View source for Physics:Carbon capture and storage

{{Short description|Collecting carbon dioxide from industrial emissions}}
[[File:20210413 Carbon capture and storage - CCS - proposed vs implemented.svg|thumb|upright=1.25 | Global proposed (grey bars) vs. implemented (blue bars) annual {{CO2}} captured. More than 75% of proposed gas processing projects have been implemented, with corresponding figures for other industrial projects and power plant projects being about 60% and 10%, respectively.<ref name=EnvRschLtrs_20201229>{{cite journal |last1=Abdulla |first1=Ahmed |last2=Hanna |first2=Ryan |last3=Schell |first3=Kristen R. |last4=Babacan |first4=Oytun |last5=Victor |first5=David G. |display-authors=4 |title=Explaining successful and failed investments in U.S. carbon capture and storage using empirical and expert assessments |journal=Environmental Research Letters |date=29 December 2020 |volume=16 |issue=1 |page=014036 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/abd19e |bibcode=2021ERL....16a4036A |doi-access=free }}</ref>]]

'''Carbon capture and storage''' ('''CCS''')  is a process in which a relatively pure stream of [[Chemistry:Carbon dioxide|carbon dioxide]] (CO<sub>2</sub>) from industrial sources is separated, treated and transported to a long-term storage location.<ref name=":9" />{{Rp|page=2221}} For example, the carbon dioxide stream that is to be captured can result from burning fossil fuels or [[Biology:Biomass (energy)|biomass]]. Usually the CO<sub>2</sub> is captured from large point sources, such as a [[Chemistry:Chemical plant|chemical plant]] or [[Biology:Bioenergy|biomass]] plant, and then stored in an underground geological formation. The aim is to reduce [[Earth:Greenhouse gas emissions|greenhouse gas emissions]] and thus [[Earth:Climate change mitigation|mitigate climate change]].<ref>{{cite web |editor-last1=Metz|editor-first1=Bert|editor-last2=Davidson|editor-first2=Ogunlade|editor-last3=De Conink|editor-first3=Heleen|editor-last4=Loos|editor-first4=Manuela|editor-last5=Meyer|editor-first5=Leo|date=March 2018 |title=IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport.pdf |access-date=16 August 2023 |publisher= Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ketzer |first1=J. Marcelo |last2=Iglesias |first2=Rodrigo S. |last3=Einloft |first3=Sandra |chapter=Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions with CO2 Capture and Geological Storage |date=2012 |chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7991-9_37 |title=Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation |pages=1405–1440 |editor-last1=Chen |editor-first1=Wei-Yin |access-date=2023-08-16 |place=New York |publisher=Springer US |doi=10.1007/978-1-4419-7991-9_37 |isbn=978-1-4419-7991-9  |editor-last2=Seiner |editor-first2=John |editor-last3=Suzuki |editor-first3=Toshio |editor-last4=Lackner |editor-first4=Maximilian}}</ref> The IPCC's [[Earth:IPCC Sixth Assessment Report|most recent report]] on mitigating climate change describes CCS retrofits for existing power plants as one of the ways to limit emissions from the electricity sector and meet Paris Agreement goals.<ref name=":11" />

CO<sub>2</sub> can be captured directly from an industrial source, such as a cement kiln, using a variety of technologies; including [[Chemistry:Adsorption|adsorption]], [[Chemistry:Chemical looping combustion|chemical looping]], [[Physics:Membrane gas separation|membrane gas separation]] or gas hydration.<ref name="Bui 2018">{{cite journal |last1=Bui |first1=Mai |last2=Adjiman |first2=Claire S. |last3=Bardow |first3=André |last4=Anthony |first4=Edward J. |last5=Boston |first5=Andy |last6=Brown |first6=Solomon |last7=Fennell |first7=Paul S. |last8=Fuss |first8=Sabine |last9=Galindo |first9=Amparo |last10=Hackett |first10=Leigh A. |last11=Hallett |first11=Jason P. |last12=Herzog |first12=Howard J. |last13=Jackson |first13=George |last14=Kemper |first14=Jasmin |last15=Krevor |first15=Samuel |date=2018 |title=Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward |journal=Energy & Environmental Science |volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=1062–1176 |doi=10.1039/C7EE02342A |doi-access=free |last16=Maitland |first16=Geoffrey C. |last17=Matuszewski |first17=Michael |last18=Metcalfe |first18=Ian S. |last19=Petit |first19=Camille |last20=Puxty |first20=Graeme |last21=Reimer |first21=Jeffrey |last22=Reiner |first22=David M. |last23=Rubin |first23=Edward S. |last24=Scott |first24=Stuart A. |last25=Shah |first25=Nilay |last26=Smit |first26=Berend |last27=Trusler |first27=J. P. Martin |last28=Webley |first28=Paul |last29=Wilcox |first29=Jennifer |last30=Mac Dowell |first30=Niall|hdl=10044/1/55714 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=D'Alessandro |first1=Deanna M. |last2=Smit |first2=Berend |last3=Long |first3=Jeffrey R. |date=16 August 2010 |title=Carbon Dioxide Capture: Prospects for New Materials |url=http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/200571 |journal=Angewandte Chemie International Edition |volume=49 |issue=35 |pages=6058–6082 |doi=10.1002/anie.201000431 |pmid=20652916}}</ref><ref name=":10" /> {{As of|2022}}, about one thousandth of global CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are captured by CCS, and most projects are for [[Physics:Natural-gas processing|fossil gas processing]].<ref name=":54">{{Cite web |title=The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned |url=https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-crux-lessons-learned |access-date=2022-10-01 |website=ieefa.org |language=en}}</ref>{{Rp|page=32}} Current CCS projects generally aim for 90% capture efficiency,<ref>A Moseman, 'How efficient is carbon capture and storage?' (21 February 2021) [https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-efficient-carbon-capture-and-storage MIT Climate Portal]</ref> but a number of current projects have failed to meet that goal.<ref>A Vaughan, 'Most major carbon capture and storage projects haven't met targets' (1 September 2022) [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336018-most-major-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects-havent-met-targets/ New Scientist]</ref> Opponents argue that carbon capture and storage is only a justification for indefinite fossil fuel usage disguised as marginal emission reductions.<ref name="theferret.scot">{{cite web |date=6 August 2023 |title='Pioneering' CO2 storage projects could have leaked |url=https://theferret.scot/pioneering-co2-storage-projects-could-have-leaked/ |access-date=16 August 2023 |website=The Ferret |quote=Opponents of CCS claim it distracts from the need to invest in renewables and is being pushed by the fossil fuel industry so that it can continue drilling for oil and gas.}}</ref>

Storage of the CO<sub>2</sub> is either in deep geological formations, or in the form of [[Earth:Mineral|mineral]] [[Chemistry:Carbonate|carbonate]]s. [[Earth:Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage|Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage]] (PyCCS) is also being researched.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Werner |first1=C |last2=Schmidt |first2=H-P |last3=Gerten |first3=D |last4=Lucht |first4=W |last5=Kammann |first5=C |title=Biogeochemical potential of biomass pyrolysis systems for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C |journal=Environmental Research Letters |date=1 April 2018 |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=044036 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aabb0e |bibcode=2018ERL....13d4036W |doi-access=free }}</ref> Geological formations are currently considered the most promising sequestration sites. The US [[Organization:National Energy Technology Laboratory|National Energy Technology Laboratory]] (NETL) reported that North America has enough storage capacity for more than 900 years worth of CO<sub>2</sub> at current production rates.<ref name="Carbon Storage Program">{{Cite web|title=Carbon Storage Program|url=http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage|access-date=30 December 2021|website=netl.doe.gov|language=en|archive-date=29 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211229204008/https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage|url-status=dead}}</ref> A general problem is that long-term predictions about submarine or underground storage security are very difficult and uncertain, and there is still the risk that some CO<sub>2</sub> might leak into the atmosphere.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Phelps |first1=Jack J.C. |last2=Blackford |first2=Jerry C. |last3=Holt |first3=Jason T. |last4=Polton |first4=Jeff A. |title=Modelling large-scale {{CO2}} leakages in the North Sea |journal=International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control |date=July 2015 |volume=38 |pages=210–220 |doi=10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.013 |bibcode=2015IJGGC..38..210P |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Climatewire |first=Christa Marshall |title=Can Stored Carbon Dioxide Leak? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-stored-carbon-dioxide-leak/ |access-date=20 May 2022 |website=Scientific American |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Vinca |first1=Adriano |last2=Emmerling |first2=Johannes |last3=Tavoni |first3=Massimo |date=2018 |title=Bearing the Cost of Stored Carbon Leakage |journal=Frontiers in Energy Research |volume=6 |doi=10.3389/fenrg.2018.00040 |doi-access=free |hdl=11311/1099985 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Despite this, a recent evaluation estimates the risk of substantial leakage to be fairly low.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Alcalde |first1=Juan |last2=Flude |first2=Stephanie |last3=Wilkinson |first3=Mark |last4=Johnson |first4=Gareth |last5=Edlmann |first5=Katriona |last6=Bond |first6=Clare E. |last7=Scott |first7=Vivian |last8=Gilfillan |first8=Stuart M. V. |last9=Ogaya |first9=Xènia |last10=Haszeldine |first10=R. Stuart |date=12 June 2018 |title=Estimating geological CO<sub>2</sub> storage security to deliver on climate mitigation |journal=Nature Communications |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=2201 |doi=10.1038/s41467-018-04423-1 |pmid=29895846 |pmc=5997736 |bibcode=2018NatCo...9.2201A |s2cid=48354961 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Alcade |first1=Juan |last2=Flude |first2=Stephanie |title=Carbon capture and storage has stalled needlessly – three reasons why fears of CO<sub>2</sub> leakage are overblown |url=http://theconversation.com/carbon-capture-and-storage-has-stalled-needlessly-three-reasons-why-fears-of-co-leakage-are-overblown-130747 |access-date=20 May 2022 |website=The Conversation |date=4 March 2020 |language=en}}</ref>{{when|date=November 2022}}

CCS is often considered to be a relatively expensive process yielding a product which is too cheap.<ref name=":82">{{Cite web |last=Ghilotti |first=Davide |date=2022-09-26 |title=High carbon prices spurring Europe's CCS drive {{!}} Upstream Online |url=https://www.upstreamonline.com/energy-transition/high-carbon-prices-spurring-europe-s-ccs-drive/2-1-1308488 |access-date=2022-10-01 |website=Upstream Online {{!}} Latest oil and gas news |language=en}}</ref> Carbon capture makes more economic sense where the [[Finance:Carbon price|carbon price]] is high enough, such as in much of Europe,<ref name=":54"/> or when combined with a utilization process where the cheap CO<sub>2</sub> can be used to produce high-value chemicals to offset the high costs of capture operations.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dream or Reality? Electrification of the Chemical Process Industries |url=https://www.aiche-cep.com/cepmagazine/march_2021/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1663852 |access-date=22 August 2021 |website=www.aiche-cep.com |language=en}}</ref> Some environmental activists and politicians have criticized CCS as a false solution to the climate crisis. They cite the role of the fossil fuel industry in origins of the technology and in lobbying for CCS focused legislation.<ref name="Stone">{{Cite magazine |last=Stone |first=Maddie |date=2019-09-16 |title=Why Are Progressives Wary of Technologies That Pull Carbon From the Air? |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/carbon-capture-technologies-2020-election-candidates-policies-884956/ |url-status=live |magazine=Rolling Stone |language=en-US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210428074255/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/carbon-capture-technologies-2020-election-candidates-policies-884956/ |archive-date=April 28, 2021 |access-date=2021-04-28}}</ref> Opponents also argue that carbon capture and storage is only a justification for indefinite fossil fuel usage disguised as marginal emission reductions.<ref name="theferret.scot"/> People already involved or used to industry are more likely to accept CCS, while communities who have been negatively affected by any industrial activity are also less supportive of CCS.<ref name=":62">{{cite journal |last1=L׳Orange Seigo |first1=Selma |last2=Dohle |first2=Simone |last3=Siegrist |first3=Michael |date=October 2014 |title=Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review |journal=Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews |volume=38 |pages=848–863 |doi=10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017}}</ref>

Globally, a number of laws and rules have been issued that either support or require the use of CCS technologies. In the US, the 2021 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act provides support for a variety of CCS projects, while the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 updates tax credit law to encourage the use of carbon capture and storage.<ref name="mintz.com">{{Cite web |date=2022-01-05 |title=Biden's Infrastructure Law: Energy & Sustainability Implications {{!}} Mintz |url=https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2151/2022-01-05-bidens-infrastructure-law-energy-sustainability |access-date=2023-09-21 |website=www.mintz.com |language=en}}</ref><ref name="auto4">{{Cite web |title=Carbon Capture Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 |url=https://www.catf.us/resource/carbon-capture-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act-of-2022/ |access-date=2023-09-21 |website=Clean Air Task Force |language=en}}</ref> In 2023 EPA issued a rule proposing that CCS be required 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.''<ref name="auto2">{{Cite web |title=Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel Fired Power Plants Proposed Rule |url=https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-05/FS-OVERVIEW-GHG-for%20Power%20Plants%20FINAL%20CLEAN.pdf |access-date=September 20, 2023 |website=EPA}}</ref>'' Other countries are also developing programs to support CCS technologies, including Canada, Denmark, China, and the UK.<ref name="auto3">{{Cite web |title=2022 Status Report |url=https://status22.globalccsinstitute.com/2022-status-report/introduction/ |access-date=2023-09-21 |website=Global CCS Institute |at=Page 6 |language=en-AU}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{Cite web |date=April 2023 |title=CCUS Net Zero Investment Roadmap |url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1167167/ccus-investment-roadmap.pdf |access-date=September 21, 2023 |website=HM Government}}</ref>{{TOC limit|3}}

== Terminology ==

The term carbon capture and storage, (CCS) also known as ''carbon dioxide capture and storage'' refers to a process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) is separated (“captured”), compressed and transported to a storage location for long-term isolation from the atmosphere.<ref name=":9">IPCC, 2021: [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf Annex VII: Glossary] [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.&nbsp; Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ 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.</ref>{{Rp|page=2221}} [[Earth:Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage|Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage]] (BECCS), is a related technique that involves the application of CCS to bioenergy in order to reduce atmospheric CO2 over the course of time.

CCS and CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and storage) are often used interchangeably. The latter involves 'utilization' of the captured carbon for other applications, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), liquid fuel production, or the manufacturing of consumer goods, such as [[Chemistry:Plastic|plastic]]s. Both approaches capture CO<sub>2</sub> and effectively store it, whether in geological formations or in material products.<ref>{{Cite report |last=Salt |first=Michael |url=https://ieefa.org/media/2659/download?attachment |title=Carbon Capture Landscape 2022 |publisher=Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis |year=2022 |at=Page 1}}</ref>

== Purpose ==

=== Early Uses ===
The natural gas industry has used carbon capture technology for decades{{how many|date=December 2023}}. Raw natural gas contains CO2 that needs removal to produce a marketable product. The sale of captured CO2, mainly to oil producers for EOR, has enhanced the economic viability of natural gas development projects.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Robertson |first1=Bruce |url=https://ieefa.org/media/3007/download?attachment |title=The Carbon Capture Crux: Lessons Learned |last2=Mousavian |first2=Milad |publisher=Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis |year=2022 |at=Page 1}}</ref> CO2 removal for this purpose first occurred at The Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant, in Terrell, Texas, USA in 1972.<ref>National Petroleum Council, 2019, ''Meeting the Dual Challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Development of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage,'' Vol. II, U.S. Department of Energy, Library of Congress Control Number: 2020931901, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/CCUS_V1-FINAL.pdf</ref> The use of CCS as a means of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions is more recent. The Sleipner CCS project, which began in 1996, and the [[Engineering:Weyburn-Midale Carbon Dioxide Project|Weyburn-Midale Carbon Dioxide Project]], which began in 2000, were the first international demonstrations of the large-scale capture, utilization, and storage of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ma |first1=Jinfeng |last2=Li |first2=Lin |last3=Wang |first3=Haofan |last4=Du |first4=Yi |last5=Ma |first5=Junjie |last6=Zhang |first6=Xiaoli |last7=Wang |first7=Zhenliang |date=2022-07-01 |title=Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922001357 |journal=Engineering |volume=14 |pages=33–43 |doi=10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024 |s2cid=247416947 |issn=2095-8099}}</ref>

=== Role in climate change mitigation ===
{{Main|Software:Climate change scenario|Earth:Shared Socioeconomic Pathways}}

In the 21st century CCS is employed to contribute to [[Earth:Climate change mitigation|climate change mitigation]]. The IPCC's most recent report from 2022 on mitigating climate change describes CCS retrofits for existing power plants as one of the ways to limit emissions from the electricity sector towards meeting Paris Agreement goals.<ref name=":11">{{cite book |author=IPCC |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ |title=Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |publisher={{wipe|Cambridge University Press}} |year=2022 |editor-last1=Shukla |editor-first1=P.R. |at=Page SPM-16 |ref={{harvid|IPCC AR6 WG3|2022}} |editor-last2=Skea |editor-first2=J. |editor-last3=Slade |editor-first3=R. |editor-last4=Al Khourdajie |editor-first4=A. |display-editors=}}</ref> However, analyses of modeling studies used in this report indicate that over-reliance on CCS presents risks, and that global rates of CCS deployment remain far below those depicted in IPCC mitigation scenarios. Total annual CCS capacity was only 45 MtCO<sub>2</sub> as of 2021.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal |last1=Achakulwisut |first1=Ploy |last2=Erickson |first2=Peter |last3=Guivarch |first3=Céline |last4=Schaeffer |first4=Roberto |last5=Brutschin |first5=Elina |last6=Pye |first6=Steve |date=2023-09-13 |title=Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions |journal=Nature Communications |language=en |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=5425 |doi=10.1038/s41467-023-41105-z |pmid=37704643 |pmc=10499994 |bibcode=2023NatCo..14.5425A |issn=2041-1723|doi-access=free }}</ref> The implementation of default technology assumptions would cost 29-297% more over the century than efforts without CCS for a 430-480 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>/yr scenario.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=DOE - Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage_2016!09!07 {{!}} Carbon Capture And Storage {{!}} Climate Change Mitigation |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/346930928/DOE-Carbon-Capture-Utilization-and-Storage-2016-09-07 |access-date=2018-12-03 |website=Scribd |language=en}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=October 2022}}<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Pye |first1=Steve |last2=Li |first2=Francis G. N. |last3=Price |first3=James |last4=Fais |first4=Birgit |date=March 2017 |title=Achieving net-zero emissions through the reframing of UK national targets in the post-Paris Agreement era |url=http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1544992/1/Nature%20Energy%20Pye%20et%20al%202017%20%28Accepted%29%20-%20UCL%20dicovery.pdf |journal=Nature Energy |language=En |volume=2 |issue=3 |page=17024 |bibcode=2017NatEn...217024P |doi=10.1038/nenergy.2017.24 |s2cid=53506508 |issn=2058-7546}}</ref> 

As of 2017, global temperatures had already increased by 1&nbsp;°C since the beginning of the industrial era.<ref>M. R. Allen, O. P. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragón–Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma, J. Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, R. Perez, M. Wairiu, K. Zickfeld, 2018, Framing and Context. In: [https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty] [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.</ref> Because of the immediate inability to keep the temperature at the 1&nbsp;°C target, the next realistic target was 1.5&nbsp;°C. Scenarios where the degree change is maintained below 1.5&nbsp;°C were thought to be challenging but not impossible.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Tavoni |first1=Massimo |last2=Stehfest |first2=Elke |last3=Humpenöder |first3=Florian |last4=Havlík |first4=Petr |last5=Harmsen |first5=Mathijs |last6=Fricko |first6=Oliver |last7=Edmonds |first7=Jae |last8=Drouet |first8=Laurent |last9=Doelman |first9=Jonathan |date=April 2018 |title=Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C |url=http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15153/1/Revision3_SSPx-1.9_20180122_clean_textonly_layout.pdf |journal=Nature Climate Change |language=en |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=325–332 |bibcode=2018NatCC...8..325R |doi=10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3 |issn=1758-6798 |hdl=1874/372779 |s2cid=56238230 |access-date=1 October 2022 |archive-date=28 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190428151335/http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15153/1/Revision3_SSPx-1.9_20180122_clean_textonly_layout.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

As of 2018, for a below 2.0&nbsp;°C target, Shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) had been developed adding a socio-economic dimension to the integrative work started by [[Earth:Representative Concentration Pathway|RCPs]] models. All SSPs scenarios show a shift away from unabated fossil fuels, that is processes without CCS.<ref name=":2" /> It was proposed that [[Earth:Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage|Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage]] (BECCS) was necessary to achieve a 1.5&nbsp;°C, and that with the help of BECCS, between 150 and 12000 GtCO<sub>2</sub> still had to be removed from the atmosphere.<ref name=":2" />

== Technology components ==

=== Capture ===
Capturing CO<sub>2</sub> is most cost-effective at point sources, such as large fossil fuel-based energy facilities, industries with major CO<sub>2</sub> emissions (e.g. cement production, steelmaking<ref>{{cite journal |last1=De Ras |first1=Kevin |last2=Van de Vijver |first2=Ruben |last3=Galvita |first3=Vladimir V |last4=Marin |first4=Guy B |last5=Van Geem |first5=Kevin M |title=Carbon capture and utilization in the steel industry: challenges and opportunities for chemical engineering |journal=Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering |date=1 December 2019 |volume=26 |pages=81–87 |doi=10.1016/j.coche.2019.09.001 |s2cid=210619173 |url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8635595 }}</ref>), natural gas processing, synthetic fuel plants and fossil fuel-based [[Chemistry:Hydrogen production|hydrogen production]] plants. Extracting CO<sub>2</sub> from air is possible,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf |title=Capturing CO<sub>2</sub> From Air |access-date=29 March 2011 |archive-date=5 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305101315/http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> although the lower concentration of CO<sub>2</sub> in air compared to combustion sources complicates the engineering and makes the process therefore more expensive.<ref>{{cite web |date= May 2018 |url= http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/05/direct-air-capture/ |title= Direct Air Capture Technology (Technology Fact Sheet), Geoengineering Monitor |access-date= 1 July 2018 |archive-date= 26 August 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190826112625/http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/05/direct-air-capture/ |url-status= dead }}</ref>
The net storage efficiency of carbon capture projects is maximally 6–56%.<ref>On the sustainability of CO2 storage through CO2 – Enhanced oil recovery.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261919321555</ref>

Impurities in CO<sub>2</sub> streams, like sulfurs and water, can have a significant effect on their phase behavior and could cause increased pipeline and well corrosion. In instances where CO<sub>2</sub> impurities exist, especially with air capture, a scrubbing separation process is needed to initially clean the [[Physics:Flue gas|flue gas]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/good-plant-design-and-operation-onshore-carbon-capture-installations-and-onshore-pip-24#carbon-dioxide-purification|title=Good plant design and operation for onshore carbon capture installations and onshore pipelines - 5 CO<sub>2</sub> plant design|publisher=Energy Institute|access-date=13 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131015221653/http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/good-plant-design-and-operation-onshore-carbon-capture-installations-and-onshore-pip-24#carbon-dioxide-purification|archive-date=15 October 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref>

A wide variety of separation techniques are being pursued, including gas phase separation, absorption into a liquid, and adsorption on a solid, as well as hybrid processes, such as adsorption/membrane systems.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Badiei |first1=Marzieh |last2=Asim |first2=Nilofar |last3=Yarmo |first3=Mohd Ambar |last4=Jahim |first4=Jamaliah Md |last5=Sopian |first5=Kamaruzzaman |date=2012 |title=Overview of Carbon Dioxide Separation Technology |url=http://www.actapress.com/PaperInfo.aspx?paperId=454741 |journal=Power and Energy Systems and Applications |location=Las Vegas, USA |publisher=ACTAPRESS |doi=10.2316/P.2012.788-067 |isbn=978-0-88986-939-4}}</ref> There are three ways that this capturing can be carried out: post-combustion capture, pre-combustion capture, and oxy-combustion:<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kanniche |first1=Mohamed |last2=Gros-Bonnivard |first2=René |last3=Jaud |first3=Philippe |last4=Valle-Marcos |first4=Jose |last5=Amann |first5=Jean-Marc |last6=Bouallou |first6=Chakib |date=2010-01-01 |title=Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for {{CO2}} capture |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359431109001471 |journal=Applied Thermal Engineering |series=Selected Papers from the 11th Conference on Process Integration, Modelling and Optimisation for Energy Saving and Pollution Reduction |language=en |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=53–62 |doi=10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.005 |issn=1359-4311}}</ref>

*In ''post combustion capture'', the CO<sub>2</sub> is removed after combustion of the fossil fuel—this is the scheme that would apply to fossil-fuel power plants. CO<sub>2</sub> is captured from [[Physics:Flue gas|flue gas]]es at power stations or other point sources. The technology is well understood and is currently used in other industrial applications, although at much smaller scale than required for a commercial operation. Post combustion capture is most popular in research because it is hoped that fossil fuel power plants can be retrofitted with CCS technology in this configuration.<ref name="Capture in Metal–Org">{{cite journal |last1=Sumida |first1=Kenji |last2=Rogow |first2=David L. |last3=Mason |first3=Jarad A. |last4=McDonald |first4=Thomas M. |last5=Bloch |first5=Eric D. |last6=Herm |first6=Zoey R. |last7=Bae |first7=Tae-Hyun |last8=Long |first8=Jeffrey R. |title=CO<sub>2</sub> Capture in Metal–Organic Frameworks |journal=Chemical Reviews |date=28 December 2011 |volume=112 |issue=2 |pages=724–781 |doi=10.1021/cr2003272 |pmid=22204561 }}</ref>
*The technology for ''pre-combustion'' is widely applied in fertilizer, chemical, gaseous fuel (H<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub>), and power production.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/brochures/pdfs/Gasification_Brochure.pdf |title=Gasification Body |access-date=2 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080527234540/http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/brochures/pdfs/Gasification_Brochure.pdf |archive-date=27 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In these cases, the fossil fuel is partially oxidized, for instance in a [[Physics:Gasification|gasifier]]. The [[Chemistry:Carbon monoxide|CO]] from the resulting [[Chemistry:Syngas|syngas]] (CO and H<sub>2</sub>) reacts with added steam (H<sub>2</sub>O) and is shifted into CO<sub>2</sub> and H<sub>2</sub>. The resulting CO<sub>2</sub> can be captured from a relatively pure exhaust stream. The H<sub>2</sub> can be used as fuel; the CO<sub>2</sub> is removed before combustion. Several advantages and disadvantages apply versus post combustion capture.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.claverton-energy.com/integrated-gasification-combined-cycle-for-carbon-capture-storage.html | title=(IGCC) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle for Carbon Capture & Storage | publisher=Claverton Energy Group}} (conference, 24 October, Bath)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/carboncaptureandstorage|title=Carbon Capture and Storage at Imperial College London|website=Imperial College London|date=8 November 2023 }}</ref> The CO<sub>2</sub> is removed after combustion, but before the flue gas expands to atmospheric pressure. The capture before expansion, i.e. from pressurized gas, is standard in almost all industrial CO<sub>2</sub> capture processes, at the same scale as required for power plants.<ref>{{cite conference |last1=Bryngelsson |first1=Mårten |last2=Westermark |first2=Mats |title=Feasibility study of CO<sub>2</sub> removal from pressurized flue gas in a fully fired combined cycle: the Sargas project |conference=Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems |pages=703–10 |year=2005 |url=http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-10976}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.184 |title= CO<sub>2</sub> capture pilot test at a pressurized coal fired CHP plant |year=2009 |last1=Bryngelsson |first1=Mårten |last2=Westermark |first2=Mats |journal=Energy Procedia |volume=1 |pages=1403–10|doi-access=free }}</ref>
*In ''oxy-fuel combustion''<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1109/MSPEC.2008.4428318 |title=Winner: Clean Coal - Restoring Coal's Sheen |year=2008 |last1=Sweet |first1=William |journal=IEEE Spectrum |volume=45 |pages=57–60|s2cid=27311899 }}</ref> 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 mainly CO<sub>2</sub> and water vapor, the latter of which is condensed through cooling. The result is an almost pure CO<sub>2</sub> stream. Power plant processes based on oxyfuel combustion are sometimes referred to as "zero emission" cycles, because the CO<sub>2</sub> stored is not a fraction removed from the flue gas stream (as in the cases of pre- and post-combustion capture) but the flue gas stream itself. A fraction of the CO<sub>2</sub> inevitably ends up in the condensed water. To warrant the label "zero emission" the water would thus have to be treated or disposed of appropriately.

==== Separation technologies ====

The major technologies proposed for carbon capture are:<ref name="Bui 2018" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Jensen|first1=Mark J.|last2=Russell|first2=Christopher S.|last3=Bergeson|first3=David|last4=Hoeger|first4=Christopher D.|last5=Frankman|first5=David J.|last6=Bence|first6=Christopher S.|last7=Baxter|first7=Larry L.|date=November 2015|title=Prediction and validation of external cooling loop cryogenic carbon capture (CCC-ECL) for full-scale coal-fired power plant retrofit |journal=International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control|language=en|volume=42|pages=200–212|doi=10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.04.009|bibcode=2015IJGGC..42..200J |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite tech report |last1=Baxter |first1=Larry L |last2=Baxter |first2=Andrew |last3=Bever |first3=Ethan |last4=Burt |first4=Stephanie |last5=Chamberlain |first5=Skyler |last6=Frankman |first6=David |last7=Hoeger |first7=Christopher |last8=Mansfield |first8=Eric |last9=Parkinson |first9=Dallin |last10=Sayre |first10=Aaron |last11=Stitt |first11=Kyler |title=Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development Final/Technical Report |date=28 September 2019 |pages=DOE–SES–28697, 1572908 |doi=10.2172/1572908 |osti=1572908 |s2cid=213628936 }}</ref>
* [[Physics:Membrane gas separation|Membrane]]
* [[Physics:Oxy-fuel combustion process|Oxyfuel combustion]]
* [[Chemistry:Absorption|Absorption]]
* Multiphase absorption
* [[Chemistry:Adsorption|Adsorption]]
* [[Chemistry:Chemical looping combustion|Chemical looping combustion]]
* [[Chemistry:Calcium looping|Calcium looping]]
* Cryogenic
* Direct air capture (DAC)

Absorption, or [[Physics:Carbon dioxide scrubber|carbon scrubbing]] with amines is the dominant capture technology. It is the only carbon capture technology so far that has been used industrially.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Facility Data - Global CCS Institute|url=https://co2re.co/FacilityData|access-date=17 November 2020|website=co2re.co}}</ref> [[Chemistry:Ethanolamine|Monoethanolamine]] (MEA) solutions, the leading amine for capturing CO<sub>2</sub> , have a [[Physics:Heat capacity|heat capacity]] between 3–4 J/g K since they are mostly water.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Herm |first1=Zoey R. |last2=Swisher |first2=Joseph A. |last3=Smit |first3=Berend |last4=Krishna |first4=Rajamani |last5=Long |first5=Jeffrey R. |title=Metal−Organic Frameworks as Adsorbents for Hydrogen Purification and Precombustion CO<sub>2</sub> Capture |journal=Journal of the American Chemical Society |date=20 April 2011 |volume=133 |issue=15 |pages=5664–5667 |doi=10.1021/ja111411q |pmid=21438585 |url=https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/200724/files/Herm-2011-Metal-Organic%20Framew.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kulkarni |first1=Ambarish R. |last2=Sholl |first2=David S. |title=Analysis of Equilibrium-Based TSA Processes for Direct Capture of CO<sub>2</sub> from Air |journal=Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research |date=18 June 2012 |volume=51 |issue=25 |pages=8631–8645 |doi=10.1021/ie300691c }}</ref> Higher heat capacities add to the energy penalty in the solvent regeneration step.

About two thirds of CCS cost is attributed to capture, making it the limit to CCS deployment. Optimizing capture would significantly increase CCS feasibility since the transport and storage steps of CCS are rather mature.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McDonald |first1=Thomas M. |last2=Mason |first2=Jarad A. |last3=Kong |first3=Xueqian |last4=Bloch |first4=Eric D. |last5=Gygi |first5=David |last6=Dani |first6=Alessandro |last7=Crocellà |first7=Valentina |last8=Giordanino |first8=Filippo |last9=Odoh |first9=Samuel O. |last10=Drisdell |first10=Walter S. |last11=Vlaisavljevich |first11=Bess |last12=Dzubak |first12=Allison L. |last13=Poloni |first13=Roberta |last14=Schnell |first14=Sondre K. |last15=Planas |first15=Nora |last16=Lee |first16=Kyuho |last17=Pascal |first17=Tod |last18=Wan |first18=Liwen F. |last19=Prendergast |first19=David |last20=Neaton |first20=Jeffrey B. |last21=Smit |first21=Berend |last22=Kortright |first22=Jeffrey B. |last23=Gagliardi |first23=Laura |last24=Bordiga |first24=Silvia |last25=Reimer |first25=Jeffrey A. |last26=Long |first26=Jeffrey R. |title=Cooperative insertion of CO<sub>2</sub> in diamine-appended metal-organic frameworks |journal=Nature |date=11 March 2015 |volume=519 |issue=7543 |pages=303–308 |doi=10.1038/nature14327 |pmid=25762144 |bibcode=2015Natur.519..303M |hdl=11250/2458220 |s2cid=4447122 |url=https://escholarship.org/content/qt2vs0h0wg/qt2vs0h0wg.pdf?t=pc0dah }}</ref>

An alternate method is [[Chemistry:Chemical looping combustion|chemical looping combustion]] (CLC). Looping uses a metal oxide as a solid oxygen carrier. Metal oxide particles react with a solid, liquid or gaseous fuel in a [[Chemistry:Fluidization|fluidized bed]] combustor, producing solid metal particles and a mixture of CO<sub>2</sub> and water vapor. The water vapor is condensed, leaving pure CO<sub>2</sub> , which can then be sequestered. The solid metal particles are circulated to another fluidized bed where they react with air, producing heat and regenerating metal oxide particles for return to the combustor. A variant of chemical looping is [[Chemistry:Calcium looping|calcium looping]], which uses the alternating carbonation and then calcination of a [[Chemistry:Calcium oxide|calcium oxide]] based carrier.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2011/online/26886#non-power-pcc-applications|title=The Global Status of CCS: 2011 - Capture|publisher=The Global CCS Institute|access-date=26 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130206033937/http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2011/online/26886#non-power-pcc-applications|archive-date=6 February 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Under significant study is also adsorption based carbon capture on highly porous materials such as [[Physics:Activated carbon|activated carbon]]s, [[Chemistry:Zeolite|zeolite]]s, or MOFs. Such a process is divided into physical and chemical adsorption or physisorption and chemisorption respectively. The former mitigates the issue of CO<sub>2</sub> regeneration as most of the CO<sub>2</sub> can be regenerated by simply decreasing the pressure. Physisorption capacity is principally determined by the porosity of the adsorbate.<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last1=Blankenship |first1=L. Scott |last2=Mokaya |first2=Robert |date=2022-02-21 |title=Modulating the porosity of carbons for improved adsorption of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane: a review |journal=Materials Advances |language=en |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=1905–1930 |doi=10.1039/D1MA00911G |issn=2633-5409|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Blankenship |first1=L. Scott |last2=Albeladi |first2=Nawaf |last3=Alkhaldi |first3=Thria |last4=Madkhali |first4=Asma |last5=Mokaya |first5=Robert |date=2022 |title=Brute force determination of the optimum pore sizes for CO 2 uptake in turbostratic carbons |url=http://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=D2YA00149G |journal=Energy Advances |language=en |volume=1 |issue=12 |pages=1009–1020 |doi=10.1039/D2YA00149G |issn=2753-1457|doi-access=free }}</ref>

A 2019 study found CCS plants to be less effective than renewable electricity.<ref name=":5" /> The electrical energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) ratios of both production methods were estimated, accounting for their operational and infrastructural energy costs. Renewable electricity production included solar and wind with sufficient energy storage, plus dispatchable electricity production. Thus, rapid expansion of scalable renewable electricity and storage would be preferable over fossil-fuel with CCS. The study did not consider whether both options could be pursued in parallel.<ref name=":5">{{cite journal |last1=Sgouridis |first1=Sgouris |last2=Carbajales-Dale |first2=Michael |last3=Csala |first3=Denes |last4=Chiesa |first4=Matteo |last5=Bardi |first5=Ugo |title=Comparative net energy analysis of renewable electricity and carbon capture and storage |journal=Nature Energy |date=June 2019 |volume=4 |issue=6 |pages=456–465 |doi=10.1038/s41560-019-0365-7 |bibcode=2019NatEn...4..456S |s2cid=134169612 |url=https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/133171/1/5890_4_art_0_pnk0xh.pdf }}</ref>

In [[Chemistry:Sorption enhanced water gas shift|sorption enhanced water gas shift]] (SEWGS) technology a pre-combustion carbon capture process, based on solid adsorption, is combined with the [[Chemistry:Water-gas shift reaction|water gas shift reaction]] (WGS) in order to produce a high pressure hydrogen stream.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jansen |first1=Daniel |last2=van Selow |first2=Edward |last3=Cobden |first3=Paul |last4=Manzolini |first4=Giampaolo |last5=Macchi |first5=Ennio |last6=Gazzani |first6=Matteo |last7=Blom |first7=Richard |last8=Heriksen |first8=Partow Pakdel |last9=Beavis |first9=Rich |last10=Wright |first10=Andrew |title=SEWGS Technology is Now Ready for Scale-up! |journal=Energy Procedia |date=1 January 2013 |volume=37 |pages=2265–2273 |doi=10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.107 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The CO<sub>2</sub> stream produced can be stored or used for other industrial processes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=(Eric) van Dijk |first1=H. A. J. |last2=Cobden |first2=Paul D. |last3=Lukashuk |first3=Liliana |last4=de Water |first4=Leon van |last5=Lundqvist |first5=Magnus |last6=Manzolini |first6=Giampaolo |last7=Cormos |first7=Calin-Cristian |last8=van Dijk |first8=Camiel |last9=Mancuso |first9=Luca |last10=Johns |first10=Jeremy |last11=Bellqvist |first11=David |title=STEPWISE Project: Sorption-Enhanced Water-Gas Shift Technology to Reduce Carbon Footprint in the Iron and Steel Industry |journal=Johnson Matthey Technology Review |date=1 October 2018 |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=395–402 |doi=10.1595/205651318X15268923666410 |hdl=11311/1079169 |s2cid=139928989 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

=== Compression ===
After the {{CO2}} has been captured, it is usually compressed into a [[Physics:Supercritical fluid|supercritical fluid]]. The {{CO2}} is compressed so that it can be more easily transported. Compression is done at the capture site. This process requires its own energy source. Like the capture stage, compression is achieved by increasing the parasitic load. Compression of {{CO2}} is an energy intensive procedure that involves multi-stage complex compressors and a power-generated cooling process.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jackson |first1=S |last2=Brodal |first2=E |date=2018-07-23 |title=A comparison of the energy consumption for CO<sub>2</sub> compression process alternatives |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012031 |journal=IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science |volume=167 |issue=1 |pages=012031 |doi=10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012031 |bibcode=2018E&ES..167a2031J |s2cid=149934234 |issn=1755-1307|hdl=10037/14718 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

=== Transport ===
Some highly pressurized {{CO2}} is already transported via pipelines. For example, approximately 5,800&nbsp;km of CO<sub>2</sub> pipelines operated in the US in 2008, and a 160&nbsp;km pipeline in Norway,<ref name="POST1">{{cite journal |title={{CO2}} Capture, transport and storage |journal=Postnote |date=June 2009 |volume=335 |url=https://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn335.pdf |access-date=10 August 2019 |publisher=Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology |quote=Since 2008 Norway's Statoil has been transporting {{CO2}} (obtained from natural gas extraction) through a 160 km seabed pipeline}}</ref> used to transport CO<sub>2</sub> to oil production sites where it is injected into older fields to extract oil. This injection is used for ''enhanced oil recovery''. Pilot programs are in development to test long-term storage in non-oil producing geologic formations. In the United Kingdom, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology envisages pipelines as the main UK transport.<ref name="POST1" />

In 2021, two companies, namely Navigator {{CO2}} Ventures and Summit Carbon Solutions were planning pipelines through the Midwestern US from North Dakota to Illinois to connect ethanol companies to sites where liquefied {{CO2}} is injected into porous rock.<ref>{{Cite news |last=STEPHEN GROVES |date=24 July 2021 |title=Carbon-capture pipelines offer climate aid; activists wary |language=en |work=ABC News |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/carbon-capture-pipelines-offer-climate-aid-activists-wary-79034836 |access-date=17 February 2022}}</ref> The Navigator Heartland Greenway pipeline project was cancelled after encountering significant local resistance to the project.<ref>{{Cite web |title= |website={{wipe|Reuters}} |url=https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/}}</ref> The Summit Carbon pipeline has also been encountering significant headwinds, and is currently forecasting a COD in 2026.<ref>{{Cite web |last=George |first=Violet |date=2023-10-19 |title=Summit Carbon Solutions Postpones CO2 Pipeline Until 2026 |url=https://carbonherald.com/summit-carbon-solutions-postpones-co2-pipeline-until-2026/ |access-date=2023-12-15 |website=Carbon Herald |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Leakage during transport ====
Transmission pipelines may leak or rupture. Pipelines can be fitted with remotely controlled valves that can limit the release quantity to one pipe section. A severed 19" pipeline section 8&nbsp;km long could release its 1,300 tonnes in about 3–4 min.<ref name="Menzengraben">{{cite journal |last1=Hedlund |first1=Frank Huess |year=2012 |title=The extreme CO<sub>2</sub> outburst at the Menzengraben potash mine 7 July 1953 |url=http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/7931421/Menzen_53_submit_to_Orbit_.pdf |journal=Safety Science |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=537–53 |doi=10.1016/j.ssci.2011.10.004 |s2cid=49313927}}</ref>

In 2020 a pipeline exploded near Satartia, Mississippi, causing cars to stop and people to go unconscious; 45 were hospitalized, and some experienced longer term effects on their health.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f |title=The Gassing Of Satartia |author=Dan Zegart |date=August 26, 2021 |publisher=Huffington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=A rupture that hospitalized 45 people raised questions about CO2 pipelines' safety |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/05/10/1175305683/a-rupture-that-hospitalized-45-people-raised-questions-about-co2-pipelines-safet |date=May 10, 2023 |publisher=NPR |author=Julia Simon}}</ref>

=== Sequestration (storage) ===
{{Main|Earth:Carbon sequestration}}

Various approaches have been conceived for permanent storage. These include gaseous storage in deep geological formations (including saline formations and exhausted gas fields), and solid storage by reaction of CO<sub>2</sub> with metal [[Chemistry:Oxide|oxide]]s to produce stable [[Chemistry:Carbonate|carbonate]]s.
Storage capacity, containment efficiency and injectivity are the three factors that require major pre-assessment to decide the feasibility of CO2 storage in a candidate geological formation.<ref>Salt precipitation during CO2storage—A review,International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016: 136-147.</ref>
Geo-sequestration, involves injecting CO<sub>2</sub>, generally in [[Physics:Supercritical fluid|supercritical]] form, into underground geological formations. Oil fields, gas fields, saline formations, unmineable [[Earth:Coal seam|coal seam]]s, and saline-filled basalt formations have been suggested as alternatives. At the molecular level, carbon dioxide is shown to affect the mechanical properties of the formation where it has been injected.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Simeski |first1=Filip |last2=Ihme |first2=Matthias |title=Corrosive Influence of Carbon Dioxide on Crack Initiation in Quartz: Comparison with Liquid Water and Vacuum Environments |journal=Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth |date=January 13, 2023 |volume=128 |issue=1 |doi=10.1029/2022JB025624|bibcode=2023JGRB..12825624S |s2cid=255922362 }}</ref> Physical (e.g., highly impermeable [[Earth:Caprock|caprock]]) and geochemical trapping mechanisms prevent the CO<sub>2</sub> from escaping to the surface.<ref name="Energy Institute">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/good-plant-design-and-operation-onshore-carbon-capture-installations-and-onshore-pip-13|title=Good plant design and operation for onshore carbon capture installations and onshore pipelines - Storage|publisher=Energy Institute|access-date=11 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120918003620/http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/good-plant-design-and-operation-onshore-carbon-capture-installations-and-onshore-pip-13|archive-date=18 September 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Unmineable coal seams can be used because CO<sub>2</sub> molecules attach to the coal surface. Technical feasibility depends on the coal bed's permeability. In the process of absorption the coal releases previously absorbed [[Chemistry:Methane|methane]], and the methane can be recovered ([[Chemistry:Enhanced coal bed methane recovery|enhanced coal bed methane recovery]]). Methane revenues can offset a portion of the cost, although burning the resultant methane, however, produces another stream of CO<sub>2</sub> to be sequestered.{{Citation needed|date=October 2022}}

Saline formations contain mineralized brines and have yet to produce benefit to humans. Saline [[Earth:Aquifer|aquifer]]s have occasionally been used for storage of [[Chemistry:Chemical waste|chemical waste]] in a few cases. The main advantage of saline aquifers is their large potential storage volume and their ubiquity. The major disadvantage of saline aquifers is that relatively little is known about them. To keep the cost of storage acceptable, geophysical exploration may be limited, resulting in larger uncertainty about the aquifer structure. Unlike storage in oil fields or coal beds, no side product offsets the storage cost. ''Trapping mechanisms'' such as structural trapping, residual trapping, solubility trapping and mineral trapping may immobilize the CO<sub>2</sub> underground and reduce leakage risks.<ref name="Energy Institute"/>
<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/jfm.2020.972 |author=Edward Hinton and Andrew Woods |journal=J. Fluid Mech. |title=Capillary trapping in a vertically heterogeneous porous layer |volume=910 |pages=A44 |year=2021 |bibcode=2021JFM...910A..44H |s2cid=231636769 |hdl=11343/258916 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==== Enhanced oil recovery ====
CO<sub>2</sub> is occasionally injected into an oil field as an enhanced oil recovery technique,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/november/whatever-happened-to-enhanced-oil-recovery.html|title=November: Whatever happened to enhanced oil recovery?|website=www.iea.org|access-date=17 June 2019}}</ref> but because CO<sub>2</sub> is released when the oil is burned,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://watt-logic.com/2018/07/21/ccs/|title=Smoke & mirrors: a new report into the viability of CCS|last=Porter|first=Kathryn|date=20 July 2018|website=Watt-Logic|language=en-GB|access-date=17 June 2019}}</ref> it is not carbon neutral.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Occidental-To-Remove-CO2-From-Air-Use-It-To-Boost-Oil-Recovery-In-The-Permian.html|title=Occidental To Remove CO<sub>2</sub> From Air, Use It To Boost Oil Recovery In The Permian|website=OilPrice.com|language=en|access-date=17 June 2019}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=October 2022}}

CO<sub>2</sub> has been injected into geological formations for several decades for enhanced oil recovery and after [[Physics:Natural-gas processing|separation from natural gas]], but this has been criticised for producing more emissions when the gas or oil is burned.<ref name=":54"/>

==== Leakage risks during storage ====

===== Long-term retention =====
IPCC estimates that leakage risks at properly managed sites are comparable to those associated with current hydrocarbon activity. It recommends that limits be set to the amount of leakage that can take place.<ref>{{cite web |title=IPCC Special Report: CO<sub>2</sub> Capture and Storage Technical Summary |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111005090148/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdf |archive-date=5 October 2011 |access-date=5 October 2011 |publisher=Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change}}</ref> However, this finding is contested given the lack of experience.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Viebahn |first1=Peter |last2=Nitsch |first2=Joachim |last3=Fischedick |first3=Manfred |last4=Esken |first4=Andrea |last5=Schüwer |first5=Dietmar |last6=Supersberger |first6=Nikolaus |last7=Zuberbühler |first7=Ulrich |last8=Edenhofer |first8=Ottmar |date=April 2007 |title=Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, and ecological aspects in Germany |journal=International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=121–133 |doi=10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00024-2|bibcode=2007IJGGC...1..121V }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=March 2013 |title=University of Sydney: Global warming effect of leakage from CO<sub>2</sub> storage |url=http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/ISA_CCSleakage.pdf}}</ref> CO<sub>2</sub> could be trapped for millions of years, and although some leakage may occur, appropriate storage sites are likely to retain over 99% for over 1000 years.<ref>{{cite web |title=Global Status of BECCS Projects 2010 - Storage Security |url=http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-beccs-projects-2010/online/27051#storage-security |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130519131259/http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-beccs-projects-2010/online/27051#storage-security |archive-date=19 May 2013 |access-date=5 April 2012}}</ref>

Mineral storage is not regarded as presenting any leakage risks.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Making Minerals-How Growing Rocks Can Help Reduce Carbon Emissions |url=https://www.usgs.gov/news/making-minerals-how-growing-rocks-can-help-reduce-carbon-emissions |access-date=31 October 2021 |website=www.usgs.gov}}</ref>

Norway's [[Engineering:Sleipner gas field|Sleipner gas field]] is the oldest industrial scale retention project. An environmental assessment conducted after ten years of operation concluded that geosequestration was the most definite form of permanent geological storage method:
<blockquote>Available geological information shows absence of major tectonic events after the deposition of the Utsira formation [saline reservoir]. This implies that the geological environment is tectonically stable and a site suitable for CO<sub>2</sub> storage. The solubility trapping [is] the most permanent and secure form of geological storage.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wagner |first=Leonard |year=2007 |title=Carbon Capture and Storage |url=http://www.moraassociates.com/publications/0701%20Carbon%20capture%20and%20storage.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321214944/http://www.moraassociates.com/publications/0701%20Carbon%20capture%20and%20storage.pdf |archive-date=March 21, 2012 |publisher=Moraassociates.com}}</ref></blockquote>

In March 2009, the national Norwegian oil company StatoilHydro (later renamed [[Company:Equinor|Equinor]]) issued a study documenting the slow spread of CO<sub>2</sub> in the formation after more than 10 years operation.<ref name="Energy-pedia">{{cite web |date=8 March 2009 |title=Norway: StatoilHydro's Sleipner carbon capture and storage project proceeding successfully |url=http://www.energy-pedia.com/article.aspx?articleid=134204 |access-date=19 December 2009 |publisher=Energy-pedia}}</ref>

Gas leakage into the atmosphere may be detected via atmospheric gas monitoring, and can be quantified directly via [[Eddy covariance|eddy covariance]] flux measurements.<ref>US DOE, 2012. Best Practices for Monitoring, Verification and Accounting of CO<sub>2</sub> Stored in Deep Geologic Formations - 2012 Update.</ref><ref>Holloway, S., A. Karimjee, M. Akai, R. Pipatti, and K. Rypdal, 2006–2011. CO<sub>2</sub> Transport, Injection and Geological Storage, in Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., and Tanabe K. (Eds.), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, WMO/UNEP</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Miles |first1=Natasha L. |title=CO<sub>2</sub> Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations |last2=Davis |first2=Kenneth J. |last3=Wyngaard |first3=John C. |date=2005 |publisher=Elsevier Science |isbn=978-0-08-044570-0 |pages=1031–1044 |chapter=Detecting Leaks from Belowground CO<sub>2</sub> Reservoirs Using Eddy Covariance |doi=10.1016/B978-008044570-0/50149-5}}</ref>

===== Sudden leakage hazards =====
At the storage site, the injection pipe can be fitted with non-return valves to prevent an uncontrolled release from the reservoir in case of upstream pipeline damage.

Large-scale CO<sub>2</sub> releases present asphyxiation risks. For example, in the 1953 Menzengraben mining accident, several thousand tonnes were released and asphyxiated a person 300 meters away.<ref name="Menzengraben" />{{Better source needed|date=October 2021|reason=it is a preprint}} Malfunction of a CO<sub>2</sub> industrial fire suppression system in a large warehouse released 50 t CO<sub>2</sub> after which 14 people collapsed on the nearby public road.<ref name="Menzengraben" />

== Cost ==
Cost is a significant factor affecting CCS. The cost of CCS, plus any subsidies, must be less than the expected cost of emitting CO<sub>2</sub> for a project to be considered economically favorable.

CCS technology is expected to use between 10 and 40 percent of the energy produced by a power station.<ref name="falsehope">Rochon, Emily et al. [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/false-hope False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090504081504/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/false-hope|date=4 May 2009}} Greenpeace, May 2008, p. 5.</ref><ref name="Thorbjornsson">{{cite journal|last1=Thorbjörnsson|first1=Anders|last2=Wachtmeister|first2=Henrik|last3=Wang|first3=Jianliang|last4=Höök|first4=Mikael|date=April 2015|title=Carbon capture and coal consumption: Implications of energy penalties and large scale deployment|journal=Energy Strategy Reviews|volume=7|pages=18–28|doi=10.1016/j.esr.2014.12.001}}</ref> The energy consumed by CCS is called an "energy penalty". It has been estimated that about 60% of the penalty originates from the capture process, 30% comes from compression of the extracted CO<sub>2</sub>, while the remaining 10% comes from pumps and fans.<ref name="Rubin2012">{{cite journal|last1=Rubin|first1=Edward S.|last2=Mantripragada|first2=Hari|last3=Marks|first3=Aaron|last4=Versteeg|first4=Peter|last5=Kitchin|first5=John|date=October 2012|title=The outlook for improved carbon capture technology|journal=Progress in Energy and Combustion Science|volume=38|issue=5|pages=630–671|doi=10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.003}}</ref> CCS would increase the fuel requirement of a plant with CCS by about 15% (gas plant).<ref name="IPCC_CC">[IPCC, 2005] ''IPCC special report on CO<sub>2</sub> Capture and Storage''. Prepared by working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L.A. Meyer (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp. Available in full at [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf www.ipcc.ch] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100210022620/http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf|date=10 February 2010}} (PDF - 22.8MB)</ref> The cost of this extra fuel, as well as storage and other system costs, are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30–60%. This makes it more difficult for fossil fuel plants with CCS to compete with renewable energy combined with energy storage, especially as the cost of renewable energy and batteries continues to decline.

Constructing CCS units is capital intensive. The additional costs of a large-scale CCS demonstration project are estimated to be €0.5–1.1 billion per project over the project lifetime. Other applications are possible. CCS trials for coal-fired plants in the early 21st century were  economically unviable in most countries,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Keating|first=Dave|date=18 September 2019|title='We need this dinosaur': EU lifts veil on gas decarbonisation strategy|url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-strategy-2050/news/new-gas-possibilities-in-focus-as-commission-prepares-decarbonisation-strategy/|access-date=27 September 2019|website=euractiv.com|language=en-GB}}</ref> including China,<ref>{{Cite web|title=Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization to the Rescue of Coal? Global Perspectives and Focus on China and the United States|url=https://www.ifri.org/en/publications/etudes-de-lifri/carbon-capture-storage-and-utilization-rescue-coal-global-perspectives|access-date=27 September 2019|website=www.ifri.org|language=en}}</ref> in part because revenue from enhanced oil recovery collapsed with the 2020 oil price collapse.<ref>{{Cite web|title=CCUS in Power – Analysis|url=https://www.iea.org/reports/about-ccus|access-date=20 November 2020|website=IEA|language=en-GB}}</ref> A [[Finance:Carbon price|carbon price]] of at least 100 euros per tonne CO<sub>2</sub> is estimated to be needed to make industrial CCS viable,<ref>{{Cite web|date=27 September 2018|title=Call for open debate on CCU and CCS to save industry emissions|url=https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/call-open-debate-ccu-and-ccs-save-industry-emissions|access-date=17 June 2019|website=Clean Energy Wire|language=en}}</ref> together with carbon tariffs.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Butler|first=Clark|date=July 2020|title=Carbon Capture and Storage Is About Reputation, Not Economics|url=https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CCS-Is-About-Reputation-Not-Economics_July-2020.pdf|website=IEEFA}}</ref> But, as of mid-2022, the EU Allowance had never reached that price and the [[Earth:Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism|Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism]] had not yet been implemented.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Twidale|first=Susanna|date=14 October 2021|title=Analysts raise EU carbon price forecasts as gas rally drives up coal power|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/analysts-raise-eu-carbon-price-forecasts-gas-rally-drives-up-coal-power-2021-10-14/|access-date=1 November 2021}}</ref> However, a company making small modules claims it can get well below that price by mass production by 2022.<ref>{{Cite news|date=30 October 2021|title=Scaling Carbon Capture Might Mean Thinking Small, Not Big|language=en|work=Bloomberg.com|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-30/scaling-carbon-capture-might-mean-thinking-small-not-big|access-date=1 November 2021}}</ref>

According to UK government estimates made in the late 2010s, carbon capture (without storage) is estimated to add 7 GBP per MWh by 2025 to the cost of electricity from a [[Chemistry:Gas-fired power plant|gas-fired power plant]]. However, the CO<sub>2</sub> will need to be stored, so in total the increase in cost for gas or biomass generated electricity is around 50%.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.files.bbci.co.uk/include/newsspec/pdfs/bbc-briefing-energy-newsspec-25305-v1.pdf|title=Energy}}</ref>

A 2020 study concluded that half as much CCS might be installed in coal-fired plants as in gas-fired: these would be mainly in China and India.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Powering through the coming energy transition |url=https://news.mit.edu/2020/powering-through-coming-energy-transition-1118 |access-date=20 November 2020 |website=MIT News {{!}} Massachusetts Institute of Technology |date=18 November 2020 |language=en}}</ref> However a 2022 study concluded that it would be too expensive for coal power in China.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zhuo |first1=Zhenyu |last2=Du |first2=Ershun |last3=Zhang |first3=Ning |last4=Nielsen |first4=Chris P. |last5=Lu |first5=Xi |last6=Xiao |first6=Jinyu |last7=Wu |first7=Jiawei |last8=Kang |first8=Chongqing |date=December 2022 |title=Cost increase in the electricity supply to achieve carbon neutrality in China |journal=Nature Communications |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=3172 |bibcode=2022NatCo..13.3172Z |doi=10.1038/s41467-022-30747-0 |pmc=9177843 |pmid=35676273 |s2cid=249521236}}</ref>

==Outlook==
[[Biography:Bill Gates|Bill Gates]] has said that in his view CCS was unlikely to be economically viable for mass-scale use in the long term, and that "for most cases, you should use an alternative technique rather than emitting and then paying for capturing.... For everything you can, you want to solve it by never generating the carbon dioxide.”<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.ft.com/content/ac79455d-0846-442c-be59-566ed21a7e2f | title=Bill Gates-backed Breakthrough fund targets third $1bn capital raising | newspaper=Financial Times | date=13 October 2023 | last1=Mooney | first1=Attracta }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.ft.com/content/77e4dd04-9190-4987-8621-4e724dc579ff | title=Bill Gates: There are amazing climate technologies — getting them out is the challenge | newspaper=Financial Times | date=3 November 2023 | last1=Mooney | first1=Attracta }}</ref>

== Related impacts ==

Since liquid amine solutions are used to capture CO<sub>2</sub> 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.<ref name="ekopolitan.com">{{cite web|title=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|url=http://www.ekopolitan.com/news/ccs-norway-amines-nitrosamines-and-nitramines-released-carbon-capture-proce|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923234730/http://www.ekopolitan.com/news/ccs-norway-amines-nitrosamines-and-nitramines-released-carbon-capture-proce|archive-date=23 September 2015|access-date=19 December 2012|website=www.ekopolitan.com}}</ref> CCS systems also reduce the efficiency of the power plants that use them to control CO<sub>2.</sub>  For super-critical pulverized coal (PC) plants, CCS' energy requirements range from 24 to 40%, while for coal-based gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems it is 14–25%.<ref name="auto1">{{cite web |title=IPCC Special Report: Carbon Capture and Storage Technical Summary. IPCC. p. 27 |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101215706/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdf |archive-date=1 November 2013 |access-date=6 October 2013}}</ref>  Using CCS for [[Physics:Combined cycle power plant|natural gas combined cycle]] (NGCC) plants can decrease operating efficiency from 11 to 22%.<ref name="auto1" /> This in turn could cause a net increase of non-GHG pollutants from those facilities. However, most of these impacts are controlled by the pollution control equipment already installed at these plants to meet air pollution regulations.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0072-0061/content.pdf |title=TSD - GHG Mitigation Measures for Steam EGUs |publisher=Environmental Protection Agency |year=2023 |at=Pages 43-44}}</ref> CCS technology also has operational impacts. These impacts increase as the [[Engineering:Capacity factor|capacity factor]] decreases (the plant is used less - for example only for [[Engineering:Peaking power plant|times of highest demand]] or [[Emergency power system|in emergencies]]).<ref name=":54"/>{{Rp|page=42}}

Other impacts occur outside the facility. As a result of efficiency losses at coal plants, fuel use and environmental problems arising from coal extraction increase. Plants equipped with [[Physics:Flue-gas desulfurization|flue-gas desulfurization]] (FGD) systems for [[Chemistry:Sulfur dioxide|sulfur dioxide]] control require proportionally greater amounts of [[Earth:Limestone|limestone]], and systems equipped with [[Chemistry:Selective catalytic reduction|selective catalytic reduction]] systems for [[Chemistry:Nitrogen oxide|nitrogen oxide]]s produced during combustion require proportionally greater amounts of [[Chemistry:Ammonia|ammonia]].{{citation needed|date=September 2023}} Limiting the use of CCS would also bring near-term benefits from reduced air and water pollution, human rights violations, and biodiversity loss.<ref name=":02" />

== Monitoring ==

Monitoring allows leak detection with enough warning to minimize the amount lost, and to quantify the leak size. Monitoring can be done at both the surface and subsurface levels.<ref name="main">{{cite book|last1=Smit|first1=Berend|title=Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration|last2=Reimer|first2=Jeffery A.|last3=Oldenburg|first3=Curtis M.|last4=Bourg|first4=Ian C.|publisher=Imperial College Press|edition=The Berkeley Lectures on Energy - Vol. 1}}</ref>

=== Subsurface ===
Subsurface monitoring can directly and/or indirectly track the reservoir's status. One direct method involves drilling deep enough to collect a sample. This drilling can be expensive due to the rock's physical properties. It also provides data only at a specific location.

One indirect method sends sound or electromagnetic waves into the reservoir which reflects back for interpretation. This approach provides data over a much larger region; although with less precision.

Both direct and indirect monitoring can be done intermittently or continuously.<ref name="main" />

==== Seismic ====
Seismic monitoring is a type of indirect monitoring. It is done by creating seismic waves either at the surface using a [[Earth:Seismic vibrator|seismic vibrator]], or inside a well using a [[Rotating unbalance|spinning eccentric mass]]. These waves propagate through geological layers and reflect back, creating patterns that are recorded by seismic sensors placed on the surface or in boreholes.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/TechReports2013/5.2_Biondi_Public_Version_2013.pdf|title=5.2 Continuous passive-seismic monitoring of CO<sub>2</sub> geologic sequestration projects|last1=Biondi|first1=Biondo|last2=de Ridder|first2=Sjoerd|date=2013|last3=Chang|first3=Jason|access-date=6 May 2016|work=Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Project 2013 Technical Report}}</ref> It can identify migration pathways of the CO<sub>2</sub> plume.<ref>{{cite web|title=Review of Offshore Monitoring for CCS Projects|url=http://ieaghg.org/member/49-publications/technical-reports/590-2015-02-review-of-offshore-monitoring-for-ccs-projects|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603062639/http://ieaghg.org/member/49-publications/technical-reports/590-2015-02-review-of-offshore-monitoring-for-ccs-projects|archive-date=3 June 2016|access-date=6 May 2016|website=IEAGHG|publisher=IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme}}</ref>

Examples of seismic monitoring of geological sequestration are the [[Engineering:Sleipner gas field|Sleipner sequestration project]], the Frio CO<sub>2</sub> injection test and the CO2CRC Otway Project.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pevzner|first1=Roman|last2=Urosevic|first2=Milovan|last3=Popik|first3=Dmitry|last4=Shulakova|first4=Valeriya|last5=Tertyshnikov|first5=Konstantin|last6=Caspari|first6=Eva|last7=Correa|first7=Julia|last8=Dance|first8=Tess|last9=Kepic|first9=Anton|last10=Glubokovskikh|first10=Stanislav|last11=Ziramov|first11=Sasha|date=August 2017|title=4D surface seismic tracks small supercritical CO<sub>2</sub> injection into the subsurface: CO2CRC Otway Project|journal=International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control|volume=63|pages=150–157|doi=10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.05.008|first17=Michelle|first18=Barry|last18=Freifeld|last12=Gurevich|first12=Boris|first16=Tom|last16=Daley|first15=Max|last15=Watson|first14=Matthias|last14=Raab|first13=Rajindar|last13=Singh|last17=Robertson|bibcode=2017IJGGC..63..150P |doi-access=free}}</ref> Seismic monitoring can confirm the presence of CO<sub>2</sub> in a given region and map its lateral distribution, but is not sensitive to the concentration.

=== Tracer ===
Organic chemical tracers, using no radioactive or Cadmium components, can be used during the injection phase in a CCS project where CO<sub>2</sub> is injected into an existing oil or gas field, either for EOR, pressure support or storage. Tracers and methodologies are compatible with CO<sub>2</sub> – and at the same time unique and distinguishable from the CO<sub>2</sub> itself or other molecules present in the sub-surface. Using laboratory methodology with an extreme detectability for tracer, regular samples at the producing wells will detect if injected CO<sub>2</sub> has migrated from the injection point to the producing well. Therefore, a small tracer amount is sufficient to monitor large scale subsurface flow patterns. For this reason, tracer methodology is well-suited to monitor the state and possible movements of CO<sub>2</sub> in CCS projects. Tracers can therefore be an aid in CCS projects by acting as an assurance that CO<sub>2</sub> is contained in the desired location sub-surface. In the past, this technology has been used to monitor and study movements in CCS projects in Algeria,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mathieson |first1=Allan |last2=Midgely |first2=John |last3=Wright |first3=Iain |last4=Saoula |first4=Nabil |last5=Ringrose |first5=Philip |date=2011 |title=In Salah {{CO2}} Storage JIP: {{CO2}} sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria |journal=Energy Procedia |language=en |volume=4 |pages=3596–3603 |doi=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.289|doi-access=free }}</ref> the Netherlands<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Vandeweijer |first1=Vincent |last2=van der Meer |first2=Bert |last3=Hofstee |first3=Cor |last4=Mulders |first4=Frans |last5=D'Hoore |first5=Daan |last6=Graven |first6=Hilbrand |date=2011-01-01 |title=Monitoring the {{CO2}} injection site: K12-B |journal=Energy Procedia |series=10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies |language=en |volume=4 |pages=5471–5478 |doi=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.532 |issn=1876-6102|doi-access=free }}</ref> and Norway (Snøhvit).

=== Surface ===

[[Eddy covariance]] is a surface monitoring technique that measures the flux of CO<sub>2</sub> from the ground's surface. It involves measuring CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations as well as vertical wind velocities using an [[Engineering:Anemometer|anemometer]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Madsen|first1=Rod|last2=Xu|first2=Liukang|last3=Claassen|first3=Brent|last4=McDermitt|first4=Dayle|date=February 2009|title=Surface Monitoring Method for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects|journal=Energy Procedia|volume=1|issue=1|pages=2161–2168|doi=10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.281|doi-access=free}}</ref> This provides a measure of the vertical CO<sub>2</sub> flux. Eddy covariance towers could potentially detect leaks, after accounting for the natural carbon cycle, such as photosynthesis and plant respiration. An example of eddy covariance techniques is the Shallow Release test.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Trautz|first1=Robert C.|last2=Pugh|first2=John D.|last3=Varadharajan|first3=Charuleka|last4=Zheng|first4=Liange|last5=Bianchi|first5=Marco|last6=Nico|first6=Peter S.|last7=Spycher|first7=Nicolas F.|last8=Newell|first8=Dennis L.|last9=Esposito|first9=Richard A.|last10=Wu|first10=Yuxin|last11=Dafflon|first11=Baptiste|date=20 September 2012|title=Effect of Dissolved CO<sub>2</sub> on a Shallow Groundwater System: A Controlled Release Field Experiment|journal=Environmental Science & Technology|volume=47|issue=1|pages=298–305|doi=10.1021/es301280t|pmid=22950750|last12=Hubbard|first12=Susan S.|last13=Birkholzer|first13=Jens T.|s2cid=7382685 }}</ref> Another similar approach is to use accumulation chambers for spot monitoring. These chambers are sealed to the ground with an inlet and outlet flow stream connected to a gas analyzer.<ref name="main" /> They also measure vertical flux. Monitoring a large site would require a network of  chambers.

==== InSAR ====
InSAR monitoring involves a satellite sending signals down to the Earth's surface where it is reflected back to the satellite's receiver. The satellite is thereby able to measure the distance to that point.<ref name="insar">{{cite web|title=InSAR—Satellite-based technique captures overall deformation "picture"|url=https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/insar.html|access-date=6 May 2016|website=USGS Science for a Changing World|publisher=US Geological Survey}}</ref> CO<sub>2</sub> injection into deep sublayers of geological sites creates high pressures. These layers affect layers above and below them, change the surface landscape. In areas of stored CO<sub>2</sub> , the ground's surface often rises due to the high pressures. These changes correspond to a measurable change in the distance from the satellite.<ref name="insar" />

== Society and culture ==

=== Social acceptance ===
[[File:Protest Against Carbon Capture and Storage (51697298019).jpg|thumb|Protest against Carbon Capture and Storage in 2021 (an action initiated by the Otway Climate Emergency Action Network (OCEAN) at the CO2CRC AGM and Symposium (Carbon Capture and Storage Conference) in Torquay)]]
[[File:Protest Against Carbon Capture and Storage (51695827702).jpg|thumb|Protest Against Carbon Capture and Storage at the same event as above.]]

Multiple studies indicate that risk and benefit perception are the most essential components of social acceptance.<ref name=":6">{{cite journal|last1=L׳Orange Seigo|first1=Selma|last2=Dohle|first2=Simone|last3=Siegrist|first3=Michael|date=October 2014|title=Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review|journal=Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews|volume=38|pages=848–863|doi=10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017}}</ref>

Risk perception is mostly related to the concerns on its safety issues in terms of hazards from its operations and the possibility of CO<sub>2</sub> leakage which may endanger communities, commodities, and the environment in the vicinity of the infrastructure.<ref name=":3">{{cite journal |last1=Agaton |first1=Casper Boongaling |title=Application of real options in carbon capture and storage literature: Valuation techniques and research hotspots |journal=Science of the Total Environment |date=November 2021 |volume=795 |pages=148683 |doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148683 |pmid=34246146 |bibcode=2021ScTEn.795n8683A |doi-access=free }}</ref> Other perceived risks relate to tourism and property values.<ref name=":6" /> CCS public perceptions appear among other controversial technologies to tackle climate change such as nuclear power, wind, and geoengineering<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Poumadère |first1=Marc |last2=Bertoldo |first2=Raquel |last3=Samadi |first3=Jaleh |title=Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering: Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle CC |journal=Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change |date=September 2011 |volume=2 |issue=5 |pages=712–727 |doi=10.1002/wcc.134|s2cid=153185757 }}</ref>

People who are already affected by climate change, such as drought,<ref name=":7">{{cite journal|last1=Anderson|first1=Carmel|last2=Schirmer|first2=Jacki|last3=Abjorensen|first3=Norman|date=August 2012|title=Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective|journal=Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change|volume=17|issue=6|pages=687–706|doi=10.1007/s11027-011-9312-z|s2cid=153912327}}</ref> tend to be more supportive of CCS. Locally, communities are sensitive to economic factors, including job creation, tourism or related investment.<ref name=":6" />

Experience is another relevant feature. Several field studies concluded that people already involved or used to industry are likely to accept the technology. In the same way, communities who have been negatively affected by any industrial activity are also less supportive of CCS.<ref name=":6" />

Few members of the public know about CCS. This can allow misconceptions that lead to less approval. No strong evidence links knowledge of CCS and public acceptance. However, one study  found that communicating information about monitoring tends to have a negative impact on attitudes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=L'Orange Seigo |first1=Selma |last2=Wallquist |first2=Lasse |last3=Dohle |first3=Simone |last4=Siegrist |first4=Michael |title=Communication of CCS monitoring activities may not have a reassuring effect on the public |journal=International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control |date=November 2011 |volume=5 |issue=6 |pages=1674–1679 |doi=10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.05.040 |bibcode=2011IJGGC...5.1674L }}</ref> Conversely, approval seems to be reinforced when CCS is compared to natural phenomena.<ref name=":6" />

Due to the lack of knowledge, people rely on organizations that they trust.{{Citation needed|date=May 2021}} In general, [[Social:Non-governmental organization|non-governmental organization]]s and researchers experience higher trust than stakeholders and governments. Opinions amongst NGOs are mixed.<ref name="Anderson & Chiavari 2009">{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Jason |last2=Chiavari |first2=Joana |title=Understanding and improving NGO position on CCS |journal=Energy Procedia |date=February 2009 |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=4811–4817 |doi=10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.308 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wong-Parodi |first1=Gabrielle |last2=Ray |first2=Isha |last3=Farrell |first3=Alexander E |title=Environmental non-government organizations' perceptions of geologic sequestration |journal=Environmental Research Letters |date=April 2008 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=024007 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024007 |bibcode=2008ERL.....3b4007W |doi-access=free }}</ref> Moreover, the link between trust and acceptance is at best indirect. Instead, trust has an influence on the perception of risks and benefits.<ref name=":6" />

CCS is embraced by the Shallow ecology worldview,<ref name=Mulkens2018>{{cite thesis |last1=Mulkens |first1=J. |title=Carbon Capture and Storage in the Netherlands: protecting the growth paradigm? |journal=Localhost |date=2018 |hdl=1874/368133 }}</ref> which promotes the search for solutions to the effects of climate change in lieu of/in addition to addressing the causes. This involves the use of advancing technology and CCS acceptance is common among [[Social:Technological utopianism|techno-optimists]]. CCS is an "end-of-pipe" solution<ref name=":6"/> that reduces atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, instead of minimizing the use of fossil fuel.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=Mulkens2018/>

On 21 January 2021, [[Biography:Elon Musk|Elon Musk]] announced he was donating $100m for a prize for best carbon capture technology.<ref>{{cite tweet|user=elonmusk|number=1352392678177034242|title=Am donating $100M towards a prize for best carbon capture technology|date=21 January 2021}}</ref>

=== Political debate ===
CCS has been discussed by political actors at least since the start of the UNFCCC<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Carton |first1=Wim |last2=Asiyanbi |first2=Adeniyi |last3=Beck |first3=Silke |last4=Buck |first4=Holly J. |last5=Lund |first5=Jens F. |title=Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal |journal=WIREs Climate Change |date=November 2020 |volume=11 |issue=6 |doi=10.1002/wcc.671 |bibcode=2020WIRCC..11E.671C |doi-access=free }}</ref> negotiations in the beginning of the 1990s, and remains a very divisive issue.{{Citation needed|date=May 2021}}

Some environmental groups raised concerns over leakage given the long storage time required, comparing CCS to storing [[Physics:Radioactive waste|radioactive waste]] from nuclear power stations.<ref name="ti12">{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1954176_1954175_1955868,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100124095650/http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1954176_1954175_1955868,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=24 January 2010 |title=Cutting Carbon: Should We Capture and Store It? |author=Simon Robinson |date=22 January 2012 |magazine={{wipe|Time (magazine)}}}}</ref>

Other controversies arose from the use of CCS by policy makers as a tool to fight climate change.{{Citation needed|date=October 2022}} In the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report in 2022, most pathways to keep the increase of global temperature below 2&nbsp;°C include the use of negative emission technologies (NETs).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hunt |first=Kara |date=2022-04-20 |title=What does the latest IPCC report say about carbon capture? |url=https://www.catf.us/2022/04/what-does-latest-ipcc-report-say-about-carbon-capture/ |access-date=2022-10-01 |website=Clean Air Task Force |language=en}}</ref>

Some environmental activists and politicians have criticized CCS as a false solution to the climate crisis. They cite the role of the fossil fuel industry in origins of the technology and in lobbying for CCS focused legislation and argue that it would allow the industry to "[[Social:Greenwashing|greenwash]]" itself by funding and engaging in things such as tree planting campaigns without significantly cutting their carbon emissions.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Volcovici |first=Timothy Gardner, Valerie |date=2020-03-09 |title=Where Biden and Sanders diverge on climate change |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-idUSKBN20W2FN |url-status=live |access-date=2021-04-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418074311/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-idUSKBN20W2FN |archive-date=April 18, 2021}}</ref><ref name="Stone"/>

=== Government programs ===
In the US, a number of laws and rules have been issued to either support or require the use of CCS tecnologies. 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.<ref name="mintz.com"/> 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 are $85/tonne for {{CO2}} capture and storage in saline geologic formations from industrial and power plants. Incentives for {{CO2}} capture and utilization from these plants are $60/tonne. Thresholds for the total amount of {{CO2}} needing to be captured are also lower, and so more facilities will be able to make use of the credits.<ref name="auto4"/>

In May 2023 EPA issued a rule proposing that CCS be required order to achieve a 90% emission reduction for coal-fired power plants that will continue to operate after 2040. 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. In that rule EPA identified CCS as a viable technology for controlling CO2 emissions.''<ref name="auto2"/>'' Costs of using CCS technology were estimated to be, on average, $14/ton of CO2 reduced for coal plants. The impact on the cost of electricity generation from coal plants was estimated as $12/ MWh. These are considered by EPA to be reasonable air pollution control costs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Environmental Protection Agency |date=May 23, 2023 |title=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 |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/23/2023-10141/new-source-performance-standards-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-new-modified-and-reconstructed |access-date=September 20, 2023 |website=Federal Register |at=Page 333447}}</ref>

Other countries are also developing programs to support CCS technologies. Canada has established a C$2.6 billion tax credit for CCS projects and Saskatchewan extended its 20 per cent tax credit under the province’s Oil Infrastructure Investment Program to pipelines carrying CO2. In Europe, Denmark has recently announced €5 billion in subsidies for CCS. 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.<ref name="auto3"/> 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 Mt{{CO2}} per year by 2030.<ref name="auto"/>

=== Carbon emission status-quo ===
Opponents claimed that CCS could legitimize the continued use of fossil fuels, as well obviate commitments on emission reduction.{{Citation needed|date=May 2021}}

Some examples such as in {{wipe|Norway}} shows that CCS and other carbon removal technologies gained traction because it allowed the country to pursue its interests regarding the petroleum industry. Norway was a pioneer in emission mitigation, and established a CO<sub>2</sub> tax in 1991.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Røttereng |first1=Jo-Kristian S. |title=When climate policy meets foreign policy: Pioneering and national interest in Norway's mitigation strategy |journal=Energy Research & Social Science |date=May 2018 |volume=39 |pages=216–225 |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.024 }}</ref>

=== Environmental NGOs ===
Environmental NGOs are not in widespread agreement about CCS as a potential climate mitigation tool. The main disagreement amid NGOs is whether CCS will reduce CO<sub>2</sub> emissions or just perpetuate the use of fossil fuels.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Corry|first1=Olaf|last2=Reiner|first2=David|date=2011|title=Evaluating global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) communication materials: A survey of global CCS communications|url=https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/publications/19916/evaluating-global-carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs-communication-materials-survey-global-ccs-communica.pdf|journal=CSIRO|pages=1–46|via=Global CCS Institute}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is old|date=October 2022}}

For instance, Greenpeace is strongly against CCS. According to the organization, the use of the technology will keep the world dependent on fossil fuels.<ref name="Corry & Riesch 2012">{{cite book|last1=Corry|first1=Olaf|title=The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS Representations, Governance and Innovation|last2=Riesch|first2=Hauke|date=2012|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-84971-315-3|editor1-last=Markusson|editor1-first=Nils|pages=91–110|chapter=Beyond 'For Or Against': Environmental NGO-evaluations of CCS as a climate change solution|editor2-last=Shackley|editor2-first=Simon|editor3-last=Evar|editor3-first=Benjamin|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NvRNqpzMrwMC&pg=PA91}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is old|date=October 2022}}

On the other hand, BECCS is used in some IPCC scenarios to help meet mitigation targets.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/|title=Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 °C|access-date=1 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190531192512/https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/|archive-date=31 May 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref> Adopting the IPCC argument that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions need to be reduced by 2050 to avoid dramatic consequences, the Bellona Foundation justified CCS as a mitigation action.<ref name="Corry & Riesch 2012"/> They claimed fossil fuels are unavoidable for the near term and consequently, CCS is the quickest way to reduce CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<ref name=":3" />

== Example projects ==
{{Main|Physics:List of carbon capture and storage projects}}

According to the Global CCS Institute, in 2020 there was about 40 million tons CO<sub>2</sub> per year capacity of CCS in operation and 50 million tons per year in development.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Global Status Report|url=https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/|access-date=31 May 2021|website=Global CCS Institute|language=en-AU|archive-date=13 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210113024246/https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/|url-status=dead}}</ref> In contrast, the world emits about 38 billion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> every year,<ref>{{Cite web|date=17 March 2021|title=Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage: Effects on Climate Change|url=https://actionaidrecycling.org.uk/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage-effects-on-climate-change/|access-date=31 May 2021|website=actionaidrecycling.org.uk}}</ref> so CCS captured about one thousandth of the 2020 CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Iron and steel is expected to dominate industrial CCS in Europe,<ref name=":82"/> although there are alternative ways of decarbonizing steel.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What is net-zero steel and why do we need it? |url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/what-is-net-zero-steel-and-why-do-we-need-it/ |access-date=2022-10-01 |website=World Economic Forum |date=22 September 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

One of the most well-known failures is the [[Chemistry:FutureGen|FutureGen]] program, partnerships between the US federal government and coal energy production companies which were intended to demonstrate "clean coal", but never succeeded in producing any carbon-free electricity from coal.<ref name="bloombergsuspend">{{cite news |last=Natter |first=Ari |date=4 February 2015 |title=DOE Suspends $1 Billion in FutureGen Funds, Killing Carbon Capture Demonstration Project |work=Energy and Climate Report |agency=Bloomberg BNA |url=http://www.bna.com/doe-suspends-billion-n17179922773/ |url-status=dead |access-date=10 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212031152/http://www.bna.com/doe-suspends-billion-n17179922773/ |archive-date=12 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="CRSHistory">{{cite report |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43028.pdf |title=The FutureGen Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project: A Brief History and Issues for Congress |last1=Folger |first1=Peter |date=10 Feb 2014 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |access-date=21 July 2014}}</ref>

==Related concepts==
=== Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) ===
{{Excerpt|Carbon capture and utilization|paragraphs=1|file=no}}

=== Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) ===
{{Excerpt|Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage|paragraphs=1|file=no}}

=== Direct air carbon capture and sequestration (DACCS) ===
{{Excerpt|Direct air capture|paragraphs=1-2|file=no}}

== See also ==
{{Div col}}
* [[Engineering:Timeline of carbon capture and storage|Timeline of carbon capture and storage]]
* [[Physics:Carbon sink|Carbon sink]]
* [[Engineering:Carbon storage in the North Sea|Carbon storage in the North Sea]]
* [[Earth:Climate engineering|Climate engineering]]
* [[Physics:Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources|Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources]]
* Low-carbon economy
* Methane pyrolysis
* [[Earth:Oceanic carbon cycle|Oceanic carbon cycle]]
* [[Engineering:Solid sorbents for carbon capture|Solid sorbents for carbon capture]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/carbon-offsets-2023/timeline.html Timeline]
*[https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/carbon-capture-and-storage-research DOE Fossil Energy] Department of Energy programs in CO<sub>2</sub> capture and storage
*[https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage US Department of Energy]
*[https://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/ US Gulf coast]
*[https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/ Zero Emissions Platform - technical adviser to the EU Commission on the deployment of CCS and CCU]
*[https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo46659 National Assessment of Geologic CO<sub>2</sub> Storage Resources: Results] United States Geological Survey
* [http://sequestration.mit.edu/  Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT]


{{DEFAULTSORT:Carbon Capture And Storage}}
[[Category:Carbon capture and storage]]
[[Category:Gas technologies]]
[[Category:Climate change mitigation]]

{{Sourceattribution|Carbon capture and storage}}