the United States, fourteen in China, five in Canada, and two in Norway. Australia, Brazil, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates had one project each.^[5] As of 2020, North America has more than 8000 km of CO₂ pipelines, and there are two CO₂ pipeline systems in Europe and two in the Middle East.^{[7]: 103–104}

Process overview

CCS facilities capture carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere. Generally, a chemical solvent or a porous solid material is used to separate the CO₂ from other components of a plant’s exhaust stream.^[28] Most commonly, flue gas passes through an amine solvent, which binds the CO₂ molecule. This CO₂-rich solvent is heated in a regeneration unit to release the CO2 from the solvent. The purified CO2 stream is compressed and transported for storage or end-use and the released solvents are recycled to again capture CO₂ from the flue gas.^[29]

After the CO₂ has been captured, it is usually compressed into a supercritical fluid and then injected underground. Pipelines are the cheapest way of transporting CO₂ in large quantities onshore and, depending on the distance and volumes, offshore.^{[7]: 103–104} Transport via ship has been researched. CO₂ can also be transported by truck or rail, albeit at higher cost per tonne of CO₂.^{[7]: 103–104}

Technical components

See also: Carbon dioxide scrubber and Amine gas treating

CCS processes involve several different technologies working together. Technological components are used to separate and treat CO₂ from a flue gas mixture, compress and transport the CO₂, inject it into the subsurface, and monitor the overall process.

There are three ways that CO₂ can be separated from a flue gas mixture: post-combustion capture, pre-combustion capture, and oxy-combustion:^[30]

• In post combustion capture, the CO₂ is removed after combustion of the fossil fuel.
• The technology for pre-combustion is widely applied in fertilizer, chemical, gaseous fuel (H₂, CH₄), and power production.^[31] In these cases, the fossil fuel is partially oxidized, for instance in a gasifier. The CO from the resulting syngas (CO and H₂) reacts with added steam (H₂O) and is shifted into CO₂ and H₂. The resulting CO₂ can be captured from a relatively pure exhaust stream. The H₂ can be used as fuel; the CO₂ is removed before combustion. Several advantages and disadvantages apply versus post combustion capture.^[32]
• In oxy-fuel combustion^[33] the fuel is burned in pure oxygen instead of air. To limit the resulting flame temperatures to levels common during conventional combustion, cooled flue gas is recirculated and injected into the combustion chamber. The flue gas consists of mostly CO₂ and water vapor. After water vapor is condensed through cooling, the result is an almost pure CO₂ stream.

Absorption, or carbon scrubbing with amines is the dominant capture technology.^[7]: 98 Other technologies proposed for carbon capture are membrane gas separation, chemical looping combustion, calcium looping, and use of metal-organic frameworks and other solid sorbents.^[34][35][36]

Impurities in CO₂ streams, like sulfur dioxides and water vapor, can have a significant effect on their phase behavior and could cause increased pipeline and well corrosion. In instances where CO₂ impurities exist, a scrubbing separation process is needed to initially clean the flue gas.^[37]

Storage and enhanced oil recovery

Diagram of mechanisms for trapping carbon dioxide in dedicated geologic storage

Storing CO₂ involves the injection of captured CO₂ into a deep underground geological reservoir of porous rock overlaid by an impermeable layer of rocks, which seals the reservoir and prevents the upward migration of CO₂ and escape into the atmosphere.^[7]: 112 The gas is usually compressed first into a supercritical fluid. When the compressed CO₂ is injected into a reservoir, it flows through it, filling the pore space. The reservoir must be at depths greater than 800 meters to retain the CO₂ in a fluid state.^[7]: 112

As of 2024, around 80% of the CO₂ captured annually is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).^[2] In EOR, CO₂ is injected into partially depleted oil fields to enhance production. The CO2 binds with oil to make it less dense, allowing oil to rise to the surface faster. The addition of CO₂ also increases the overall reservoir pressure, thereby improving the mobility of the oil, resulting in a higher flow of oil towards the production wells.^{[7] : 117} Depending on the location, EOR results in around two additional barrels of oil for every tonne of CO₂ injected into the ground.^[38] Oil extracted through EOR is mixed with CO₂, which can then mostly be recaptured and re-injected multiple times. This CO₂ recycling process can reduce losses to 1%, however doing so is energy-intensive.^[39]

Around 20% of captured CO₂ is injected into dedicated geological storage,^[2] usually deep saline aquifiers. These are layers of porous and permeable rocks saturated with salty water.^[7]: 112 Worldwide, saline formations have higher potential storage capacity than depleted oil wells.^[40] Dedicated geologic storage is generally less expensive than EOR because it does not require a high level of CO₂ purity and because suitable sites are more numerous, which means pipelines can be shorter.^[41]

Various other types of reservoirs for storing captured CO₂ were being researched or piloted as of 2021: CO₂ could be injected into coal beds for enhanced coal bed methane recovery.^[42] Ex-situ mineral carbonation involves reacting CO₂ with mine tailings or alkaline industrial waste to form stable minerals such as calcium carbonate.^[43] In-situ mineral carbonation involves injecting CO₂ and water into underground formations that are rich in highly-reactive rocks such as basalt. There, the CO₂ may react with the rock to form stable carbonate minerals relatively quickly.^[43][44] Once this process is complete, the risk of CO₂ escape from carbonate minerals is estimated to be close to zero.^[45]: 66

The global capacity for underground CO₂ storage is potentially very large and is unlikely to be a constraint on the development of CCS.^{[7]: 112–115} Total storage capacity has been estimated at between 8,000 and 55,000 gigatonnes.^{[7]: 112–115} However, a smaller fraction will most likely prove to be technically or commercially feasible.^{[7]: 112–115} Global capacity estimates are uncertain, particularly for saline aquifers where more site characterization and exploration is still needed.^{[7]: 112–115}

Long-term CO₂ leakage

See also: Monitoring of geological carbon dioxide storage

In geologic storage, the CO₂ is held within the reservoir through several trapping mechanisms: structural trapping by the caprock seal, solubility trapping in pore space water, residual trapping in individual or groups of pores, and mineral trapping by reacting with the reservoir rocks to form carbonate minerals.^[7]: 112 Mineral trapping progresses over time but is extremely slow.^[46]: 26

Once injected, the CO₂ plume tends to rise since it is less dense than its surroundings. Once it encounters a caprock, it will spread laterally until it encounters a gap. If there are fault planes near the injection zone, CO₂ could migrate along the fault to the surface, leaking into the atmosphere, which would be potentially dangerous to life in the surrounding area. If the injection of CO₂ creates pressures underground that are too high, the formation will fracture, potentially causing an earthquake.^[47] While research suggests that earthquakes from injected CO₂ would be too small to endanger property, they could be large enough to cause a leak.^[48]

The IPCC estimates that at appropriately-selected and well-managed storage sites, it is likely that over 99% of CO₂ will remain in place for more than 1000 years, with "likely" meaning a probability of 66% to 90%.^{[45]: 14,12} Estimates of long-term leakage rates rely on complex simulations since field data is limited.^[49] If very large amounts of CO₂ are sequestered, even a 1% leakage rate over 1000 years could cause significant impact on the climate for future generations.^[50]

Social and environmental impacts

Energy and water requirements

Facilities with CCS use more energy than those without CCS. The energy consumed by CCS is called an "energy penalty". The energy penalty of CCS varies depending on the source of CO₂. If the flue gas has a very high concentration of CO₂, additional energy is needed only to dehydrate, compress, and pump the CO₂.^{[7]: 101–102} If the flue gas has a lower concentration of CO₂, as is the case for power plants, energy is also required to separate CO₂ from other flue gas components.^{[7]: 101–102}

Early studies indicated that to produce the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant would need to burn 14 - 40% more coal and a natural gas combined cycle power plant would need to burn 11 - 22% more gas.^[45]: 27 When CCS is used in coal power plants, it has been estimated that about 60% of the energy penalty originates from the capture process, 30% comes from compression of the extracted CO₂, and the remaining 10% comes from pumps and fans.^[51]

Depending on the technology used, CCS can require large amounts of water. For instance, coal- fired power plants with CCS may need to use 50% more water.^[52]: 668

Pollution

The construction of pipelines adversely affects wildlife.^[53] Pipeline construction is also associated with social harms to Indigenous communities.^[54]

Since plants with CCS require more fuel to produce the same amount of electricity or heat, the use of CCS increases the "upstream" environmental problems of fossil fuels. Upstream impacts include pollution caused by coal mining, emissions from the fuel used to transport coal and gas, emissions from gas flaring, and fugitive methane emissions.

Since CCS facilities require more fossil fuel to be burned, CCS can cause a net increase in air pollution from those facilities. This can be mitigated by pollution control equipment, however no equipment can eliminate all pollutants.^[6] Since liquid amine solutions are used to capture CO₂ in many CCS systems, these types of chemicals can also be released as air pollutants if not adequately controlled. Among the chemicals of concern are volatile nitrosamines which are carcinogenic when inhaled or drunk in water.^[55][56]

Studies that consider both upstream and downstream impacts indicate that adding CCS to power plants increases overall negative impacts on human health.^[57] The health impacts of adding CCS in the industrial sector are less well-understood.^[57] Health impacts vary significantly depending on the fuel used and the capture technology.^[57]

After CO₂ injected into underground geologic formations, there is a risk of nearby shallow groundwater becoming contaminated.^[45]: 242 Contamination can occur either from movement of the CO₂ into groundwater or from movement of displaced brine.^[45]: 242 Careful site selection and long-term monitoring are necessary to mitigate this risk.^[45]: 239

Sudden CO₂ leakage

Main symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity

CO₂ is a colorless and odorless gas that accumulates near the ground because it is heavier than air. In humans, exposure to CO₂ at concentrations greater than 5% (50,000 parts per million) causes the development of hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis. Concentrations of more than 10% may cause convulsions, coma, and death. CO₂ levels of more than 30% act rapidly leading to loss of consciousness in seconds.^[58]

Pipelines and storage sites can be sources of large accidental releases of CO₂ that can endanger local communities. A 2005 IPCC report stated that "existing CO2 pipelines, mostly in areas of low population density, accident numbers reported per kilometre of pipeline are very low and are comparable to those for hydrocarbon pipelines."^[45]: 12 The report also stated that the local health and safety risks of geologic CO₂ storage were "comparable" to the risks of underground storage of natural gas if good site selection processes, regulatory oversight, monitoring, and incident remediation plans are in place.^[45]: 12 As of 2020, the ways that pipelines can fail is less well-understood for CO₂ pipelines than for natural gas or oil pipelines, and few safety standards exist that are specific to CO₂ pipelines.^[59]

While infrequent, accidents can be serious. In 2020 a CO₂ pipeline ruptured following a mudslide near Satartia, Mississippi, causing people nearby to lose consciousness.^[60] 200 people were evacuated and 45 were hospitalized, and some experienced longer term effects on their health.^[61][62] High concentrations of CO₂ in the air also caused vehicle engines to stop running, hampering the rescue effort.^[63]

Jobs

See also: Just transition

Retrofitting facilities with CCS can help to preserve jobs and economic prosperity in regions that rely on emissions-intensive industry, while avoiding the economic and social disruption of early retirements.^{[7]: 21–22} For instance, Germany’s plans to retire around 40 GW of coal-fired generation capacity before 2038 is accompanied by a EUR 40 billion (USD 45 billion) package to compensate the owners of coal mines and power plants as well as support the communities that will be affected.^{[7]: 21–22} There is potential for reducing these costs if plants are retrofitted with CCS. Retrofitting CO2 capture equipment can enable the continued operation of existing plants, as well as associated infrastructure and supply chains.^{[7]: 21–22}

Equity

See also: Distributive justice

In the United States, the types of facilities that could be retrofitted with CCS are often located in communities that have already borne the negative environmental and health impacts of living near power or industrial facilities.^[6] These facilities are disproportionately located in poor and/or minority communities.^[64] While there is evidence that CCS can help reduce non-CO2 pollutants along with capturing CO2, environmental justice groups are often concerned that CCS will be used as a way to prolong a facility’s lifetime and continue the local harms it causes.^[6] Often, community-based organizations would prefer that a facility be shut down and for investment be focused instead on cleaner production processes, such as renewable electricity.^[6]

Construction of pipelines often involves setting up work camps in remote areas. In Canada and the United States, oil and gas pipeline construction has historically been associated with a variety of social harms, including sexual violence committed by workers against Indigenous women.^[54]

Cost

Project cost, low technology readiness levels in capture technologies, and a lack of revenue streams are among the main reasons for CCS projects to stop.^[2] A commercial-scale project typically requires an upfront capital investment of up to several billion dollars.^[65] According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CCS would increase the cost of electricity generation from coal plants by $7 to $12/ MWh.^[66]

The cost of CCS varies greatly by CO₂ source. If the concentration of CO₂ in the flue gas is high, as is the case for natural gas processing, it can be captured and compressed for USD 15-25/tonne.^[67] Power plants, cement plants, and iron and steel plants produce more dilute gas streams, for which the cost of capture and compression is USD 40-120/tonne CO2.^[67] In the United States, the cost of onshore pipeline transport is in the range of USD 2-14/t CO₂, and more than half of onshore storage capacity is estimated to be available below USD 10/t CO₂.^[67] CCS implementations involve multiple technologies that are highly customized to each site, which limits the industry's ability to reduce costs through learning-by-doing.^[68]

Role in climate change mitigation

Comparison with other mitigation options

Compared to other options for reducing emissions, CCS is very expensive. For instance, removing CO₂ from the flue gas of fossil fuel power plants increases costs by USD $50 - $200 per tonne of CO₂ removed.^[69]: 38 There are many ways to reduce emissions that cost less than USD $20 per tonne of avoided CO₂ emissions.^[70] Options that have far more potential to reduce emissions at lower cost than CCS include public transit, electric vehicles, and various energy efficiency measures.^[69]: 38 Wind and solar power are often the lowest-cost ways to produce electricity, even when compared to power plants that do not use CCS.^[69]: 38 The dramatic fall in the costs of renewable power and batteries has made it difficult for fossil fuel plants with CCS to be cost-competitive.^[67]

Priority uses

Retrofitting cement plants with CCS is one of the few options to reduce their emissions. However, carbon capture technology for cement is still at the demonstration stage.

Compared to solar and wind power, CCS has seen relatively flat growth in installed capacity since 2010.

In the literature on climate change mitigation, CCS is described as having a small but critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.^{[6][52]: 28} The IPCC estimated in 2014 that forgoing CCS altogether would make it 138% more expensive to keep global warming within 2 degrees Celsius.^[71] Excessive reliance on CCS as a mitigation tool would also be costly and technically unfeasible. According to the IEA, attempting to abate oil and gas consumption only through CCS and direct air capture would cost USD 3.5 trillion per year, which is about the same as the annual revenue of the entire oil and gas industry.^[72] Emissions are relatively difficult or expensive to abate without CCS in the following niches:^{[7]: 13–14}

• Heavy Industry: CCS is one of the few available technologies that can significantly reduce emissions associated with the production of cement, chemicals, and steel.^{[7]: 21–24} A portion of the CO₂ emissions from these processes come from chemical reactions, in addition to emissions from burning fuels for heat. Cleaner industrial processes are at varying stages of development and some have been commercialized,^[73] but are far from being widely-deployed.^[52]: 29
• Retrofits: CCS can be retrofitted to existing coal and natural gas power plants and industrial facilities to enable the continued operation of existing plants while reducing their emissions.^{[7]: 21–24}
• Natural gas processing: CCUS is the only solution to reduce the CO₂ emissions from natural gas processing.^{[7]: 21–24} This does not reduce the emissions released when the gas is burned.^[6]
• Hydrogen: Nearly all hydrogen today is produced from natural gas or coal. Facilities can incorporate CCS to capture the CO₂ released in these processes.^{[7]: 21–24}
• Complement to renewable electricity: In the IEA's scenario for net zero emissions, 251 GW of electricity worldwide are produced by coal and gas plants equipped with CCS by 2050, while 54,679 GW of electricity are produced by solar PV and wind.^{[27]: 91–92} Although solar and wind energy are typically cheaper, power plants that burn natural gas, biomass, or coal have the advantage of being able to produce electricity in any season and any time of day, and can be dispatched at times of high demand.^{[7]: 51–52} A small amount of power plant capacity can help to meet the growing need for system flexibility as the share of wind and solar increases.^{[7]: 51–52} The potential for a robust power grid using 100% renewable energy has been modelled as a feasible option for many regions, which would make fossil CCS in the electricity sector unnecessary.^[74] However, this approach may be more expensive.^[52]: 676
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the process of extracting bioenergy from biomass and capturing and storing the CO₂ that is produced. Under some conditions, BECCS can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.^[75]

The IPCC stated in 2022 that “implementation of CCS currently faces technological, economic, institutional, ecological-environmental and socio-cultural barriers.”^[52]: 28 Since CCS can only be used with large, stationary emission sources, it cannot reduce the emissions from burning fossil fuels in vehicles and homes. The IEA describes "excessive expectations and reliance" on CCS and direct air capture as a common misconception.^[72] To reach targets set in the Paris Agreement, CCS must be accompanied by a steep decline in the production and use of fossil fuels.^{[6][52]: 672}

Effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Coal plants with CCS usually burn more coal to provide the energy needed for CCS processes. This increases the environmental effects of coal mining.

When CCS is used for electricity generation, most studies assume that 85-90% of the CO₂ in the flue gas is captured.^[76] However, industry representatives say actual capture rates are closer to 75%, and have lobbied for government programs to accept this lower target.^[77] The potential for a CCS project to reduce emissions depends on several factors in addition to the capture rate. These factors include the amount of additional energy needed to power CCS processes, the source of the additional energy used, and post-capture leakage. The energy needed for CCS usually comes from fossil fuels whose mining, processing, and transport produce emissions. Some studies indicate that under certain circumstances the overall emissions reduction from CCS can be very low, or that adding CCS can even increase emissions relative to no capture.^[78][79] For instance, one study found that in the Petra Nova CCS retrofit of a coal power plant, the actual rate of emissions reduction was so low that it would average only 10.8% over a 20-year time frame.^[80]

Some CCS implementations have not sequestered carbon at their designed capacity, either for business or technical reasons.^[8][6] For instance, in the Shute Creek Gas Processing Facility, around half of the CO2 that has been captured has been sold for EOR, and the other half vented to the atmosphere because it could not be profitably sold.^[81]: 19 In one year of operation of the Gorgon gas project in Australia, issues with subsurface water prevented two-thirds of captured CO₂ from being injected.^[82] A 2022 analysis of 13 major CCS projects found that most had either sequestered far less CO₂ than originally expected, or had failed entirely.^[8][81]

Emissions with enhanced oil recovery

There is controversy over whether carbon capture followed by enhanced oil recovery is beneficial for the climate. The EOR process is energy-intensive because of the need to separate and re-inject CO₂ multiple times to minimize losses. If CO₂ losses are kept at 1%, the energy required for EOR operations results in around 0.23 tonnes of CO₂ emissions per tonne of CO₂ sequestered.^[39]

Furthermore, when the oil that is extracted using EOR is subsequently burned, CO₂ is released. If these emissions are included in calculations, carbon capture with EOR is usually found to increase overall emissions compared to not using carbon capture at all.^[3] If the emissions from burning extracted oil are excluded from calculations, carbon capture with EOR is found to decrease emissions. In arguments for excluding these emissions, it is assumed that oil produced by EOR displaces conventionally-produced oil instead of adding to the global consumption of oil.^[3] A 2020 review found that scientific papers were roughly evenly split on the question of whether carbon capture with EOR increased or decreased emissions.^[3]

The International Energy Agency's model of oil supply and demand indicates that 80% of oil produced in EOR will displace other oil on the market.^[39] Using this model, it estimated that for each tonne of CO₂ sequestered, burning the oil produced by conventional EOR leads to 0.13 tonnes of CO₂ emissions (in addition to the 0.24 tonnes of CO₂ emitted during the EOR process itself).^[39]

Pace of implementation

As of 2023 CCS captures around 0.1% of global emissions — around 45 million tonnes of CO₂.^[6] Climate models from the IPCC and the IEA show it capturing around 1 billion tonnes of CO₂ by 2030 and several billions of tons by 2050.^[6] Technologies for CCS in high-priority niches, such as cement production, are still immature. The IEA notes "a disconnect between the level of maturity of individual CO2 capture technologies and the areas in which they are most needed."^[7]: 92

CCS implementations involve long approval and construction times and the overall pace of implementation has historically been slow.^[83] As a result of the lack of progress, authors of climate change mitigation strategies have repeatedly reduced the role of CCS.^[84]: 132 Some observers such as the IEA call for increased commitment to CCS in order to meet targets.^[83]: 16 Other observers see the slow pace of implementation as an indication that the concept of CCS is fundamentally unlikely to succeed, and call for efforts to be redirected to other mitigation tools such as renewable energy.^[85]

Political debate

An information truck on "clean coal" from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an advocacy group representing coal producers, utility companies and railroads.^[86]

Protest against CCS in 2021 in Torquay, England

CCS has been discussed by political actors at least since the start of the UNFCCC^[87] negotiations in the beginning of the 1990s, and remains a very divisive issue.^[88]

Fossil fuel companies have heavily promoted CCS, framing it as an area of innovation and cost-effectiveness.^[10] Public statements from fossil fuel companies and fossil-based electric utilities ask for “recognition” that fossil fuel usage will increase in the future and suggest that CCS will allow the fossil fuel era to be extended.^[10] Their statements typically position CCS as a necessary way to tackle climate change, while not mentioning options for reducing fossil fuel use.^[10] As of 2023, annual investments in the oil and gas sector are double the amount needed to produce the amount of fuel that would be compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.^[89]

Fossil fuel industry representatives have had a strong presence at UN climate conferences.^[90] In these conferences, they have advocated for agreements to use language about reducing the emissions from fossil fuel use (through CCS), instead of language about reducing the use of fossil fuels.^[90] In the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, at least 475 lobbyists for CCS were granted access.^[91]

Many environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace hold strongly negative views on CCS, whereas others such as the Bellona Foundation consider it to be a useful tool.^[12] In surveys, environmental NGOs' importance ratings for fossil energy with CCS have been around as low as their ratings for nuclear energy.^[92] Critics see CCS as an unproven, expensive technology that will perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels.^[11] They believe other ways to reduce emissions are more effective and that CCS is a distraction.^[11] They would rather see government funds go to initiatives that are not connected to the fossil fuel industry.^[11] Environmental NGOs that do support CCS often do so conditionally, depending on factors such as effects on local ecosystems and whether CCS competes for funding with other climate initiatives.^[93]

Fossil fuel abatement

In international climate negotiations, a controversial issue has been whether to phase out use of fossil fuels generally or to phase out use of "unabated" fossil fuels. In the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, an agreement was reached to phase down unabated coal use.^[94] The term abated is generally understood to mean the use of CCS, however the agreement left the term undefined.^[94]

Since the terms abated and unabated were not defined, the agreement was criticized for being open to abuse.^[94] Without a clear definition, is possible for fossil fuel use to be called "abated" if it uses CCS only in a minimal fashion, such as capturing only 30% of the emissions from a plant.^[94]

The IPCC considers fossil fuels to be unabated if they are "produced and used without interventions that substantially reduce the amount of GHG emitted throughout the life-cycle; for example, capturing 90% or more from power plants, or 50-80% of fugitive methane emissions from energy supply."^[95] The intention of the IPCC definition is to require both effective CCS and deep reduction of fugitive gas emissions in order for fossil fuel emissions to qualify as being "abated."^[13]

Social acceptance

The public has generally low awareness of CCS.^{[96]: 642–643} Public support among those who are aware of CCS has tended to be low, especially compared to public support for other emission-reduction options.^{[96]: 642–643}

A frequent concern for the public is transparency, e.g. around issues such as safety, costs, and impacts.^[97] Another factor in acceptance is whether uncertainties are acknowledged, including uncertainties around potentially negative impacts on the natural environment and public health.^[97] Research indicates that engaging comprehensively with communities increases the likelihood of project success compared to projects that do not engage the public.^[97] Some studies indicate that community collaboration can contribute to the avoidance of harm within communities impacted by the project.^[97]

Government programs

Almost all CCS projects operating today have benefited from government financial support, largely in the form of capital grants and – to a lesser extent – operational subsidies.^{[7]: 156–160} Tax credits are offered in some countries.^[98][99] Grant funding has played a particularly important role in projects coming online since 2010, with 8 out of 15 projects receiving grants ranging from around USD 55 million (AUD 60 million) in the case of Gorgon in Australia to USD 840 million (CAD 865 million) for Quest in Canada. An explicit carbon price has supported CCS investment in only two cases to date: the Sleipner and Snøhvit projects in Norway.^{[7]: 156–160}

North America

As a means to help boost domestic oil production, the US federal tax code has had some sort of incentive for enhanced oil recovery since 1979, when crude oil was still under federal price controls. A 15 percent tax credit was codified with the U.S. Federal EOR Tax Incentive in 1986, and oil production from EOR using CO₂ subsequently grew rapidly.^[100]

In the U.S., the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act designates over $3 billion for a variety of CCS demonstration projects. A similar amount is provided for regional CCS hubs that focus on the broader capture, transport, and either storage or use of captured CO₂. Hundreds of millions more are dedicated annually to loan guarantees supporting CO₂ transport infrastructure.^[101]

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) updates tax credit law to encourage the use of carbon capture and storage. Tax incentives under the law provide up to $85/tonne for CO₂ capture and storage in saline geologic formations or up to $60/tonne for CO₂ used for enhanced oil recovery.^[102] The Internal Revenue Service relies on documentation from the corporation to substantiate claims on how much CO₂ is being sequestered, and does not perform independent investigations.^[103] In 2020, a federal investigation found that claimants for the 45Q tax credit failed to document successful geological storage for nearly $900 million of the $1 billion they had claimed.^[3]

In 2023 the US EPA issued a rule proposing that CCS be required in order to achieve a 90% emission reduction for existing coal-fired and natural gas power plants. That rule would become effective in the 2035-2040 time period.^[104] For natural gas power plants, the rule would require 90 percent capture of CO2 using CCS by 2035, or co-firing of 30% low-GHG hydrogen beginning in 2032 and co-firing 96% low-GHG hydrogen beginning in 2038.^[104] Within the US, although the federal government may fully or partially fund CCS pilot projects, local or community jurisdictions would likely administer CCS project siting and construction.^[105] CO2 pipeline safety is overseen by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,^[106] which has been criticized as being underfunded and understaffed.^[107]

Canada established a tax credit for CCS equipment for 2022 - 2028.^[99] The credit is 50% for CCS capture equipment and 37.5% for transportation and storage equipment.^[99] The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers had asked for a 75% credit.^[99] The federal tax credit was expected to cost the government CAD $2.6 billion over 5 years;^[99] in 2024 the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated it would cost CAD $5.7 billion.^[108] Saskatchewan extended its 20 per cent tax credit under the province’s Oil Infrastructure Investment Program to pipelines carrying CO2.

Europe

In Norway, CCS has been part of a strategy to make fossil fuel exports compatible with national emission-reduction goals.^[109] In 1991, the government introduced a tax on CO₂ emissions from offshore oil and gas production.^[110]: 20 This tax, combined with favorable and well-understood site geology, was a reason Equinor chose to implement CCS in the Sleipner and Snøhvit gas fields.^[7]: 158

Denmark has recently announced €5 billion in subsidies for CCS.

In the UK the CCUS roadmap outlines joint government and industry commitments to the deployment of CCUS and sets out an approach to delivering four CCUS low carbon industrial clusters, capturing 20-30 MtCO₂ per year by 2030.^[111] In September 2024 the UK government announced £21.7bn of subsidy over 25 years for the HyNet CCS and blue hydrogen scheme in Merseyside and the East Coast Cluster scheme in Teesside.^[112]

Asia

The Chinese State Council has now issued more than 10 national policies and guidelines promoting CCS, including the Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 of China.^[113]

Related concepts

CO₂ utilization in products

Incorporating carbon dioxide into building aggregate would sequester it indefinitely.

CO₂ can be used as a feedstock for making various types of products. As of 2022, usage in products consumes around 1% of the CO₂ captured each year.^[114] By convention, figures on carbon capture do not include the standard way of producing urea, in which CO₂ produced within an industrial process is recycled in the same process.^[115] By convention, figures also do not include CO₂ produced for the food and beverage industry.^[115]

As of 2023, it is commercially feasible to produce the following products from captured CO_2: methanol, urea, polycarbonates, polyols, polyurethane, and salicylic acids.^[116] Methanol is currently primarily used to produce other chemicals, with potential for more widespread future use as a fuel.^[117] Urea is used in the production of fertilizers.^[7]: 55

Technologies for sequestering CO₂ in mineral carbonate products have been demonstrated, but are not ready for commercial deployment as of 2023.^[116] Research is ongoing into processes to incorporate CO₂ into concrete or building aggregate. The utilization of CO₂ in construction materials holds promise for deployment at large scale,^[118] and is the only foreseeable CO₂ use that is permanent enough to qualify as storage.^[119] Other potential uses for captured CO₂ that are being researched include the creation of synthetic fuels, and various chemicals and plastics.^[116] The production of fuels and chemicals from CO₂ is highly energy-intensive.^[119]

Capturing CO₂ for use in products does not necessarily reduce emissions.^[7]: 111 The climate benefits associated with CO₂ use primarily arise from displacing products that have higher life-cycle emissions.^: 111 The amount of climate benefit varies depending on how long the product lasts before it re-releases the CO₂, the amount and source of energy used in production, whether the product would otherwise be produced using fossil fuels, and the source of the captured CO2.^[7]: 111 Higher emissions reductions are achieved if CO₂ is captured from bioenergy as opposed to fossil fuels.^[7]: 111

The potential for CO₂ utilization in products is small compared to the total volume of CO₂ that could foreseeably be captured. For instance, in the IEA scenario for achieving net zero emissions by 2050, over 95% of captured CO₂ is geologically sequestered and less than 5% is used in products.^[119]

According to the IEA, products created from captured CO₂ are likely to cost a lot more than conventional and alternative low-carbon products.^[7]: 110 One important use of captured CO₂ would be to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, which alongside biofuels are the only practical alternative to fossil fuels for long-haul flights. Limitations on the availability of sustainable biomass mean that these synthetic fuels will be needed for net-zero emissions; the CO₂ would need to come from bioenergy production or direct air capture to be carbon-neutral.^{[7]: 21–24}

Direct air carbon capture and sequestration

Main article: Direct air capture

Direct air carbon capture and sequestration (DACCS) is the use of chemical or physical processes to extract CO2 directly from the ambient air and putting the captured CO2 into long-term storage.^[120] In contrast to CCS, which captures emissions from a point source, DAC has the potential to remove carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere. Thus, DAC can be used to capture emissions that originated in non-stationary sources such as airplane engines.^[121] As of 2023, DACCS has yet to be integrated into emissions trading because, at over US$1000,^[122] the cost per ton of carbon dioxide is many times the carbon price on those markets.^[123]

See also

• Energy portal

• List of carbon capture and storage projects
• Timeline of carbon capture and storage
• Coal pollution mitigation
• Carbon sink
• Carbon storage in the North Sea
• Greenwashing
• Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources
• Methane pyrolysis

References

1. IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
2. Zhang, Yuting; Jackson, Christopher; Krevor, Samuel (28 August 2024). "The feasibility of reaching gigatonne scale CO2 storage by mid-century". Nature Communications. 15 (1): 6913. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51226-8. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 11358273. PMID 39198390. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
3. Sekera, June; Lichtenberger, Andreas (6 October 2020). "Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need: A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal". Biophysical Economics and Sustainability. 5 (3): 14. Bibcode:2020BpES....5...14S. doi:10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5.Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
4. Kazlou, Tsimafei; Cherp, Aleh; Jewell, Jessica (October 2024). "Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets". Nature Climate Change. 14 (10): 1047–1055, Extended Data Fig. 1. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02104-0. ISSN 1758-6798.
5. "Global Status Report 2024". Global CCS Institute. pp. 57–58. Retrieved 19 October 2024. The report lists 50 facilities, of which 3 are direct air capture facilities and 3 are transport/storage facilities
6. Lebling, Katie; Gangotra, Ankita; Hausker, Karl; Byrum, Zachary (13 November 2023). "7 Things to Know About Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration". World Resources Institute. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
7. IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
8. Vaughan, Adam (1 September 2022). "Most major carbon capture and storage projects haven't met targets". New Scientist. Retrieved 28 August 2024.
9. Sekera, June; Lichtenberger, Andreas (6 October 2020). "Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need: A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal". Biophysical Economics and Sustainability. 5 (3): 14. Bibcode:2020BpES....5...14S. doi:10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5.Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
10. Gunderson, Ryan; Stuart, Diana; Petersen, Brian (10 April 2020). "The fossil fuel industry's framing of carbon capture and storage: Faith in innovation, value instrumentalization, and status quo maintenance". Journal of Cleaner Production. 252: 119767. Bibcode:2020JCPro.25219767G. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119767. ISSN 0959-6526.
11. Lakhani, Nina (29 August 2024). "US leads wealthy countries spending billions of public money on unproven 'climate solutions'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 21 September 2024.
12. Corry, Olaf; Riesch, Hauke (2012). "Beyond 'For Or Against': Environmental NGO-evaluations of CCS as a climate change solution". In Markusson, Nils; Shackley, Simon; Evar, Benjamin (eds.). The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS Representations, Governance and Innovation. Routledge. pp. 91–110. ISBN 978-1-84971-315-3.
13. Staff, Carbon Brief (5 December 2023). "Q&A: Why defining the 'phaseout' of 'unabated' fossil fuels is so important at COP28". Carbon Brief. Retrieved 2 October 2024.
14. IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
15. Martin-Roberts, Emma; Scott, Vivian; Flude, Stephanie; Johnson, Gareth; Haszeldine, R. Stuart; Gilfillan, Stuart (November 2021). "Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade". One Earth. 4 (11): 1645–1646. Bibcode:2021OEart...4.1645M. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.023. hdl:20.500.11820/45b9f880-71e1-4b24-84fd-b14a80d016f3. ISSN 2590-3322. Retrieved 21 June 2024.
16. "CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System". IEA. Retrieved 27 June 2024.
17. Snæbjörnsdóttir, Sandra Ó; Sigfússon, Bergur; Marieni, Chiara; Goldberg, David; Gislason, Sigurður R.; Oelkers, Eric H. (February 2020). "Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1 (2): 90–102. Bibcode:2020NRvEE...1...90S. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8. ISSN 2662-138X. Retrieved 21 June 2024.
18. Hepburn, Cameron; Adlen, Ella; Beddington, John; Carter, Emily A.; Fuss, Sabine; Mac Dowell, Niall; Minx, Jan C.; Smith, Pete; Williams, Charlotte K. (November 2019). "The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal". Nature. 575 (7781): 87–97. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1681-6. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31695213.
19. "About CCUS – Analysis". IEA. 7 April 2021. Retrieved 24 August 2024.
20. STEFANINI, SARA (21 May 2015). "Green Coal in the Red". Politico. Retrieved 21 November 2017.
21. Rochelle, Gary T. (25 September 2009). "Amine Scrubbing for CO 2 Capture". Science. 325 (5948): 1652–1654. doi:10.1126/science.1176731. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19779188.
22. United States Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. "Enhanced Oil Recovery". Retrieved 9 August 2024.
23. Ma, Jinfeng; Li, Lin; Wang, Haofan; Du, Yi; Ma, Junjie; Zhang, Xiaoli; Wang, Zhenliang (July 2022). "Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead". Engineering. 14: 33–43. Bibcode:2022Engin..14...33M. doi:10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024. S2CID 247416947.
24. Marchetti, Cesare (1977). "On geoengineering and the CO2 problem". Climatic Change. 1 (1): 59–68. Bibcode:1977ClCh....1...59M. doi:10.1007/BF00162777.
25. Wang, Nan; Akimoto, Keigo; Nemet, Gregory F. (1 November 2021). "What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects". Energy Policy. 158: 112546. Bibcode:2021EnPol.15812546W. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112546. ISSN 0301-4215. Retrieved 24 June 2024.
26. Lakhani, Nina (29 August 2024). "US leads wealthy countries spending billions of public money on unproven 'climate solutions'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 18 September 2024.
27. "Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis". IEA. 26 September 2023. Retrieved 11 September 2024.
28. Congressional Budget Office (13 December 2023). "Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States". www.cbo.gov. Retrieved 18 September 2024. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
29. "Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management". United States Department of Energy. April 2023. p. 11. Retrieved 18 September 2024. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
30. Kanniche, Mohamed; Gros-Bonnivard, René; Jaud, Philippe; Valle-Marcos, Jose; Amann, Jean-Marc; Bouallou, Chakib (January 2010). "Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for CO2 capture" (PDF). Applied Thermal Engineering. 30 (1): 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.005.
31. "Gasification Body" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 May 2008. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
32. "Carbon Capture and Storage at Imperial College London". Imperial College London. 8 November 2023.
33. Sweet, William (2008). "Winner: Clean Coal - Restoring Coal's Sheen". IEEE Spectrum. 45: 57–60. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2008.4428318. S2CID 27311899.
34. Bui, Mai; Adjiman, Claire S.; Bardow, André; Anthony, Edward J.; Boston, Andy; Brown, Solomon; Fennell, Paul S.; Fuss, Sabine; Galindo, Amparo; Hackett, Leigh A.; Hallett, Jason P.; Herzog, Howard J.; Jackson, George; Kemper, Jasmin; Krevor, Samuel; Maitland, Geoffrey C.; Matuszewski, Michael; Metcalfe, Ian S.; Petit, Camille; Puxty, Graeme; Reimer, Jeffrey; Reiner, David M.; Rubin, Edward S.; Scott, Stuart A.; Shah, Nilay; Smit, Berend; Trusler, J. P. Martin; Webley, Paul; Wilcox, Jennifer; Mac Dowell, Niall (2018). "Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward". Energy & Environmental Science. 11 (5): 1062–1176. doi:10.1039/C7EE02342A. hdl:10044/1/55714.
35. Jensen, Mark J.; Russell, Christopher S.; Bergeson, David; Hoeger, Christopher D.; Frankman, David J.; Bence, Christopher S.; Baxter, Larry L. (November 2015). "Prediction and validation of external cooling loop cryogenic carbon capture (CCC-ECL) for full-scale coal-fired power plant retrofit". International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 42: 200–212. Bibcode:2015IJGGC..42..200J. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.04.009.
36. Baxter, Larry L; Baxter, Andrew; Bever, Ethan; Burt, Stephanie; Chamberlain, Skyler; Frankman, David; Hoeger, Christopher; Mansfield, Eric; Parkinson, Dallin; Sayre, Aaron; Stitt, Kyler (28 September 2019). Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development Final/Technical Report (Technical report). pp. DOE–SES–28697, 1572908. doi:10.2172/1572908. OSTI 1572908. S2CID 213628936.
37. "Good plant design and operation for onshore carbon capture installations and onshore pipelines - 5 CO₂ plant design". Energy Institute. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 13 March 2012.
38. "Can CO2-EOR really provide carbon-negative oil? – Analysis". IEA. 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2024.
39. "Insights Series 2015 - Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery – Analysis". IEA. 3 November 2015. pp. 29–33. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
40. Ma, Jinfeng; Li, Lin; Wang, Haofan; Du, Yi; Ma, Junjie; Zhang, Xiaoli; Wang, Zhenliang (July 2022). "Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead". Engineering. 14: 33–43. Bibcode:2022Engin..14...33M. doi:10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024. S2CID 247416947.
41. Ma, Jinfeng; Li, Lin; Wang, Haofan; Du, Yi; Ma, Junjie; Zhang, Xiaoli; Wang, Zhenliang (July 2022). "Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead". Engineering. 14: 33–43. Bibcode:2022Engin..14...33M. doi:10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024. S2CID 247416947.
42. Dziejarski, Bartosz; Krzyżyńska, Renata; Andersson, Klas (June 2023). "Current status of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the global economy: A survey of technical assessment". Fuel. 342: 127776. Bibcode:2023Fuel..34227776D. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776. ISSN 0016-2361. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
43. Snæbjörnsdóttir, Sandra Ó; Sigfússon, Bergur; Marieni, Chiara; Goldberg, David; Gislason, Sigurður R.; Oelkers, Eric H. (February 2020). "Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1 (2): 90–102. Bibcode:2020NRvEE...1...90S. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8. ISSN 2662-138X. Retrieved 21 June 2024.
44. Kim, Kyuhyun; Kim, Donghyun; Na, Yoonsu; Song, Youngsoo; Wang, Jihoon (December 2023). "A review of carbon mineralization mechanism during geological CO2 storage". Heliyon. 9 (12): e23135. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23135. ISSN 2405-8440. PMC 10750052. PMID 38149201.
45. Metz, Bert; Davidson, Ogunlade; De Conink, Heleen; Loos, Manuela; Meyer, Leo, eds. (2005). "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
46. Ringrose, Philip (2020). How to Store CO2 Underground: Insights from early-mover CCS Projects. Switzerland: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-33113-9.
47. Smit, Berend; Reimer, Jeffrey A.; Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Bourg, Ian C. (2014). Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration. London: Imperial College Press. ISBN 978-1-78326-328-8.
48. Zoback, Mark D.; Gorelick, Steven M. (26 June 2012). "Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (26): 10164–10168. Bibcode:2012PNAS..10910164Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1202473109. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3387039. PMID 22711814.
49. Lenzen, Manfred (15 December 2011). "Global Warming Effect of Leakage From CO 2 Storage". Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 41 (24): 2169–2185. Bibcode:2011CREST..41.2169L. doi:10.1080/10643389.2010.497442. ISSN 1064-3389.
50. Climatewire, Christa Marshall. "Can Stored Carbon Dioxide Leak?". Scientific American. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
51. Rubin, Edward S.; Mantripragada, Hari; Marks, Aaron; Versteeg, Peter; Kitchin, John (October 2012). "The outlook for improved carbon capture technology". Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 38 (5): 630–671. Bibcode:2012PECS...38..630R. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.003.
52. IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R.; Al Khourdajie, A.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (PDF). Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (In Press). doi:10.1017/9781009157926. ISBN 978-1-009-15792-6.
53. Richardson, Matthew L.; Wilson, Benjamin A.; Aiuto, Daniel A. S.; Crosby, Jonquil E.; Alonso, Alfonso; Dallmeier, Francisco; Golinski, G. Karen (July 2017). "A review of the impact of pipelines and power lines on biodiversity and strategies for mitigation". Biodiversity and Conservation. 26 (8): 1801–1815. Bibcode:2017BiCon..26.1801R. doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1341-9. ISSN 0960-3115.
54. Markusoff, Jason (31 May 2018). "Are 'man camps' that house pipeline construction workers a menace to Indigenous women?". Macleans.ca. Retrieved 30 September 2024.
55. "CCS - Norway: Amines, nitrosamines and nitramines released in Carbon Capture Processes should not exceed 0.3 ng/m3 air (The Norwegian Institute of Public Health) - ekopolitan". www.ekopolitan.com. Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
56. Ravnum, S.; Rundén-Pran, E.; Fjellsbø, L. M.; Dusinska, M. (July 2014). "Human health risk assessment of nitrosamines and nitramines for potential application in CO2 capture". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 69 (2): 250–255. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.04.002. ISSN 1096-0295. PMID 24747397.
57. Mikunda, Tom; Brunner, Logan; Skylogianni, Eirini; Monteiro, Juliana; Rycroft, Lydia; Kemper, Jasmin (1 June 2021). "Carbon capture and storage and the sustainable development goals". International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 108: 103318. Bibcode:2021IJGGC.10803318M. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103318. ISSN 1750-5836.
58. Permentier, Kris; Vercammen, Steven; Soetaert, Sylvia; Schellemans, Christian (4 April 2017). "Carbon dioxide poisoning: a literature review of an often forgotten cause of intoxication in the emergency department". International Journal of Emergency Medicine. 10 (1): 14. doi:10.1186/s12245-017-0142-y. ISSN 1865-1372. PMC 5380556. PMID 28378268. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
59. Lu, Hongfang; Ma, Xin; Huang, Kun; Fu, Lingdi; Azimi, Mohammadamin (1 September 2020). "Carbon dioxide transport via pipelines: A systematic review". Journal of Cleaner Production. 266: 121994. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121994. ISSN 0959-6526.
60. Baurick, Tristan (30 April 2024). "'A stark warning': Latest carbon dioxide leak raises concerns about safety, regulation". Verite News. Retrieved 21 August 2024.
61. Dan Zegart (26 August 2021). "The Gassing Of Satartia". Huffington Post.
62. Julia Simon (10 May 2023). "A rupture that hospitalized 45 people raised questions about CO2 pipelines' safety". NPR.
63. Simon, Julia (25 September 2023). "The U.S. is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story". NPR.
64. White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 2021, Executive Order 12898 Revisions: Interim Final Recommendations, Council on Environmental Quality, https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2021/05/17/document_ew_01.pdf
65. Lipponen, Juho; McCulloch, Samantha; Keeling, Simon; Stanley, Tristan; Berghout, Niels; Berly, Thomas (July 2017). "The Politics of Large-scale CCS Deployment". Energy Procedia. 114: 7581–7595. Bibcode:2017EnPro.114.7581L. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1890.
66. Environmental Protection Agency (23 May 2023). "New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule". Federal Register. Page 333447. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
67. "Is carbon capture too expensive? – Analysis". IEA . Text was copied from this source, which is under a CC-BY licence. 17 February 2021. Retrieved 11 September 2024.
68. "Big Oil's Climate Fix Is Running Out of Time to Prove Itself". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2 October 2024.
69. IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R.; Al Khourdajie, A.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (PDF). Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (In Press). doi:10.1017/9781009157926. ISBN 978-1-009-15792-6.
70. Schumer, Clea; Boehm, Sophie; Fransen, Taryn; Hausker, Karl; Dellesky, Carrie (4 April 2022). "6 Takeaways from the 2022 IPCC Climate Change Mitigation Report". World Resources Institute.
71. IPCC (2014). "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC AR5 WG3 2014. p. 15.
72. "Executive summary – The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions – Analysis". IEA. Retrieved 19 September 2024.Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
73. Gailani, Ahmed; Cooper, Sam; Allen, Stephen; Pimm, Andrew; Taylor, Peter; Gross, Robert (20 March 2024). "Assessing the potential of decarbonization options for industrial sectors". Joule. 8 (3): 576–603. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.01.007. ISSN 2542-4351.
74. Breyer, Christian; Khalili, Siavash; Bogdanov, Dmitrii; Ram, Manish; Oyewo, Ayobami Solomon; Aghahosseini, Arman; Gulagi, Ashish; Solomon, A. A.; Keiner, Dominik; Lopez, Gabriel; Østergaard, Poul Alberg; Lund, Henrik; Mathiesen, Brian V.; Jacobson, Mark Z.; Victoria, Marta (2022). "On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research". IEEE Access. 10: 78176–78218. Bibcode:2022IEEEA..1078176B. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3193402. ISSN 2169-3536.
75. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (24 October 2018). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. pp. 10–13. doi:10.17226/25259. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. PMID 31120708. S2CID 134196575. Archived from the original on 25 May 2020. Retrieved 22 February 2020.
76. Budinis, Sara; Krevor, Samuel; Dowell, Niall Mac; Brandon, Nigel; Hawkes, Adam (1 November 2018). "An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential". Energy Strategy Reviews. 22: 61–81. Bibcode:2018EneSR..22...61B. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003. ISSN 2211-467X.
77. Westervelt, Amy (29 July 2024). "Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution — and swindled taxpayers out of billions". Vox. Retrieved 11 September 2024.
78. Rojas-Rueda, David; McAuliffe, Kelly; Morales-Zamora, Emily (1 June 2024). "Addressing Health Equity in the Context of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration Technologies". Current Environmental Health Reports. 11 (2): 225–237. Bibcode:2024CEHR...11..225R. doi:10.1007/s40572-024-00447-6. ISSN 2196-5412. PMID 38600409.
79. Farajzadeh, R.; Eftekhari, A.A.; Dafnomilis, G.; Lake, L.W.; Bruining, J. (March 2020). "On the sustainability of CO2 storage through CO2 – Enhanced oil recovery". Applied Energy. 261: 114467. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114467.
80. Jacobson, Mark Z. (2019). "The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture". Energy & Environmental Science. 12 (12): 3567–3574. doi:10.1039/C9EE02709B. ISSN 1754-5692.
81. "The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned". ieefa.org. Retrieved 1 October 2022.
82. Smyth, Jamie; McCormick, Myles (16 November 2023). "Chevron plots carbon storage future despite Australia plant setbacks". Financial Times. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
83. "Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage - Energy System". IEA. Retrieved 30 August 2024.
84. "Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis". IEA. 26 September 2023. Retrieved 24 September 2024.
85. Oglesby, Cameron (20 October 2023). "What's the deal with carbon capture and storage? » Yale Climate Connections". Yale Climate Connections. Retrieved 28 September 2024.
86. Samuelsohn, Darren (28 September 2015). "'Clean coal' group downsizing amid industry struggles". POLITICO. Retrieved 29 September 2024.
87. Carton, Wim; Asiyanbi, Adeniyi; Beck, Silke; Buck, Holly J.; Lund, Jens F. (November 2020). "Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal". WIREs Climate Change. 11 (6). Bibcode:2020WIRCC..11E.671C. doi:10.1002/wcc.671.
88. Westervelt, Amy (29 July 2024). "Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution — and swindled taxpayers out of billions". Vox. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
89. Fatih Birol [@fbirol] (23 November 2023). "While oil & gas production is far lower in transitions to net zero emissions, some investment in supply is still needed But the $800 billion currently invested in the oil & gas sector each year is double what is required in 2030 on a pathway to limiting global warming to 1.5C" (Tweet). Twitter. Retrieved 2 October 2024.
90. Dinan, Will (13 February 2024). "Oil and gas lobbyists have deep pockets and access to politicians, but an EU ban could be in the pipeline". The Conversation. Retrieved 2 October 2024.
91. Lakhani, Nina (8 December 2023). "At least 475 carbon-capture lobbyists attending Cop28". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 October 2024.
92. Romanak, Katherine; Fridahl, Mathias; Dixon, Tim (January 2021). "Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC". Energies. 14 (3): 629. doi:10.3390/en14030629. ISSN 1996-1073.Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
93. Anderson, Jason; Chiavari, Joana (February 2009). "Understanding and improving NGO position on CCS". Energy Procedia. 1 (1): 4811–4817. Bibcode:2009EnPro...1.4811A. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.308.
94. Khourdajie, Alaa Al; Bataille, Chris; Nilsson, Lars J. (13 December 2023). "The COP28 climate agreement is a step backwards on fossil fuels". The Conversation. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
95. "WGIII Summary for Policymakers Headline Statements". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2024.
96. IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R.; Al Khourdajie, A.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (PDF). Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (In Press). doi:10.1017/9781009157926. ISBN 978-1-009-15792-6.
97. Nielsen, Jacob A. E.; Stavrianakis, Kostas; Morrison, Zoe (2 August 2022). Ramanan, Rishiram (ed.). "Community acceptance and social impacts of carbon capture, utilization and storage projects: A systematic meta-narrative literature review". PLOS ONE. 17 (8): e0272409. Bibcode:2022PLoSO..1772409N. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272409. ISSN 1932-6203.Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
98. "Inflation Reduction Act 2022: Sec. 13104 Extension and Modification of Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration – Policies". IEA. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
99. "Canada creates carbon-capture incentives, critical mineral plan to cut emissions". Reuters. 7 April 2022. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
100. National Energy Technology Laboratory (March 2010). "Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery: Untapped Domestic Energy Supply and Long Term Carbon Storage Solution" (PDF). U.S, Department of Energy. p. 17. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
101. "Biden's Infrastructure Law: Energy & Sustainability Implications | Mintz". www.mintz.com. 5 January 2022. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
102. "Carbon Capture Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022". Clean Air Task Force. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
103. Westervelt, Amy (29 July 2024). "Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution — and swindled taxpayers out of billions". Vox. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
104. "Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel Fired Power Plants Proposed Rule" (PDF). EPA. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
105. Oltra, Christian; Upham, Paul; Riesch, Hauke; Boso, Àlex; Brunsting, Suzanne; Dütschke, Elisabeth; Lis, Aleksandra (May 2012). "Public Responses to Co 2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases". Energy & Environment. 23 (2–3): 227–248. Bibcode:2012EnEnv..23..227O. doi:10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.227. ISSN 0958-305X. S2CID 53392027.
106. "Statement: DOE Welcomes New Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Safety Measures Announced by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration". Energy.gov. Retrieved 30 September 2024.
107. Restuccia, Andrew; Schor, Elana (13 July 2015). "'Pipelines blow up and people die' - POLITICO". Retrieved 30 September 2024.
108. Thurton, David (1 February 2024). "Carbon capture tax credit could cost taxpayers $1B more than expected, PBO warns". CBC News. Retrieved 10 October 2024.
109. Røttereng, Jo-Kristian S. (May 2018). "When climate policy meets foreign policy: Pioneering and national interest in Norway's mitigation strategy". Energy Research & Social Science. 39: 216–225. Bibcode:2018ERSS...39..216R. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.024.
110. "20 years of carbon capture and storage – Analysis". IEA. 15 November 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2024.
111. "CCUS Net Zero Investment Roadmap" (PDF). HM Government. April 2023. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
112. Partington, Richard; Ambrose, Jillian (3 October 2024). "Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.
113. "2022 Status Report". Global CCS Institute. Page 6. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
114. Martin-Roberts, Emma; Scott, Vivian; Flude, Stephanie; Johnson, Gareth; Haszeldine, R. Stuart; Gilfillan, Stuart (November 2021). "Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade". One Earth. 4 (11): 1645–1646. Bibcode:2021OEart...4.1645M. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.023. hdl:20.500.11820/45b9f880-71e1-4b24-84fd-b14a80d016f3. ISSN 2590-3322. Retrieved 21 June 2024.
115. "CCUS Projects Database - Data product". IEA. Retrieved 16 October 2024.
116. Dziejarski, Bartosz; Krzyżyńska, Renata; Andersson, Klas (June 2023). "Current status of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the global economy: A survey of technical assessment". Fuel. 342: 127776. Bibcode:2023Fuel..34227776D. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776. ISSN 0016-2361. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
117. Kim, Changsoo; Yoo, Chun-Jae; Oh, Hyung-Suk; Min, Byoung Koun; Lee, Ung (November 2022). "Review of carbon dioxide utilization technologies and their potential for industrial application". Journal of CO2 Utilization. 65: 102239. Bibcode:2022JCOU...6502239K. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102239. ISSN 2212-9820.
118. Li, Ning; Mo, Liwu; Unluer, Cise (November 2022). "Emerging CO2 utilization technologies for construction materials: A review". Journal of CO2 Utilization. 65: 102237. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102237. ISSN 2212-9820. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
119. "CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System". IEA. Retrieved 18 July 2024. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
120. European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation; European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (2018). Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies. Publications Office. doi:10.2777/01532. ISBN 978-92-79-82006-9.^{[page needed]}
121. Erans, María; Sanz-Pérez, Eloy S.; Hanak, Dawid P.; Clulow, Zeynep; Reiner, David M.; Mutch, Greg A. (2022). "Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges". Energy & Environmental Science. 15 (4): 1360–1405. doi:10.1039/D1EE03523A. hdl:10115/19074. S2CID 247178548.
122. "Carbon-dioxide-removal options are multiplying". The Economist. 20 November 2023.
123. "The many prices of carbon dioxide". The Economist. 20 November 2023.

Sources

• IPCC (2014). Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; Farahani, E.; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (PDF). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-05821-7. (pb: 978-1-107-65481-5). https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.

External links

• Media related to Carbon capture and storage at Wikimedia Commons
• Zero Emissions Platform - technical adviser to the EU Commission on the deployment of CCS and CCU