Our website use cookies to improve and personalize your experience and to display advertisements(if any). Our website may also include cookies from third parties like Google Adsense, Google Analytics, Youtube. By using the website, you consent to the use of cookies. We have updated our Privacy Policy. Please click on the button to check our Privacy Policy.
Ok, I Agree
International

Understanding Carbon Capture: When It Works and When It Doesn’t

Avatar photoJames Brown
When carbon capture helps and when it distracts


Carbon capture is not a single technology or policy; it is a family of approaches that remove carbon dioxide from flue gases or directly from the air and then either store it permanently underground, use it in products, or inject it in ways that temporarily retain CO2. Whether carbon capture helps or distracts depends on purpose, timing, scale, governance, and economics. Below is a clear assessment of the contexts where carbon capture is a constructive tool and where it creates risks of delay, waste, or greenwashing.

How carbon capture can make a difference

  • Decarbonizing hard-to-abate industries: Cement, steel, chemicals, and some high-temperature industrial processes emit CO2 as a process byproduct rather than from energy use. Capturing these point-source emissions is often one of the most practical ways to reach net-zero for those sectors.
  • Removing residual emissions: After maximal energy efficiency, electrification, and fuel switching, some residual CO2 emissions remain. Permanent removal technologies (direct air capture, bioenergy with CCS) can offset those hard-to-eliminate residuals and enable net-negative emissions where needed to meet climate targets.
  • Enabling low-carbon fuels and hydrogen: Capturing CO2 from natural gas reforming combined with storage can produce lower-carbon hydrogen (so-called blue hydrogen) as a transitional supply while renewable-based hydrogen (green hydrogen) scales up. This is helpful when hydrogen demand is urgent and renewables or electrolyzer capacity are limited.
  • Demonstrated successful storage cases: Operational projects show technical feasibility. Norway’s Sleipner project has stored roughly 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year in a saline aquifer since the mid-1990s. Projects like the UK and Norway-led Northern Lights facility demonstrate shared transport and storage infrastructure can be built at scale.
  • When backed by robust policy and finance: Carbon pricing, tax credits, grants, and regulated emissions reductions make projects viable and ensure capture is additional to—not a substitute for—emissions cuts. Well-designed incentives direct capture where it achieves the most climate benefit.

How carbon capture distracts

  • Delaying emissions reductions: Relying on capture as a promise to fix future emissions can allow continued investment in fossil infrastructure. Capture with weak safeguards can become an excuse to defer energy efficiency, electrification, or fuel switching.
  • Subsidizing counterproductive fossil activity: When capture is coupled with enhanced oil recovery (EOR), captured CO2 can boost oil production. That creates a perverse result: more oil extracted and burned may outweigh the CO2 stored, especially if accounting is weak.
  • High cost and limited near-term scale: Many capture approaches are expensive. Point-source capture costs vary widely but can be tens to low hundreds of dollars per tonne; direct air capture (DAC) costs have been hundreds of dollars per tonne at commercial demonstration scale. That makes capture a poor substitute for lower-cost emissions reductions in many sectors.
  • Energy penalty and lifecycle emissions: Capture systems require energy. If that energy comes from fossil fuels, the net climate benefit shrinks. Capture can reduce plant efficiency by a significant fraction, increasing fuel use and operating costs.
  • Questionable permanence and monitoring: Geological storage requires long-term monitoring to ensure CO2 remains sequestered. Projects with weak monitoring, unclear liability, or poor public engagement risk leakage concerns and community opposition.
  • BECCS land-use and sustainability risks: Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) can produce net-negative emissions on paper but may cause land-use change, biodiversity loss, food competition, and uncertain carbon accounting if biomass sourcing is not rigorously managed.

Representative examples and their results

  • Sleipner (Norway): A long-running example of successful offshore storage. Since 1996, Sleipner has injected roughly 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year into a saline formation, demonstrating secure storage and continuous monitoring for decades.
  • Boundary Dam (Canada): A coal power retrofit capturing around 1 million tonnes CO2 annually. It proved retrofits are technically possible but highlighted high capital costs, operational complexity, and the difficulty of competing with cheaper low-carbon alternatives like renewables.
  • Petra Nova (USA): Captured over a million tonnes per year from a coal plant but was idled amid economic pressures and low oil prices; it illustrated how project economics and policy support determine longevity.
  • Gorgon (Australia): A large industrial CCS project tied to natural gas processing that initially failed to meet storage targets and revealed the operational and measurement challenges in large subsurface projects.
  • Climeworks DAC plants (Iceland, Switzerland): Orca in Iceland and follow-on plants show that DAC works technically at small scale (thousands to tens of thousands of tonnes per year). Cost and energy supply are the major barriers to scaling to the gigatonne level quickly.

Expenses, scope, and schedules

  • Cost ranges: Point-source capture at industrial sites may cost roughly tens to low hundreds of dollars per tonne, depending on concentration of CO2 and retrofit complexity. DAC today often costs several hundred dollars per tonne; many estimates expect costs to fall with scale, learning, and cheaper low-carbon energy.
  • Scale gap: Climate models that rely heavily on negative emissions assume large-scale deployment of BECCS and DAC by midcentury. Achieving gigatonne-scale removal requires rapid and sustained investment in manufacturing, pipelines, storage sites, and renewables to power capture.
  • Timing matters: Near-term emissions reductions through efficiency, electrification, and renewables deliver immediate climate benefits. Carbon capture is complementary but not a substitute for early and deep cuts.

Practical decision framework: when to use carbon capture

  • Prioritize reductions first: Exhaust low-cost options—efficiency, electrification, material substitution—before relying on capture.
  • Use capture where alternatives are limited: Favor industrial process emissions and chemical feedstocks where abatement options are scarce.
  • Prefer permanent storage with strong monitoring: Ensure projects commit to verified, long-term geological storage with independent monitoring and clear liability rules.
  • Avoid coupling with EOR unless strict accounting exists: When capture funds oil production, require transparent lifecycle accounting to ensure net climate benefit.
  • Design policy to prevent delay: Condition subsidies on demonstrated reductions, time-limited support, and a clear pathway off fossil dependence.
  • Safeguard land and supply chains for BECCS: Only deploy biomass-based capture with strict sustainability criteria to avoid negative biodiversity and food security impacts.

Policy and governance priorities

  • Clear accounting rules: Rigorous, transparent measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) are essential so captured CO2 is not double-counted or used to justify ongoing emissions.
  • Long-term liability and monitoring: Governments and project sponsors must clarify who is responsible for stored CO2 over decades and centuries.
  • Targeted incentives: Financial support should favor projects that deliver maximum climate benefit per dollar and that do not lock in fossil infrastructure.
  • Community engagement and social license: Local communities must be consulted, informed, and compensated where projects carry land-use or safety risks.

Compromises to acknowledge and address

  • Infrastructure needs: Pipelines, shipping, storage sites and power for capture require time and capital; planning should consider cumulative demand and shared hubs to reduce cost.
  • Energy supply: Capture systems must be powered by low-carbon energy to preserve climate benefits. Otherwise, net emissions reductions are lower or reversed.
  • Risk of capture reliance: Policymakers must balance investment between capture and faster, cheaper emissions reductions to avoid expensive lock-in.

Carbon capture is a pragmatic tool when applied to specific problems: removing unavoidable process emissions, permanently storing residual CO2, and decarbonizing sectors with few alternatives. Its benefits are real but conditional on rigorous accounting, secure long-term storage, strong policy design, and prioritizing reductions first. Where capture becomes politically convenient or financially attractive to prop up fossil fuels, it distracts from the urgent transformations that cut emissions at source. Responsible deployment means choosing projects that maximize climate benefit, sequencing capture after aggressive mitigation, and building transparency and safeguards so that captured carbon truly advances rather than delays the transition to a low-carbon economy.

By James Brown

Related Posts