Carbon capture and storage

Short description: Process of capturing and storing carbon dioxide from industrial flue gas

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.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a process by which carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial installations or natural sources 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]

Oil and gas companies first used the processes involved in CCS in the mid‑20th century. Early CCS technologies were mainly used to purify natural gas and increase oil production. From the 1980s, and especially in the 2000s, CCS began to be discussed as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A 2022 review found that around 70% of announced CCS projects had not materialized, with a failure rate above 98% in the electricity sector.[2][4] As of 2024, CCS was in operation at 44 plants worldwide, collectively capturing about one‑thousandth of global carbon dioxide emissions, and about 90% of CCS operations involved the oil and gas industry.[5][6][7]: 15 Plants with CCS require more energy to operate, so they typically burn additional fossil fuels and increase the pollution associated with extracting and transporting fuel.

CCS could have a critical but limited role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[6] However, other emission-reduction options such as solar and wind energy, electrification, and public transit are less expensive than CCS and are 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 and plant retrofits.[8]: 21–24 In the context of deep and sustained cuts in natural gas consumption,[9] CCS can reduce emissions from natural gas processing.[8]: 21–24 In electricity generation and hydrogen production, CCS is envisioned to complement a broader shift to renewable energy.[8]: 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.[10][6] Controversy remains over whether using captured CO2 to extract more oil ultimately benefits the climate.[11] Many environmental groups regard CCS as an unproven, expensive technology that perpetuates fossil fuel dependence. They believe other ways to reduce emissions are more effective and that CCS is a distraction.[12]

## Contents

* 1 Terminology
* 2 History and current status
* 3 Process overview
* 4 Technical components
* 5 Storage and enhanced oil recovery
* 5.1 Long-term CO2 leakage
* 6 Social and environmental impacts
* 6.1 Energy and water requirements
* 6.2 Pollution
* 6.3 Sudden CO2 leakage
* 6.4 Jobs
* 6.5 Equity
* 7 Cost
* 8 Role in climate change mitigation
* 8.1 Comparison with other mitigation options
* 8.2 Priority uses
* 8.3 Effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
* 8.3.1 Emissions with enhanced oil recovery
* 8.4 Pace of implementation
* 9 Political debate
* 9.1 Fossil fuel abatement
* 10 Social acceptance
* 11 Government programs
* 11.1 North America
* 11.2 Europe
* 11.3 Asia
* 12 Related concepts
* 12.1 CO2 use in products
* 12.2 Direct air carbon capture and sequestration
* 13 See also
* 14 References
* 14.1 Sources
* 15 External links

## 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."[1]: 2221

The terms carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) are closely related and often used interchangeably.[3] 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.[3] EOR is both "utilization" and "storage", as the CO2 left underground is intended to be trapped indefinitely. Before 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.[3]

Around 1% of captured CO2 is used as a feedstock for making products such as fertilizer, fuels, and plastics.[13] These uses are forms of carbon capture and utilization.[14] 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 using CO2 to produce fertilizer, fuel, or chemicals is not CCS because these products release CO2 when burned or consumed.[14]

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.[15][16][17] 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 a natural gas processing plant.

DOCCS means Direct Ocean Carbon Capture and Storage.[18]

## History and current status

File:2010- Carbon capture and storage (CCS) capacity, over time.svgGlobal capture capacity has trended higher since 2017.[19] File:2000- Patents covering carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.svgThe number of patents covering CCS technologies surged in the 2000s, but stalled or declined in the 2010s.[20] Plans to add CCS to Poland's Bełchatów Power Station were cancelled in 2013.[21] Over 98% of plans to use CCS in power plants have failed.[4]

In the natural gas industry, technology to remove CO2 from raw natural gas was patented in 1930.[22] This processing is essential to make natural gas ready for commercial sale and distribution.[8]: 25 Usually after CO2 is removed, it is vented to the atmosphere.[8]: 25 In 1972, American oil companies discovered that CO2 could profitably be used for EOR.[23] Subsequently, natural gas companies in Texas began capturing the CO2 produced by their processing plants and selling it to local oil producers for EOR.[8]: 25

The use of CCS as a means of reducing human-caused 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.[24][25] Small-scale implementations were first demonstrated in the early 1980s and an economic evaluation was published in 1991.[22][26] 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.[8]: 25

In 2005, the IPCC released a report highlighting CCS,[27] leading to increased government support for CCS in several countries.[28] Governments spent an estimated US$30 billion on subsidies for CCS and for fossil-fuel-based hydrogen.[12] 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.[29]: 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."[8]: 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] As of 2024, the oil and gas industry is involved in 90% of CCS capacity in operation around the world.[7]: 15 Collectively, the facilities capture about one-thousandth of global greenhouse gas emissions.[6]

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 8,000 km (5,000 mi) of CO2 pipelines, and there are two CO2 pipeline systems in Europe and two in the Middle East.[8]: 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 facility's exhaust stream.[30] Most commonly, the gas stream passes through an amine solvent, which binds to the CO2 molecule. This CO2-rich solvent is heated in a regeneration unit to release the CO2 from the solvent. The CO2 stream then undergoes conditioning to remove impurities and bring the gas to an appropriate temperature for compression.[31] The purified CO2 stream is compressed and transported for storage or end-use and the released solvents are recycled to capture more CO2 from the facility.[32]

After the CO
2 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.[8]: 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.[8]: 103–104

## Technical components

See also: Physics:Carbon dioxide scrubber and Amine gas treating

Script error: No such module "owidslider".

CCS processes involve several different technologies working together. Technological components are used to separate and treat CO2 from a 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 gas mixture: post-combustion capture, pre-combustion capture, and oxy-combustion:[33]

* In post combustion capture, the CO2 is removed after combustion of the fossil fuel.
* The technology for pre-combustion is widely applied in natural gas processing.[34] 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. Several advantages and disadvantages apply versus post combustion capture.[34]
* In oxy-fuel combustion the fuel is burned in pure oxygen instead of air. The gas that is released consists of mostly CO2 and water vapor. After water vapor is condensed through cooling, the result is an almost pure CO2 stream. A disadvantage of this technique is that it requires a relatively large amount of oxygen, which is expensive and energy-intensive to produce.[34]

Absorption, or carbon scrubbing with amines is the dominant capture technology.[8]: 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.[35][36][37]

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 process is needed to remove them.[38]

## Storage and enhanced oil recovery

See also: 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.[8]: 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 m (2,600 ft) to retain the CO2 in a fluid state.[8]: 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.[8]: 117 Depending on the location, EOR results in around two additional barrels of oil for every tonne of CO2 injected into the ground and using that oil produces approximately one tonne of CO2.[39] 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, it is energy-intensive.[40]

Around 20% of captured CO2 is injected into dedicated geological storage,[2] usually deep saline aquifers. These are layers of porous and permeable rocks saturated with salty water.[8]: 112 Worldwide, saline formations have higher potential storage capacity than depleted oil wells.[24] 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.[24]

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.[34] Ex-situ mineral carbonation involves reacting CO2 with mine tailings or alkaline industrial waste to form stable minerals such as calcium carbonate.[15] 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.[15][41] Once this process is complete, the risk of CO2 escape from carbonate minerals is estimated to be close to zero.[27]: 66

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

### Long-term CO2 leakage

See also: Engineering:Monitoring of geological carbon dioxide storage

In geologic storage, the CO2 is held within the reservoir through several trapping mechanisms: structural trapping by an impermeable rock layer called a caprock, 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.[8]: 112 Mineral trapping progresses over time but is extremely slow.[42]: 26

After injection, supercritical CO2 tends to rise until it is trapped beneath a caprock. Once it encounters a caprock, it spreads 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.[43] While research suggests that earthquakes from injected CO2 would be too small to endanger property, they could be large enough to cause a leak.[44]

According to the IPCC, well-managed storage sites likely retain over 99% of injected CO2 for more than a thousand years, where 'likely' means a 66–90% probability.[27]: 14,12 Estimates of long-term leakage rates rely on complex simulations since field data is limited.[45] 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.[46]

## Social and environmental impacts

### Energy and water requirements

Facilities with CCS use more energy than those without CCS.[47] The energy consumed by CCS is called an "energy penalty".[47] The energy penalty of CCS varies depending on the source of CO2. If the gas from the source has a very high concentration of CO2, additional energy is needed only to dehydrate, compress, and pump the CO2.[8]: 101–102 If the facility produces gas with a lower concentration of CO2, as is the case for power plants, energy is also required to separate CO2 from other gas components.[8]: 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.[27]: 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.[48]

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.[49]: 668

### Pollution

Photo of a forest with a pipeline and road running through it, and a piece of construction machinery on the roadThe construction of pipelines adversely affects wildlife.[50] Pipeline construction is also associated with social harms to Indigenous communities.[51]

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 and nitramines which are carcinogenic when inhaled or drunk in water.[52]

Studies that consider both upstream and downstream impacts indicate that adding CCS to power plants increases overall negative impacts on human health.[53] The health impacts of adding CCS in the industrial sector are less well-understood.[53] Health impacts vary significantly depending on the fuel used and the capture technology.[53]

After CO2 injected into underground geologic formations, there is a risk of nearby shallow groundwater becoming contaminated.[27]: 242 Contamination can occur either from movement of the CO2 into groundwater or from movement of displaced brine.[27]: 242 Careful site selection and long-term monitoring are necessary to mitigate this risk.[27]: 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.[54]

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."[27]: 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.[27]: 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.[55]

While infrequent, accidents can be serious. In 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured after a mudslide near Satartia, Mississippi, causing people nearby to lose consciousness.[56] About 200 people were evacuated and 45 were hospitalized, and some experienced longer-term effects on their health.[57][58] High concentrations of CO2 in the air also caused vehicle engines to stop running, hampering the rescue effort.[59]

### Jobs

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.[8]: 21–22

### Equity

See also: Philosophy: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 effects of living near power or industrial facilities.[6] These facilities are disproportionately located in poor and/or minority communities.[60] 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 to prolong a facility's life 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 in remote communities is associated with social harms including sexual violence,[51] and this history has led some Indigenous communities to oppose construction of CO2 pipelines.[61]

## 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.[62]

The cost of CCS varies greatly by CO2 source. If the facility produces a gas mixture with a high concentration of CO2, as is the case for natural gas processing, it can be captured and compressed for US$15–25/tonne.[63] Power plants, cement plants, and iron and steel plants produce more dilute gas streams, for which the cost of capture and compression is US$40–120/tonne CO2.[63] In the United States, the cost of onshore pipeline transport is in the range of US$2–14/tonne CO2, and more than half of onshore storage capacity is estimated to be available below US$10/tonne CO2.[63] 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.[64]

## 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 in fossil fuel power plants increases costs by US$50–$200 per tonne of CO2 removed.[49]: 38 There are many ways to reduce emissions that cost less than US$20 per tonne of avoided CO2 emissions.[65] Options that have far more potential to reduce emissions at lower cost than CCS include public transit, electric vehicles, and various energy efficiency measures.[49]: 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.[49]: 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,[63] however the inherent intermittency and geographic dependency of these sources means that a complete phaseout of fossil fired generation may not always be feasible.[66][need quotation to verify]

### Priority uses

The Heidelberg Brevik Carbon Capture facility, scheduled to start operating in 2025, will be the first commercial-scale use of CCS in cement production.[67] 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][49]: 28 The IPCC estimated in 2014 that forgoing CCS altogether would make it 138% more expensive to keep global warming within 2 degrees Celsius.[68] 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 US$3.5 trillion per year, which is about the same as the annual revenue of the entire oil and gas industry.[69] Emissions are relatively difficult or expensive to abate without CCS in the following niches:[8]: 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.[8]: 21–24 A portion of the CO2 emissions from these processes come from chemical reactions, in addition to emissions from burning fuels for heat. For example, approximately one third of emissions from cement making arise from burning fuels and two thirds arise from the chemical process.[70] The Global Cement and Concrete Association say that CCS could reduce carbon emissions by 36%.[71] Cleaner industrial processes are at varying stages of development and some have been commercialized,[72] but are far from being widely deployed.[49]: 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.[8]: 21–24
* Natural gas processing: CCUS is the only solution to reduce the CO2 emissions from natural gas processing.[8]: 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.[8]: 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.[29]: 91–92 [obsolete source]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.[8]: 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.[8]: 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.[73] However, this approach may be more expensive.[49]: 676 CO2-Plume Geothermal is a proposed way to combine carbon storage with geothermal energy production.[74]
* 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."[49]: 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.[69] 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][49]: 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 exhaust stream 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.[10][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.[10][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.[40]

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.[40] 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).[40]

### 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."[8]: 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.[29]: 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.[84]

## Political debate

Photo of a crowd lining up outside a truck. The truck has "Clean coal technology. It works." painted on the side.An information truck on "clean coal" from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an advocacy group representing coal producers, utility companies and railroads.[85] Protest against CCS in 2021 in Torquay, England

CCS has been discussed by political actors at least since the start of the UNFCCC[86] negotiations in the beginning of the 1990s, and remains a very divisive issue.[77]

Fossil fuel companies have heavily promoted CCS, framing it as an area of innovation and cost-effectiveness.[11] 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.[11] Their statements typically position CCS as a necessary way to tackle climate change, while not mentioning options for reducing fossil fuel use.[11] According to the International Energy Agency, 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.[7]: 14

Fossil fuel industry representatives have had a strong presence at UN climate conferences.[87] 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.[87] In the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, at least 475 lobbyists for CCS were granted access.[88]

Many environmental NGOs such as Friends of the Earth hold strongly negative views on CCS.[89] In surveys, environmental NGOs' importance ratings for fossil energy with CCS have been around as low as their ratings for nuclear energy.[90] Critics see CCS as an unproven, expensive technology that will perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels.[12] They believe other ways to reduce emissions are more effective and that CCS is a distraction.[12] They would rather see government funds go to initiatives that are not connected to the fossil fuel industry.[12]

### 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.[91] The term abated is generally understood to mean the use of CCS, however the agreement left the term undefined.[91]

Since the terms abated and unabated were not defined, the agreement was criticized for being open to abuse.[91] 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.[91]

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."[92] 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."[93]

## Social acceptance

The public has generally low awareness of CCS.[49]: 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.[49]: 642–643

A frequent concern for the public is transparency, e.g. around issues such as safety, costs, and impacts.[94] Another factor in acceptance is whether uncertainties are acknowledged, including uncertainties around potentially negative impacts on the natural environment and public health.[94] Research indicates that engaging comprehensively with communities increases the likelihood of project success compared to projects that do not engage the public.[94] Some studies indicate that community collaboration can contribute to the avoidance of harm within communities impacted by the project.[94]

## 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.[8]: 156–160 Tax credits are offered in some countries.[95][96] 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 US$55 million (AUD 60 million) in the case of Gorgon in Australia to US$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.[8]: 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 CO
2 subsequently grew rapidly.[97]

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 CO
2. Hundreds of millions more are dedicated annually to loan guarantees supporting CO
2 transport infrastructure.[98]

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 CO
2 capture and storage in saline geologic formations or up to $60/tonne for CO
2 used for enhanced oil recovery.[99] The Internal Revenue Service relies on documentation from the corporation to substantiate claims on how much CO
2 is being sequestered, and does not perform independent investigations.[77] 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.[100] 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.[100] 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.[101] CO2 pipeline safety is overseen by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,[102] which has been criticized as being underfunded and understaffed.[103]

Canada established a tax credit for CCS equipment for 2022–2028.[96] The credit is 50% for CCS capture equipment and 37.5% for transportation and storage equipment.[96] The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers had asked for a 75% credit.[96] The federal tax credit was expected to cost the government CAD $2.6 billion over 5 years;[96] in 2024 the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated it would cost CAD $5.7 billion.[104] Saskatchewan extended its 20 per cent tax credit under the province's Oil Infrastructure Investment Program to pipelines carrying CO2.[105]

### Europe

In Norway, CCS has been part of a strategy to make fossil fuel exports compatible with national emission-reduction goals.[106] In 1991, the government introduced a tax on CO2 emissions from offshore oil and gas production.[107]: 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.[8] In June 2025, Norway also launched the world's largest full-scale operation of industrial carbon capture and storage.[108]

In 2022, Denmark announced up to €5 billion in subsidies for CCS, aiming to reduce emissions by 0.9Mt of CO2 by 2030.[109]

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 MtCO
2 per year by 2030.[110] 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.[111]

### 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.[112]

## Related concepts

### CO2 use 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.[13] In the production of urea, an important agricultural fertilizer, CO2 generated within an industrial process is often recycled and reused. However, by convention, this type of internal recycling is not included in figures on carbon capture.[113] Similarly, CO2 produced for the food and beverage industry is also excluded from these figures.[113]

As of 2023, it is commercially feasible to produce the following products from captured CO2: methanol, urea, polycarbonates, polyols, polyurethane, and salicylic acids.[34] Methanol is currently primarily used to produce other chemicals, with potential for more widespread future use as a fuel.[114]

Technologies for sequestering CO2 in mineral carbonate products have been demonstrated, but are not ready for commercial deployment as of 2023.[34] Research is ongoing into processes to incorporate CO2 into concrete or building aggregate. The use of CO2 in construction materials holds promise for deployment at large scale,[115] and is the only foreseeable CO2 use that is permanent enough to qualify as storage.[116] Other potential uses for captured CO2 that are being researched include the creation of synthetic fuels, and various chemicals and plastics.[34] The production of fuels and chemicals from CO2 is highly energy-intensive.[116]

Capturing CO2 for use in products does not necessarily reduce emissions.[8]: 111 The climate benefits associated with CO2 use primarily arise from displacing products that have higher life-cycle emissions.[8]: 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.[8]: 111 Higher emissions reductions are achieved if CO2 is captured from bioenergy as opposed to fossil fuels.[8]: 111

The potential for CO2 use 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.[116]

According to the IEA, products created from captured CO2 are likely to cost a lot more than conventional and alternative low-carbon products.[8]: 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.[8]: 21–24

### Direct air carbon capture and sequestration

Main article: Earth: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.[117] 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.[118] As of 2023, DACCS has yet to be integrated into emissions trading because, at over US$1000,[119] the cost per ton of carbon dioxide is many times the carbon price on those markets.[120]

## See also

* 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
* Alberta Carbon Trunk Line

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 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. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Zhang, Yuting; Jackson, Christopher; Krevor, Samuel (2024-08-28). "The feasibility of reaching gigatonne scale CO2 storage by mid-century" (in en). Nature Communications 15 (1): 6913. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51226-8. ISSN 2041-1723. PMID 39198390. Bibcode: 2024NatCo..15.6913Z. 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 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. doi:10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5. Bibcode: 2020BpES....5...14S. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Kazlou, Tsimafei; Cherp, Aleh; Jewell, Jessica (October 2024). "Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets" (in en). Nature Climate Change 14 (10): 1047–1055, Extended Data Fig. 1. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02104-0. ISSN 1758-6798. PMID 39386083. Bibcode: 2024NatCC..14.1047K.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 "Global Status Report 2024" (in en-AU). pp. 57–58. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/. The report lists 50 facilities, of which 3 are direct air capture facilities and 3 are transport/storage facilities
6. ↑ 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 Lebling, Katie; Gangotra, Ankita; Hausker, Karl; Byrum, Zachary (2023-11-13). "7 Things to Know About Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration" (in en). World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/carbon-capture-technology. 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 "The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions – Analysis" (in en-GB). 2023-11-23. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-oil-and-gas-industry-in-net-zero-transitions. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
8. ↑ 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.27 8.28 8.29 8.30 8.31 8.32 8.33 8.34 8.35 8.36 8.37 8.38 8.39 8.40 IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
9. ↑ "Executive summary – Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis" (in en-GB). https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach/executive-summary.
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Vaughan, Adam (1 September 2022). "Most major carbon capture and storage projects haven't met targets" (in en-US). https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336018-most-major-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects-havent-met-targets/.
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Gunderson, Ryan; Stuart, Diana; Petersen, Brian (2020-04-10). "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. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119767. ISSN 0959-6526. Bibcode: 2020JCPro.25219767G. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652619346372.
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Lakhani, Nina (2024-08-29). "US leads wealthy countries spending billions of public money on unproven 'climate solutions'" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/aug/29/unproven-climate-solutions-spending.
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 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. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.023. ISSN 2590-3322. Bibcode: 2021OEart...4.1645M. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2590332221006096. Retrieved 2024-06-21.
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 "CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System" (in en-GB). https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/co2-capture-and-utilisation.
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 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. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8. ISSN 2662-138X. Bibcode: 2020NRvEE...1...90S. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0011-8. Retrieved 2024-06-21.
16. ↑ Hepburn, Cameron; Adlen, Ella; Beddington, John; Carter, Emily A.; Fuss, Sabine; Mac Dowell, Niall; Minx, Jan C.; Smith, Pete et al. (November 2019). "The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal" (in en). Nature 575 (7781): 87–97. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1681-6. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31695213. Bibcode: 2019Natur.575...87H. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1681-6.
17. ↑ "About CCUS – Analysis" (in en-GB). 2021-04-07. https://www.iea.org/reports/about-ccus.
18. ↑ "Workshop on direct ocean carbon capture and storage (DOCCS) and mineral carbonation - Climate Action" (in en). https://climate.ec.europa.eu/citizens-stakeholders/events/workshop-direct-ocean-carbon-capture-and-storage-doccs-and-mineral-carbonation-2026-02-09_en.
19. ↑ "Global Status of CCC / Staying the Course". Global CCS Institute. 9 October 2025. p. 11. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Global-Status-of-CCS-2025-report-9-October.pdf. "CO₂ capture capacity of commercial CCS facility pipeline since 2010"
20. ↑ "Annual patents filed for carbon capture and storage technologies". Our World in Data. 2022. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/patents-ccs?tab=chart. (Click "chart" tab) Source states: "Data source: IRENA - INSPIRE Platform (2022) / Data for the most recent years are not complete due to a lag between the filing date and the time at which the patents are officially published. Further information can be found on IRENA INSPIRE."
21. ↑ STEFANINI, SARA (21 May 2015). "Green Coal in the Red". https://www.politico.eu/article/paperthe-eus-failed-ccs-ambitions/.
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Rochelle, Gary T. (2009-09-25). "Amine Scrubbing for CO 2 Capture" (in en). Science 325 (5948): 1652–1654. doi:10.1126/science.1176731. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19779188. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1176731.
23. ↑ United States Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. "Enhanced Oil Recovery". https://www.energy.gov/fecm/enhanced-oil-recovery.
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 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. doi:10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024. Bibcode: 2022Engin..14...33M.
25. ↑ Marchetti, Cesare (1977). "On geoengineering and the CO2 problem". Climatic Change 1 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1007/BF00162777. Bibcode: 1977ClCh....1...59M. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00162777.
26. ↑ Booras, G.S.; Smelser, S.C. (November 1991). "An engineering and economic evaluation of CO2 removal from fossil-fuel-fired power plants". Energy 16 (11–12): 1295–1305. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(91)90003-5. Bibcode: 1991Ene....16.1295B.
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 27.8 "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press. 2005. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport.pdf.
28. ↑ Wang, Nan; Akimoto, Keigo; Nemet, Gregory F. (2021-11-01). "What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects". Energy Policy 158. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112546. ISSN 0301-4215. Bibcode: 2021EnPol.15812546W. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152100416X. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 "Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis" (in en-GB). 2023-09-26. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach.
30. ↑ Congressional Budget Office (2023-12-13). "Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States" (in en). https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59832. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:
31. ↑ Tamburini, Federica; Zanobetti, Francesco; Cipolletta, Mariasole; Bonvicini, Sarah; Cozzani, Valerio (2024-11-01). "State of the art in the quantitative risk assessment of the CCS value chain". Process Safety and Environmental Protection 191: 2044–2063. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2024.09.066. ISSN 0957-5820. Bibcode: 2024PSEP..191.2044T.
32. ↑ "Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Carbon Management" (in en-US). April 2023. p. 11. https://liftoff.energy.gov/carbon-management/. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:
33. ↑ 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". Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (1): 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.005. Bibcode: 2010AppTE..30...53K. https://hal.science/hal-00584285/file/PEER_stage2_10.1016%2Fj.applthermaleng.2009.05.005.pdf.
34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 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. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776. ISSN 0016-2361. Bibcode: 2023Fuel..34227776D. 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
35. ↑ Bui, Mai; Adjiman, Claire S.; Bardow, André; Anthony, Edward J.; Boston, Andy; Brown, Solomon; Fennell, Paul S.; Fuss, Sabine et al. (2018). "Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward". Energy & Environmental Science 11 (5): 1062–1176. doi:10.1039/C7EE02342A. Bibcode: 2018EnEnS..11.1062B.
36. ↑ 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" (in en). International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 42: 200–212. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.04.009. Bibcode: 2015IJGGC..42..200J.
37. ↑ 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.
38. ↑ Sonke, J.; Morland, B. H.; Moulie, G.; Franke, M. S. (2024-03-01). "Corrosion and chemical reactions in impure CO2". International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 133. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104075. ISSN 1750-5836. Bibcode: 2024IJGGC.13304075S. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1750583624000185.
39. ↑ "Can CO2-EOR really provide carbon-negative oil? – Analysis" (in en-GB). 2019-04-11. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/can-co2-eor-really-provide-carbon-negative-oil.
40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3 "Insights Series 2015 - Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery – Analysis" (in en-GB). 2015-11-03. pp. 29–33. https://www.iea.org/reports/storing-co2-through-enhanced-oil-recovery.
41. ↑ 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). doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23135. ISSN 2405-8440. PMID 38149201. Bibcode: 2023Heliy...923135K.
42. ↑ Ringrose, Philip (2020). How to Store CO2 Underground: Insights from early-mover CCS Projects. Switzerland: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-33113-9.
43. ↑ 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.
44. ↑ Zoback, Mark D.; Gorelick, Steven M. (2012-06-26). "Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide" (in en). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (26): 10164–10168. doi:10.1073/pnas.1202473109. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 22711814. Bibcode: 2012PNAS..10910164Z.
45. ↑ Lenzen, Manfred (2011-12-15). "Global Warming Effect of Leakage From CO 2 Storage" (in en). Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 41 (24): 2169–2185. doi:10.1080/10643389.2010.497442. ISSN 1064-3389. Bibcode: 2011CREST..41.2169L. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10643389.2010.497442.
46. ↑ Marshall, Christa; Climatewire (June 28, 2010). "Can Stored Carbon Dioxide Leak?" (in en). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-stored-carbon-dioxide-leak/.
47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Zapp, Petra; Schreiber, Andrea; Marx, Josefine; Haines, Mike; Hake, Jürgen-Friedrich; Gale, John (2012-05-01). "Overall environmental impacts of CCS technologies—A life cycle approach". International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 8: 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.01.014. ISSN 1750-5836. Bibcode: 2012IJGGC...8...12Z. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S175058361200028X.
48. ↑ 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. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.003. Bibcode: 2012PECS...38..630R.
49. ↑ 49.00 49.01 49.02 49.03 49.04 49.05 49.06 49.07 49.08 49.09 49.10 IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R. et al.. eds. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. 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. https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf.
50. ↑ 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" (in en). Biodiversity and Conservation 26 (8): 1801–1815. doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1341-9. ISSN 0960-3115. Bibcode: 2017BiCon..26.1801R. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-017-1341-9.
51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 Markusoff, Jason (2018-05-31). "Are 'man camps' that house pipeline construction workers a menace to Indigenous women?". Macleans.ca. https://macleans.ca/news/canada/are-man-camps-that-house-pipeline-construction-workers-a-menace-to-indigenous-women/.
52. ↑ 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.
53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 53.2 Mikunda, Tom; Brunner, Logan; Skylogianni, Eirini; Monteiro, Juliana; Rycroft, Lydia; Kemper, Jasmin (2021-06-01). "Carbon capture and storage and the sustainable development goals". International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 108. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103318. ISSN 1750-5836. Bibcode: 2021IJGGC.10803318M. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1750583621000700.
54. ↑ Permentier, Kris; Vercammen, Steven; Soetaert, Sylvia; Schellemans, Christian (2017-04-04). "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. PMID 28378268. 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
55. ↑ Lu, Hongfang; Ma, Xin; Huang, Kun; Fu, Lingdi; Azimi, Mohammadamin (2020-09-01). "Carbon dioxide transport via pipelines: A systematic review". Journal of Cleaner Production 266. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121994. ISSN 0959-6526. Bibcode: 2020JCPro.26621994L. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652620320412.
56. ↑ Baurick, Tristan (2024-04-30). "'A stark warning': Latest carbon dioxide leak raises concerns about safety, regulation" (in en-US). https://veritenews.org/2024/04/30/a-stark-warning-latest-carbon-dioxide-leak-raises-concerns-about-safety-regulation/.
57. ↑ Dan Zegart (August 26, 2021). "The Gassing Of Satartia". Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f.
58. ↑ Simon, Julia (May 10, 2023). "A rupture that hospitalized 45 people raised questions about CO2 pipelines' safety". NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/10/1175305683/a-rupture-that-hospitalized-45-people-raised-questions-about-co2-pipelines-safet.
59. ↑ Simon, Julia (September 25, 2023). "The U.S. is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story". NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/21/1172679786/carbon-capture-carbon-dioxide-pipeline.
60. ↑ White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (2021). "Justice40 Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool & Executive Order 12898 Revisions: Interim Final Recommendations". https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2021/05/17/document_ew_01.pdf.
61. ↑ Splitter, Jenny (2022-07-07). "The bitter fight to stop a 2,000-mile carbon pipeline" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/iowa-pipelines-farmers-indigenous-people-fight.
62. ↑ Lipponen, Juho; McCulloch, Samantha; Keeling, Simon; Stanley, Tristan; Berghout, Niels; Berly, Thomas (July 2017). "The Politics of Large-scale CCS Deployment" (in en). Energy Procedia 114: 7581–7595. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1890. Bibcode: 2017EnPro.114.7581L.
63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 63.3 "Is carbon capture too expensive? – Analysis" (in en-GB). 2021-02-17. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive.
64. ↑ Stapczynski, Stephen (September 13, 2023). "Big Oil's Climate Fix Is Running Out of Time to Prove Itself" (in en). Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-carbon-capture-technology-running-out-of-time/.
65. ↑ Schumer, Clea; Boehm, Sophie; Fransen, Taryn; Hausker, Karl; Dellesky, Carrie (2022-04-04). "6 Takeaways from the 2022 IPCC Climate Change Mitigation Report" (in en). World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/ipcc-report-2022-mitigation-climate-change.
66. ↑ Farnsworth, Amanda; Gencer, Emre (2023). "Highlighting regional decarbonization challenges with novel capacity expansion model". Cleaner Energy Systems 5. doi:10.1016/j.cles.2023.100078. Bibcode: 2023CESys...500078F.
67. ↑ Niranjan, Ajit (2024-08-12). "'We're still in the 1970s with cement': Norway plant to blaze carbon-free concrete trail" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/12/were-still-in-the-1970s-with-cement-norway-plant-to-blaze-carbon-free-concrete-trail.
68. ↑ IPCC (2014). "Summary for Policymakers". IPCC AR5 WG3 2014. p. 15. https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf.
69. ↑ 69.0 69.1 "Executive summary – The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions – Analysis" (in en-GB). https://www.iea.org/reports/the-oil-and-gas-industry-in-net-zero-transitions/executive-summary. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
70. ↑ Lehne, Johanna; Preston, Felix (13 June 2018). "Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-carbon Cement and Concrete". https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2018-06-13-making-concrete-change-cement-lehne-preston.pdf.
71. ↑ "4 ways to make the cement industry more sustainable" (in en). https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/09/cement-production-sustainable-concrete-co2-emissions/.
72. ↑ Gailani, Ahmed; Cooper, Sam; Allen, Stephen; Pimm, Andrew; Taylor, Peter; Gross, Robert (2024-03-20). "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. Bibcode: 2024Joule...8..576G.
73. ↑ Breyer, Christian; Khalili, Siavash; Bogdanov, Dmitrii; Ram, Manish; Oyewo, Ayobami Solomon; Aghahosseini, Arman; Gulagi, Ashish; Solomon, A. A. et al. (2022). "On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research". IEEE Access 10: 78176–78218. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3193402. ISSN 2169-3536. Bibcode: 2022IEEEA..1078176B.
74. ↑ Hau, Kevin P.; Brehme, Maren; Rangriz Shokri, Alireza; Malakooti, Reza; Nickel, Erik; Chalaturnyk, Rick J.; Saar, Martin O. (2025-12-01). "CCS coupled with CO2 plume geothermal operations: Enhancing CO2 sequestration and reducing risks". Geothermics 133. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2025.103447. ISSN 0375-6505. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375650525001981.
75. ↑ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2018-10-24) (in en). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. pp. 10–13. doi:10.17226/25259. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. Bibcode: 2018nap..book25259N. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
76. ↑ Budinis, Sara; Krevor, Samuel; Dowell, Niall Mac; Brandon, Nigel; Hawkes, Adam (2018-11-01). "An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential". Energy Strategy Reviews 22: 61–81. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003. ISSN 2211-467X. Bibcode: 2018EneSR..22...61B.
77. ↑ 77.0 77.1 77.2 Westervelt, Amy (2024-07-29). "Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution — and swindled taxpayers out of billions" (in en-US). https://www.vox.com/climate/363076/climate-change-solution-shell-exxon-mobil-carbon-capture.
78. ↑ Rojas-Rueda, David; McAuliffe, Kelly; Morales-Zamora, Emily (2024-06-01). "Addressing Health Equity in the Context of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration Technologies" (in en). Current Environmental Health Reports 11 (2): 225–237. doi:10.1007/s40572-024-00447-6. ISSN 2196-5412. PMID 38600409. Bibcode: 2024CEHR...11..225R. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-024-00447-6.
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. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114467. Bibcode: 2020ApEn..26114467F.
80. ↑ Jacobson, Mark Z. (2019). "The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture" (in en). Energy & Environmental Science 12 (12): 3567–3574. doi:10.1039/C9EE02709B. ISSN 1754-5692. Bibcode: 2019EnEnS..12.3567J. https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C9EE02709B.
81. ↑ 81.0 81.1 Robertson, Bruce; Mousavian, Milad (September 2022). "The Carbon Capture Crux: Lessons Learned" (in en). https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-crux-lessons-learned.
82. ↑ Smyth, Jamie; McCormick, Myles (November 16, 2023). "Chevron plots carbon storage future despite Australia plant setbacks". https://www.ft.com/content/82b4faf6-2915-4979-aa7c-4930eaa459b9.
83. ↑ 83.0 83.1 "Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage - Energy System" (in en-GB). https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage#tracking.
84. ↑ Oglesby, Cameron (2023-10-20). "What's the deal with carbon capture and storage?" (in en-US). https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/10/whats-the-deal-with-carbon-capture-and-storage/.
85. ↑ Samuelsohn, Darren (2015-09-28). "'Clean coal' group downsizing amid industry struggles". POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/american-coalition-for-clean-coal-electricity-cuts-staff-214149.
86. ↑ 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). doi:10.1002/wcc.671. Bibcode: 2020WIRCC..11E.671C.
87. ↑ 87.0 87.1 Dinan, Will (2024-02-13). "Oil and gas lobbyists have deep pockets and access to politicians, but an EU ban could be in the pipeline" (in en-US). https://theconversation.com/oil-and-gas-lobbyists-have-deep-pockets-and-access-to-politicians-but-an-eu-ban-could-be-in-the-pipeline-223388.
88. ↑ Lakhani, Nina (2023-12-08). "At least 475 carbon-capture lobbyists attending Cop28" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/08/at-least-475-carbon-capture-lobbyists-attending-cop28.
89. ↑ Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas; Fridahl, Mathias; Haikola, Simon (2022-08-01). "The underworld of tomorrow? How subsurface carbon dioxide storage leaked out of the public debate". Energy Research & Social Science 90. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2022.102606. ISSN 2214-6296. Bibcode: 2022ERSS...9002606H. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214629622001104.
90. ↑ Romanak, Katherine; Fridahl, Mathias; Dixon, Tim (January 2021). "Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC" (in en). 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
91. ↑ 91.0 91.1 91.2 91.3 Khourdajie, Alaa Al; Bataille, Chris; Nilsson, Lars J. (2023-12-13). "The COP28 climate agreement is a step backwards on fossil fuels" (in en-US). https://theconversation.com/the-cop28-climate-agreement-is-a-step-backwards-on-fossil-fuels-219753.
92. ↑ "WGIII Summary for Policymakers Headline Statements" (in en). 4 April 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/resources/spm-headline-statements/.
93. ↑ Staff, Carbon Brief (2023-12-05). "Q&A: Why defining the 'phaseout' of 'unabated' fossil fuels is so important at COP28" (in en). https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-defining-the-phaseout-of-unabated-fossil-fuels-is-so-important-at-cop28/.
94. ↑ 94.0 94.1 94.2 94.3 Nielsen, Jacob A. E.; Stavrianakis, Kostas; Morrison, Zoe (2022-08-02). Ramanan, Rishiram. ed. "Community acceptance and social impacts of carbon capture, utilization and storage projects: A systematic meta-narrative literature review" (in en). PLOS ONE 17 (8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272409. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 35917379. Bibcode: 2022PLoSO..1772409N. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
95. ↑ "Inflation Reduction Act 2022: Sec. 13104 Extension and Modification of Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration – Policies" (in en-GB). https://www.iea.org/policies/16255-inflation-reduction-act-2022-sec-13104-extension-and-modification-of-credit-for-carbon-oxide-sequestration.
96. ↑ 96.0 96.1 96.2 96.3 96.4 "Canada creates carbon-capture incentives, critical mineral plan to cut emissions". Reuters. 2022-04-07. https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/canada-creates-carbon-capture-incentives-critical-mineral-plan-cut-emissions-2022-04-07/.
97. ↑ National Energy Technology Laboratory (March 2010). "Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery: Untapped Domestic Energy Supply and Long Term Carbon Storage Solution". p. 17. https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:
98. ↑ "Biden's Infrastructure Law: Energy & Sustainability Implications" (in en). 2022-01-05. https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2151/2022-01-05-bidens-infrastructure-law-energy-sustainability.
99. ↑ "Carbon Capture Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" (in en). https://www.catf.us/resource/carbon-capture-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act-of-2022/.
100. ↑ 100.0 100.1 "Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel Fired Power Plants Proposed Rule". https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-05/FS-OVERVIEW-GHG-for Power Plants FINAL CLEAN.pdf.
101. ↑ 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" (in en). Energy & Environment 23 (2–3): 227–248. doi:10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.227. ISSN 0958-305X. Bibcode: 2012EnEnv..23..227O. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.227.
102. ↑ "Statement: DOE Welcomes New Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Safety Measures Announced by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration" (in en). 31 May 2022. https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/statement-doe-welcomes-new-carbon-dioxide-pipeline-safety-measures-announced-us.
103. ↑ Restuccia, Andrew; Schor, Elana (July 13, 2015). "'Pipelines blow up and people die'". https://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/the-little-pipeline-agency-that-couldnt-217227.
104. ↑ Thurton, David (2024-02-01). "Carbon capture tax credit could cost taxpayers $1B more than expected, PBO warns". CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-capture-tax-credit-climate-pbo-1.7101808.
105. ↑ Piller, Thomas (8 September 2021). "Saskatchewan government lays out carbon capture utilization, storage priorities" (in en-US). https://globalnews.ca/news/8173691/saskatchewan-carbon-capture-ccus-outline/.
106. ↑ 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. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.024. Bibcode: 2018ERSS...39..216R.
107. ↑ "20 years of carbon capture and storage – Analysis" (in en-GB). 2016-11-15. https://www.iea.org/reports/20-years-of-carbon-capture-and-storage.
108. ↑ Milne, Richard (2025-06-17). "Norway launches full-scale industrial carbon capture project with billions in subsidies". Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/3c24e938-9eb0-438f-8db4-5c69733af6ec.
109. ↑ "Designing Carbon Contracts for Difference" (in en). 12 February 2024. https://www.catf.us/resource/designing-carbon-contracts-for-difference/.
110. ↑ "CCUS Net Zero Investment Roadmap". April 2023. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1167167/ccus-investment-roadmap.pdf.
111. ↑ Partington, Richard; Ambrose, Jillian (2024-10-03). "Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects.
112. ↑ "2022 Status Report" (in en-AU). Page 6. https://status22.globalccsinstitute.com/2022-status-report/introduction/.
113. ↑ 113.0 113.1 "CCUS Projects Database - Data product" (in en-GB). https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/ccus-projects-database#.
114. ↑ 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. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102239. ISSN 2212-9820. Bibcode: 2022JCOU...6502239K.
115. ↑ Li, Ning; Mo, Liwu; Unluer, Cise (November 2022). "Emerging CO2 utilization technologies for construction materials: A review". Journal of CO2 Utilization 65. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102237. ISSN 2212-9820. 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
116. ↑ 116.0 116.1 116.2 "CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System" (in en-GB). https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/co2-capture-and-utilisation. 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
117. ↑ "DOE Explains...Direct Air Capture" (in en). https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsdirect-air-capture.
118. ↑ 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. Bibcode: 2022EnEnS..15.1360E.
119. ↑ "Carbon-dioxide-removal options are multiplying". The Economist. 20 November 2023. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/11/20/carbon-dioxide-removal-options-are-multiplying.
120. ↑ "The many prices of carbon dioxide". The Economist. 20 November 2023. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/11/20/the-many-prices-of-carbon-dioxide.

### Sources

* Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. 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. 2014. ISBN 978-1-107-05821-7. https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf. (pb: 978-1-107-65481-5). Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change.

## External links

* IEA database
* Zero Emissions Platform - technical adviser to the EU Commission on the deployment of CCS and CCU

* v
* t
* e

Climate change

Overview

* Causes of climate change
* Effects of climate change
* Climate change mitigation
* Climate change adaptation
* By country and region

Causes

| Overview|

* Climate system
* Greenhouse effect (Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Earth)
* Scientific consensus on climate change

|

Sources|

* Deforestation
* Fossil fuel
* Greenhouse gases
* Greenhouse gas emissions
* Carbon accounting
* Carbon footprint
* Carbon leakage
* from agriculture
* from wetlands
* World energy supply and consumption

History

* History of climate change policy and politics
* History of climate change science
* Svante Arrhenius
* James Hansen
* Charles David Keeling
* United Nations Climate Change conferences
* Years in climate change
* 2019
* 2020
* 2021
* 2022
* 2023
* 2024
* 2025
* 2026

Effects and issues

| Physical|

* Abrupt climate change
* Anoxic event
* Arctic methane emissions
* Arctic sea ice decline
* Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
* Drought
* Extreme weather
* Flood
* Coastal flooding
* Heat wave
* Marine
* Urban heat island
* Oceans
* acidification
* deoxygenation
* heat content
* sea surface temperature
* stratification
* temperature
* Ozone depletion
* Permafrost thaw
* Retreat of glaciers since 1850
* Sea level rise
* Season creep
* Climate sensitivity
* Tipping points in the climate system
* Tropical cyclones
* Water cycle
* Wildfires

|

Flora and fauna|

* Biomes
* Mass mortality event
* Birds
* Extinction risk
* Forest dieback
* Invasive species
* Marine life
* Plant biodiversity

Social and economic|

* Agriculture
* Livestock
* Multi-breadbasket failure
* In the United States
* Children
* Cities
* Civilizational collapse
* Crime
* Depopulation of settlements
* Destruction of cultural heritage
* Disability
* Economic impacts
* U.S. insurance industry
* Fisheries
* Gender
* Health
* Infectious diseases
* Mental health
* In the United Kingdom
* In the Philippines
* Human rights
* Indigenous peoples
* Migration
* Poverty
* Psychological impacts
* Security and conflict
* Urban flooding
* Water scarcity
* Water security

By country and region|

* Africa
* Americas
* Antarctica
* Arctic
* Asia
* Australia
* Caribbean
* Europe
* Middle East and North Africa
* Small island countries
* by individual country

Mitigation

| Economics and finance|

* Carbon budget
* Carbon emission trading
* Carbon offsets and credits
* Gold Standard (carbon offset standard)
* Carbon price
* Carbon tax
* Climate debt
* Climate finance
* Climate risk insurance
* Co-benefits of climate change mitigation
* Economics of climate change mitigation
* Fossil fuel divestment
* Green Climate Fund
* Low-carbon economy
* Net zero emissions

|

Energy|

* Carbon capture and storage
* Energy transition
* Fossil fuel phase-out
* Nuclear power
* Renewable energy
* Sustainable energy

Preserving and enhancing
carbon sinks|

* Blue carbon
* Carbon dioxide removal
* Carbon sequestration
* Direct air capture
* Carbon farming
* Climate-smart agriculture
* Forest management
* afforestation
* forestry for carbon sequestration
* REDD+
* reforestation
* Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF and AFOLU)
* Nature-based solutions

Other|

* Earth Strike
* Fridays for Future
* Geoengineering
* Individual action on climate change
* Positive tipping points
* Sustainable architecture
* Sustainable transport

Society and adaptation

| Society|

* Business action
* Climate action
* Climate emergency declaration
* Climate movement
* School Strike for Climate
* Denial
* Ecological grief
* Governance
* Justice
* Litigation
* Politics
* Public opinion
* Women

|

Adaptation|

* Adaptation strategies on the German coast
* Adaptive capacity
* Disaster risk reduction
* Ecosystem-based adaptation
* Flood control
* Loss and damage
* Managed retreat
* Nature-based solutions
* Resilience
* Risk
* Vulnerability
* The Adaptation Fund
* National Adaptation Programme of Action

Communication|

* Climate Change Performance Index
* Climate crisis (term)
* Climate spiral
* Education
* Media coverage
* Popular culture depictions
* art
* fiction
* video games
* Warming stripes

International agreements|

* Glasgow Climate Pact
* Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market
* Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets
* Kyoto Protocol
* Paris Agreement
* Cooperative mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement
* Nationally determined contributions
* Sustainable Development Goal 13
* United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Background and theory

| Measurements|

* Global surface temperature
* Instrumental temperature record
* Proxy
* Satellite temperature measurement

|

Theory|

* Albedo
* Carbon cycle
* atmospheric
* biologic
* oceanic
* permafrost
* Carbon sink
* Climate sensitivity
* Climate variability and change
* Cloud feedback
* Cloud forcing
* Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis
* Cryosphere
* Earth's energy budget
* Extreme event attribution
* Feedbacks
* Global warming potential
* Illustrative model of greenhouse effect on climate change
* Orbital forcing
* Radiative forcing

Research and modelling|

* Climate change scenario
* Climate model
* Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
* IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
* Paleoclimatology
* Representative Concentration Pathway
* Shared Socioeconomic Pathways

* '
* Category
* Glossary
* Index

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon capture and storage. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Physics:Carbon_capture_and_storage&oldid=4553813"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template