Carbon capture and storage: where are we at?

This briefing by Zero Carbon Analytics examines the current state and prospects of carbon capture and storage (CCS), describing it as an "integrated infrastructure" rather than a single technology. While the history of CCS is marked by high failure rates and limited impact on global emissions, the document notes a recent surge in investment and project announcements, particularly in North America and Europe. The author argues that CCS is most critical for the cement industry, where few alternatives exist, but is largely uncompetitive in the power sector compared to renewables.

• Historically, CCS has been characterized by a high rate of failure; between 1995 and 2018, only 27 of over 260 undertaken projects were completed. Despite USD 8.5 billion in government support following the 2008-2009 financial crisis, only 30% of that funding was actually spent.
• There is a current increase in momentum for CCS, with global investment reaching USD 2.3 billion in 2021. BloombergNEF forecasts that global capture capacity could grow at a compound annual rate of 18% through the end of the decade, potentially reaching 225 Mt/yr, though this remains far below the 36 gigatonnes of CO2 energy-related global emissions recorded in 2021.
• North America and Europe host over 70% of the global CCS pipeline. The US leads in operational capacity and pipeline, supported by the 45Q tax credit and the Inflation Reduction Act, which increases subsidies to USD 180 per tonne of permanently stored carbon. European efforts, such as Norway's Longship Project and the Dutch Porthos hub, focus more on storage.
• CCS is considered a necessity for the cement sector, which contributes approximately 7% of global emissions, because the calcination process inherently emits CO2 and lacks viable alternatives. Conversely, CCS is viewed as a failure in the power sector due to the "energy penalty" and the fact that onshore wind and solar are 40% cheaper than new gas and coal capacity without CCS.
• The document warns that carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) may be a "distraction" with low mitigation potential, as converting CO2 into feedstocks is highly energy-intensive. For example, electrifying the EU's chemicals industry to facilitate CCU would add 4,400 TWh of electricity demand, which is 140% of the EU's current total electricity demand of 3,200 TWh.
• A significant portion of current CCS operations are tied to enhanced oil recovery (EOR), with 74% of operational facilities depending on EOR for revenue. The author notes that once scaled, the emissions from burning the recovered oil and gas more than offset the stored CO2.
• CCS costs vary significantly by application, ranging from USD 22/tCO2 for natural gas processing to USD 374/tCO2 for aluminium production. Additionally, capture rates are often imperfect; many facilities start at 65% capture and only reach 90% after several years because costs increase exponentially as more carbon is captured.

APA

Team, Z. (2022). Carbon capture and storage: where are we at? Zero Carbon Analytics. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/energy/carbon-capture-and-storage-where-are-we-at/

Chicago

Team, ZCA. Carbon capture and storage: where are we at? Zero Carbon Analytics, 2022. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/energy/carbon-capture-and-storage-where-are-we-at/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Team |first1=ZCA |title=Carbon capture and storage: where are we at? |publisher=Zero Carbon Analytics |date=29 September 2022 |url=https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/energy/carbon-capture-and-storage-where-are-we-at/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{team2022carbon, author = {Team, ZCA}, title = {{Carbon capture and storage: where are we at?}}, institution = {Zero Carbon Analytics}, year = {2022}, month = sep, url = {https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/energy/carbon-capture-and-storage-where-are-we-at/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }