A closer look at CCS: problems and potential

The briefing examines the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS), noting that the majority of the world's 41 operational projects are linked to the oil and gas industry, specifically for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). It highlights a history of 'unmet expectations' and slow deployment, with capture rates often falling short of targets. While CCS is proposed for hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel, the document argues it is often less cost-effective than electrification or energy efficiency. It further details how CCS projects in Norway, Canada, and Australia have been used to maintain the financial viability of fossil fuel extraction.

• The vast majority of operational CCS capacity is tied to the fossil fuel industry, specifically for enhancing oil production. Of the 41 active projects worldwide, 82.5% of captured carbon is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and 53% of overall capacity is dedicated to natural gas processing.
• CCS deployment has been characterized by slow progress and failure to meet goals, leading the International Energy Agency (IEA) to revise the technology's role downward in climate mitigation scenarios.
• In the United States, government subsidies for CCS have historically functioned to subsidize hydrocarbon exploitation. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 updated Section 45Q to provide credits ranging from USD 12 per metric ton for EOR up to USD 130 for direct air capture (DAC).
• Specific projects demonstrate how CCS is used to maintain the profitability of fossil fuel extraction: Equinor's Sleipner project in Norway reduced carbon dioxide emission fees; Shell's Quest project in Canada supports bitumen refining; and the Gorgon project in Australia was a requirement for a gas field license.
• Actual CO2 capture rates at operational facilities are often inconsistent and lower than targeted. Examples include the Boundary Dam plant in the USA (65%), the Gorgon facility in Australia (45%), the Quest refinery in Canada (48%), and the Century Gas Processing Plant in the USA (under 10%).
• The IPCC indicates that for industrial emissions reduction, CCS is less effective and more expensive than alternatives such as fuel switching (electrification), improving energy and material efficiency, and enhanced recycling.
• The potential for CCS in other sectors varies: it is considered essential for eliminating limestone calcination emissions in cement (which represent 60% of GHG emissions in best-available technology plants), while in the power sector, its viability is challenged by the falling costs of renewables.

APA

Team, Z. (2024). A closer look at CCS: problems and potential. Zero Carbon Analytics. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/a-closer-look-at-ccs-problems-and-potential/

Chicago

Team, ZCA. A closer look at CCS: problems and potential. Zero Carbon Analytics, 2024. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/a-closer-look-at-ccs-problems-and-potential/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Team |first1=ZCA |title=A closer look at CCS: problems and potential |publisher=Zero Carbon Analytics |date=28 February 2024 |url=https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/a-closer-look-at-ccs-problems-and-potential/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{team2024closer, author = {Team, ZCA}, title = {{A closer look at CCS: problems and potential}}, institution = {Zero Carbon Analytics}, year = {2024}, month = feb, url = {https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/a-closer-look-at-ccs-problems-and-potential/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }