Carbon capture and storage explained

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from industrial sources is separated, treated and transported to a long-term storage location.^[1] In CCS, the CO₂ is captured from a large point source, such as a chemical plant, coal power plant, cement kiln, or bioenergy plant, and typically is stored in a suitable geological formation.

CCS has been discussed as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change,^{[2] [3]} though some critics claim that CCS projects have been shown to increase, not decrease overall emissions.^[4] For example, CCS retrofits for existing power plants can be one of the ways to limit emissions from the electricity sector and meet the Paris Agreement goals.^[5] However, as of 2022, only about one thousandth of global CO₂ emissions are captured by CCS, and most of those CCS projects are for natural-gas processing.^[6] CCS projects generally aim for 90% capture efficiency,^[7] but most of the current installations have failed to meet that goal.^[8]

Storage of the captured CO₂ is in deep geological formations. Long-term predictions about submarine or underground storage security are difficult. There is still the risk that some CO₂ might leak into the atmosphere.^{[9] [10] [11]} A 2018 evaluation estimates the risk of substantial leakage to be fairly low.^{[12] [13]} As of 2022, around 73% of the CO₂ captured annually is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a process in which CO₂ is injected into partially-depleted oil reservoirs in order to extract more oil and then is left underground. Since EOR utilizes the CO₂ in addition to storing it, CCS is also known as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS).^[14]

CCS is a relatively expensive process.^[15] Carbon capture becomes more economically viable when the carbon price is high, which is the case in much of Europe. 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.^[16] Critics also argue that CCS is only a justification for indefinite fossil fuel usage and equate to further investments into the environmental and social harms related to the fossil fuel industry.^{[17] [18]} With regards to public support, communities who have been negatively affected by an industrial activity in the past are less supportive of CCS. Communities that feel inadequately informed about or excluded from project decision-making may also resist CCS development.^[19]

Globally, a number of laws and rules have been issued that either support or mandate the implementation of CCS. In the US, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides support for a variety of CCS projects, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 updates tax credit law to encourage the use of CCS.^{[20] [21]} Other countries are also developing programs to support CCS technologies, including Canada, Denmark, China, and the UK.^{[22] [23]}

Terminology

The terms carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon capture and utilization (CCU), and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) are closely related and often used interchangeably.

In the context of these terms, "carbon capture" refers to a process in which carbon dioxide (CO₂) is separated from the other components of industrial or power plant flue gas.^[24] Once a relatively pure stream of CO₂ has been captured and compressed, it can be transported and put to use ("utilized") and/or sequestered ("stored").

Terminology in this area is often inconsistent and confusing.^[25] Some institutions use these terms more broadly or more narrowly than others.

The terms CCS, CCU, and CCUS often refer to the practice of capturing CO₂ and using it for enhanced oil recovery, a process in which CO₂ is injected into partially-depleted oil reservoirs in order to extract more oil and then is left underground.^[26] As of 2022, around 73% of the CO₂ captured annually is used for EOR.^[27] EOR is both "utilization" and "storage", as the CO₂ left underground is intended to be trapped indefinitely. Prior to 2013, this practice was primarily called CCS; since then the more valuable-sounding CCUS has gained popularity.^[28]

However, CCS or CCUS can also be used to refer to the process is of injecting CO₂ into underground formations such as saline aquifers where it will be trapped, without attempting to extract oil or gas. This process, called dedicated geological storage, is used for around 27% of the CO₂ captured each year.^[29]

Around 1% of captured CO₂ is used as a feedstock for making products such fertilizer, synthetic fuels, and plastics.^[30] These uses are forms of CCU.^[31] In some cases, the product durably stores the carbon from the CO₂ and thus is also considered to be a form of CCS or CCUS. In CCS, carbon storage must be long-term,^[32] therefore utilization of CO₂ to produce fertilizer, fuel, or chemicals is not CCS because these substances release CO₂ when burned or consumed.

History and current status

In the natural gas industry, technology to remove CO₂ from raw natural gas has been used since 1930.^[33] This processing is essential to make natural gas ready for commercial sale and distribution.^[34] Usually after CO₂ is removed it is vented to the atmosphere. In 1972, American oil companies discovered that large quantities of CO₂ could be profitably be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).^[35] Subsequently, natural gas companies in Texas began capturing the CO₂ that was produced by their processing plants, and selling it to local oil producers for EOR.

The use of CCS as a means of reducing anthropogenic CO₂ emissions is more recent. In 1977, the Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti proposed that CCS technology could be used to reduce emissions from coal power plants and fuel refineries.^{[36] [37]} The first large-scale CO₂ capture and injection project with dedicated CO₂ storage and monitoring was commissioned at the Sleipner offshore gas field in Norway in 1996.

In 2005, the IPCC released a report highlighting CCS, leading to increased government support for CCS in several countries.^[38] Since 1995, plans for hundreds of CCS projects have been announced, most of which have not materialized. One well-known failure is the 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 low-carbon electricity from coal.^{[39] [40]} In 2020, the International Energy Agency stated, “The story of CCUS has largely been one of unmet expectations: its potential to mitigate climate change has been recognised for decades, but deployment has been slow and so has had only a limited impact on global CO2 emissions.”

As of 2023, around 45 commercial CCS facilities are operational.^[41] According to the Global CCS Institute, in 2020 there was about 40 million tons CO₂ per year capacity of CCS in operation and 50 million tons per year in development.^[42] In contrast, human activity emits about 38 billion tonnes of CO₂ every year,^[43] so CCS captured about one thousandth of the 2020 CO₂ emissions.

Role in climate change mitigation

CCS has a small but critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy, electrification, and energy efficiency measures have far more potential to reduce emissions at lower cost.^[44] However in certain niches, emissions are difficult or expensive to abate without CCS.^[45] To reach targets set in the Paris Agreement, CCS must be accompanied by a steep decline in the production and use of fossil fuels.

Comparison with other mitigation options

Compared to other options for reducing emissions, CCS is very expensive. For instance, removing CO₂ from the flue gas of fossil fuel power plants increases costs by USD $50 - $200 per tonne of CO₂ removed.^[46] There are many other ways to reduce emissions that cost less than USD $20 per tonne of avoided CO₂ emissions.^[47] Options to reduce emissions that are typically cheaper than CSS include public transit, electric vehicles, and various other energy efficiency measures. Wind and solar power are often the lowest-cost ways to produce electricity, even when compared to power plants that do not use CCS.

Since CCS can only be used with large, stationary emission sources, it cannot reduce the emissions from burning fossil fuels in vehicles and homes. The IPCC stated in 2022 that “implementation of CCS currently faces technological, economic, institutional, ecological-environmental and socio-cultural barriers.”^[48]

Best uses for CCS

In the literature on climate change mitigation, CCS is described as a relatively feasible option in the following areas:

• Heavy Industry: CCS is one of the few few available technologies that can significantly reduce emissions associated with the production of steel, cement, and various chemicals. The CO₂ emissions from these processes come from chemical reactions, in addition to emissions from burning fuels for heat. Cleaner industrial processes are in development but are far from being widely-deployed.
• Retrofits: CCS can be retrofitted to existing coal and natural gas power plants and industrial facilities to enable the continued operation of existing plants while reducing their emissions.
• Natural gas processing: CCUS is the only solution to reduce the CO₂ emissions from natural gas processing. Lowering emissions associated with production does not reduce the emissions from the gas when it is ultimately combusted.^[49]
• Hydrogen:  Nearly all hydrogen today is produced from natural gas or coal. Facilities can incorporate CCS to capture the CO₂ released in these processes.  
• Complement to renewable electricity: Although solar and wind energy are typically cheaper, power plants that burn natural gas, biomass, or coal have the advantage of being able to produce electricity in any season and any time of day, and can be dispatched at times of high demand. A small amount of power plant capacity can help to meet the growing need for system flexibility as the share of wind and solar increases. The potential for a robust power grid using 100% renewable energy has been modelled as a feasible option for many regions, which would make fossil CCS in the electricity sector unnecessary.^[50]
• Synthetic fuel production: According to the IEA, a supply of CO₂ is needed to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, which alongside biofuels are the only practical alternative to fossil fuels for long-haul flights. Limitations on the availability of sustainable biomass mean that these synthetic fuels will be needed for net-zero emissions; the CO₂ would need to come from bioenergy production or direct air capture to be carbon-neutral.
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

CO₂ capture

See also: Carbon dioxide scrubber, Coal pollution mitigation and Amine gas treating.

Capturing CO₂ is most cost-effective at point sources, such as large fossil fuel-based energy facilities, industries with major CO₂ emissions (e.g. cement production, steelmaking^[51]), natural gas processing, synthetic fuel plants and fossil fuel-based hydrogen production plants. Extracting CO₂ from air is possible,^[52] although the lower concentration of CO₂ in air compared to combustion sources complicates the engineering and makes the process therefore more expensive.^[53] The net storage efficiency of carbon capture projects is maximally 6–56%.^[54] About two thirds of CCS cost is attributed to capture. Optimizing capture would significantly increase CCS feasibility since the transport and storage steps of CCS are rather mature.^[55]

Impurities in CO₂ 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 CO₂ impurities exist, especially with air capture, a scrubbing separation process is needed to initially clean the flue gas.^[56]

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.^[57] There are three ways that this capturing can be carried out: post-combustion capture, pre-combustion capture, and oxy-combustion:^[58]

• In post combustion capture, the CO₂ is removed after combustion of the fossil fuel—this is the scheme that would apply to fossil-fuel power plants. CO₂ is captured from flue gases 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.^[59]
• The technology for pre-combustion is widely applied in fertilizer, chemical, gaseous fuel (H₂, CH₄), and power production.^[60] In these cases, the fossil fuel is partially oxidized, for instance in a gasifier. The CO from the resulting syngas (CO and H₂) reacts with added steam (H₂O) and is shifted into CO₂ and H₂. The resulting CO₂ can be captured from a relatively pure exhaust stream. The H₂ can be used as fuel; the CO₂ is removed before combustion. Several advantages and disadvantages apply versus post combustion capture.^{[61] [62]} The CO₂ 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 CO₂ capture processes, at the same scale as required for power plants.^{[63] [64]}
• In oxy-fuel combustion^[65] 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 CO₂ and water vapor, the latter of which is condensed through cooling. The result is an almost pure CO₂ stream. Power plant processes based on oxyfuel combustion are sometimes referred to as "zero emission" cycles, because the CO₂ 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 CO₂ 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.

Absorption, or carbon scrubbing with amines is the dominant capture technology. It is the only carbon capture technology so far that has been used industrially.^[66] Other technologies proposed for carbon capture are membrane gas separation, chemical looping combustion, calcium looping, and use of metal-organic frameworks:^{[67] [68] [69]}

After the has been captured, it is usually compressed into a supercritical fluid. The 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 is an energy intensive procedure that involves multi-stage complex compressors and a power-generated cooling process.^[70]

CO₂ transport

Pipelines are the cheapest way of transporting CO2 in large quantities onshore and, depending on the distance and volumes, offshore. Transport via ship has been researched. CO2 can also be transported by truck or rail, albeit at higher cost per tonne of CO2. There is already an extensive onshore CO2 pipeline network in North America, with a combined length of more than 8000 km, mostly in the United States. There are also two CO2 pipeline systems in Europe and two in the Middle East.

Transmission pipelines may leak or rupture. A severed 19" pipeline section 8 km long could release its 1,300 tonnes in about 3–4 min.^[71] In 2020 a CO2-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.^{[72] [73]}

Pipelines can be fitted with remotely controlled valves that can limit the release quantity to one pipe section, however, operators in the United States have not been required to retrofit older pipes because of the nonapplication clause found at 49 U.S.C. § 60104(b), which prohibits the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) from promulgating regulations to existing facilities. The US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the agency in charge of pipeline safety, is a notoriously underfunded and understaffed agency.^[74]

CO₂ sequestration (storage)

Storing CO₂ involves the injection of captured CO₂ into a deep underground geological reservoir of porous rock overlaid by an impermeable layer of rocks, which seals the reservoir and prevents the upward migration of CO₂ and escape into the atmosphere.^[75] The gas is usually compressed first into a supercritical fluid. When the compressed CO₂ is injected into a reservoir, it flows through it, filling the pore space. The reservoir must be at depths greater than 800 metres to retain the CO₂ in a dense liquid state.

The global capacity for underground CO₂ storage is potentially very large and is unlikely to be a constraint on the development of CCS.^[76] Total storage capacity has been estimated at between 8 000 and 55 000 gigatonnes. However, a smaller fraction will most likely prove to be technically or commercially feasible. Global capacity estimates are uncertain, particularly for saline aquifers where more site characterization and exploration is still needed.

Enhanced oil recovery

See main article: Enhanced oil recovery. As of 2022, around 73% of the CO₂ captured annually is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).^[77] In EOR, CO₂ is injected into partially depleted oil fields to enhance production. This increases the overall reservoir pressure and improves the mobility of the oil, resulting in a higher flow of oil towards the production wells.^[78]

There is controversy over whether carbon capture followed by EOR is beneficial for the climate. When the oil that is extracted using EOR is subsequently burned, CO₂ is released. If these emissions are included in calculations, carbon capture with EOR is usually found to increase overall emissions compared to not using carbon capture at all. If the emissions from burning extracted oil are excluded from calculations, carbon capture with EOR is found to decrease emissions. In arguments for excluding these emissions, it is assumed that oil produced by EOR displaces conventionally-produced oil instead of adding to the global consumption of oil. A 2020 review found that scientific papers were roughly evenly split on the question of whether carbon capture with EOR increased or decreased emissions.

Other geologic storage options

Some CCS operations store captured CO₂ in deep saline aquifiers. These are layers of porous and permeable rocks saturated with salty water.^[79] Worldwide, saline formations have higher potential storage capacity than depleted oil wells.^[80] Dedicated geologic storage is generally less expensive than EOR because it does not require a high level of CO₂ purity and because suitable sites are more numerous, which means pipelines can be shorter.^[81]

Various other types of reservoirs for storing captured CO₂ are being researched or piloted as of 2021: CO₂ could be injected into coal beds for enhanced coal bed methane recovery.^[82] Ex-situ mineral carbonation involves reacting CO₂ with mine tailings or alkaline industrial waste to form stable minerals such as calcium carbonate.^[83] In-situ mineral carbonation involves injecting CO₂ and water into underground formations that are rich in highly-reactive rocks such as basalt. There, the CO₂ forms stable carbonate minerals relatively quickly.^[84] Once the mineral carbonation process is complete, there is no risk of CO₂ leakage.^[85]

Leakage risks during storage

Long-term retention

In geologic storage, the CO₂ is held within the reservoir through several trapping mechanisms: structural trapping by the caprock seal, solubility trapping in pore space water, residual trapping in individual or groups of pores, and mineral trapping by reacting with the reservoir rocks to form carbonate minerals. Mineral trapping progresses over time but is extremely slow.^[86] Once injected, the CO₂ plume tends to rise since it is less dense than its surroundings. Once it encounters a caprock, it will spread laterally until it encounters a gap. If there are fault planes near the injection zone, there is a possibility the CO₂ could migrate along the fault to the surface, leaking into the atmosphere, which would be potentially dangerous to life in the surrounding area. Another risk related to carbon sequestration is induced seismicity. If the injection of CO₂ creates pressures underground that are too high, the formation will fracture, potentially causing an earthquake.^[87]

The 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.^[88] However, this finding is contested given the lack of experience.^{[89] [90]} CO₂ 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.^[91]

In March 2009, the national Norwegian oil company StatoilHydro (later renamed Equinor) issued a study documenting the slow spread of CO₂ in the Sleipner field formation after more than 10 years operation.^[92]

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 CO₂ releases present asphyxiation risks. For example, in the 1953 Menzengraben mining accident, several thousand tonnes were released and asphyxiated a person 300 meters away. Malfunction of a CO₂ industrial fire suppression system in a large warehouse released 50 t CO₂ after which 14 people collapsed on the nearby public road.

Cost

Cost is a significant factor affecting CCS. The cost of CCS, plus any subsidies, must be less than the expected cost of emitting CO₂ 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.^{[93] [94]} 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 CO₂, while the remaining 10% comes from pumps and fans.^[95] CCS would increase the fuel requirement of a gas plant with CCS by about 15%.^[96] 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,^[97] including China,^[98] in part because revenue from enhanced oil recovery collapsed with the 2020 oil price collapse.^[99] A carbon price of at least 100 euros per tonne CO₂ is estimated to be needed to make industrial CCS viable,^[100] together with carbon tariffs.^[101] But, as of mid-2022, the EU Allowance had never reached that price, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism had not yet been implemented.^[102] However, a company making small modules claims it can get well below that price by mass production by 2022.^[103]

Social and environmental impacts

Since liquid amine solutions are used to capture CO₂ in many CCS systems, these types of chemicals can also be released as air pollutants if not adequately controlled. Among the chemicals of concern are volatile nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic when inhaled or drunk in water.^[104] CCS systems also reduce the efficiency of the power plants that use them to control CO_2. 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%.^[105] Using CCS for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants can decrease operating efficiency from 11 to 22%. 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.^[106] CCS technology also has operational impacts. These impacts increase as the capacity factor decreases (the plant is used less - for example only for times of highest demand or in emergencies).^[6]

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 flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems for sulfur dioxide control require proportionally greater amounts of limestone, and systems equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems for nitrogen oxides produced during combustion require proportionally greater amounts of ammonia.

Analysis of IPCC modeling work shows that mitigation strategies that rely less on CCS would bring about localized, near-term benefits from reduced air and water pollution, human rights violations, and biodiversity loss.^[107]

Zoback and Gorelick (2012) identified the need for further study into how low to moderate intensity seismic events can impact the seal integrity of any prospective reservoirs for geologic carbon storage. Induced seismicity due to wastewater injection is widely documented; however these discussions are typically not in the context of nearby CCS storage sites. This prompts the need for a greater understanding of the risks of local and regional seismic impacts of storage integrity over time.^[108]

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.^[109] The dominant monitoring technique is seismic imaging, where vibrations are generated that propagate through the subsurface. The geologic structure can be imaged from the refracted/reflected waves.

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.^[110]

Seismic

Seismic monitoring is a type of indirect monitoring. It is done by creating seismic waves either at the surface using a seismic vibrator, or inside a well using a 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.^[111] It can identify migration pathways of the CO₂ plume.^[112]

Examples of seismic monitoring of geological sequestration are the Sleipner sequestration project, the Frio CO₂ injection test and the CO2CRC Otway Project.^[113] Seismic monitoring can confirm the presence of CO₂ 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 CO₂ is injected into an existing oil or gas field, either for EOR, pressure support or storage. Tracers and methodologies are compatible with CO₂ – and at the same time unique and distinguishable from the CO₂ 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 CO₂ 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 CO₂ in CCS projects. Tracers can therefore be an aid in CCS projects by acting as an assurance that CO₂ 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,^[114] the Netherlands^[115] and Norway (Snøhvit).

Surface

Eddy covariance is a surface monitoring technique that measures the flux of CO₂ from the ground's surface. It involves measuring CO₂ concentrations as well as vertical wind velocities using an anemometer.^[116] This provides a measure of the vertical CO₂ 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.^[117] 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. 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.^[118] CO₂ 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 CO₂, the ground's surface often rises due to the high pressures. These changes correspond to a measurable change in the distance from the satellite.

Society and culture

Social acceptance

In a 2011 publication it was suggested that people who were already affected by climate change, such as drought,tended to be more supportive of CCS.^[119] As of 2014, multiple studies indicated that risk-benefit perception were the most essential components of social acceptance.^[120]

In 2021, it was suggested that risk perception was mostly related to concerns on safety issues in terms of hazards from its operations and the possibility of CO₂ leakage, which may endanger communities, commodities, and the environment in the vicinity of the infrastructure.^[121] Other perceived risks relate to tourism and property values. as of 2011, CCS public perceptions appeared among other controversial technologies to tackle climate change such as nuclear power, wind, and geoengineering^[122]

Locally, communities are sensitive to economic factors, including job creation, tourism or related investment. Experience is another relevant feature: 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. Perception of CCS has a strong geographic component. Public perception can depend on the available information about pilot projects, trust in government entities and developers involved, and awareness of successes and failures of CCS projects both locally and globally. These considerations vary by country and by community.^[123]

If only considering technical feasibility, countries with no known viable storage sites may dismiss CCS as an option in national emissions reduction strategies. In contrast, countries with several, or an abundance of viable storage sites may consider CCS as essential to reducing emissions.^[124]

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, but one experimental study amongst Swiss people from 2011 found that communicating information about monitoring tended to have a negative impact on attitudes.^[125] Conversely, approval seems to be reinforced when CCS was compared to natural phenomena.

Connected to how public perception influences the success or failure of a CCS project is consideration for how decision-making processes are implemented equitably and meaningfully for "impacted communities" at all stages of the project. Public participation alone does not encompass all aspects of procedural justice needed for CCS projects to receive the "social license" to operate.^[126]

Due to the lack of knowledge, people rely on organizations that they trust. In general, non-governmental organizations and researchers experience higher trust than stakeholders and governments. As of 2009 Opinions amongst NGOs were mixed.^{[127] [128]} Moreover, the link between trust and acceptance was at best indirect. Instead, trust had an influence on the perception of risks and benefits.

CCS is embraced by the Shallow ecology worldview,^[129] 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 techno-optimists.

CCS is an "end-of-pipe" solution^[120] which reduces atmospheric CO₂, that can be used alongside minimizing the use of fossil fuel.^[129]

Political debate

CCS has been discussed by political actors at least since the start of the UNFCCC^[130] negotiations in the beginning of the 1990s, and remains a very divisive issue.^[131] Its effectiveness in reducing emissions has been disputed, notably when considering the life-cycle carbon emissions it takes to create CCS systems.

Some environmental groups raised concerns over leakage given the long storage time required, comparing CCS to storing radioactive waste from nuclear power stations.^[132]

Other controversies arose from the use of CCS by policy makers as a tool to fight climate change. In the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report in 2022, most pathways to keep the increase of global temperature below 2 °C include the use of negative emission technologies (NETs).^[133]

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 "greenwash" itself by funding and engaging in things such as tree planting campaigns without significantly cutting their carbon emissions.^{[134] [16]}

A review of studies by the Stanford Solutions Project concluded that relying on Carbon capture and storage/utilization (CCS/U) is a dangerous distraction, with it (in most and large-scale cases) being expensive, increasing air pollution and mining, inefficient and unlikely to be deployable at the scale required in time.^[135]

Government programs

In the US, a number of laws and rules have been issued to either support or require the use of CCS technologies. 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 . Hundreds of millions more are dedicated annually to loan guarantees supporting transport infrastructure.^[20] 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 capture and storage in saline geologic formations from industrial and power plants. Incentives for capture and utilization from these plants are $60/tonne. Thresholds for the total amount of needing to be captured are also lower, and so more facilities will be able to make use of the credits.^[21] Within the US, although the federal government may fully or partially fund CCS pilot projects, local or community jurisdictions would likely administer CCS project siting and construction.^[136]

In September 2020, the US Department of Energy awarded $72 million in federal funding to support the development and advancement of carbon capture technologies.^[137]

In 2023 the US EPA issued a rule proposing that CCS be required in order to achieve a 90% emission reduction for existing coal-fired and natural gas power plants. That rule would become effective in the 2035-2040 time period.^[138] 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. 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.^[139]

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.^[22] 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 per year by 2030.^[23]

Carbon emission status-quo

Opponents claimed that CCS could legitimize the continued use of fossil fuels, as well obviate commitments on emission reduction.

Some examples such as in 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 CO₂ tax in 1991.^[140]

Maintaining the use of fossil fuels as the energy status quo extends beyond the climate impacts of their emissions. Implementing CCS to capture carbon emissions from an industrial point source can also enable the negative environmental or social impacts "upstream" of a storage site. This is particularly evident where energy resources lie in or near areas home to indigenous communities, such as the regions overlying the Bakken Formation or the Athabasca Oil Sands. Power imbalances persist between the extractive industry corporations, state, provincial, or federal governments, and the "host" communities. As a result, the impacted populations are often displaced or criminalized when seeking to defend their ancestral lands from ecological harm (see Resource Extraction in Environmental Justice).^[141]

Another aspect of CCS that could concern project opponents is that projects only remove carbon dioxide from flue gas. Particulate matter and other toxic gas emissions would continue, which is of particular concern in places in the US where industries are in poor and/or minority communities. In many cases, CCS would not markedly improve the public or environmental health of these communities.^[142]

Because CCS is an "end of pipe" technology, part of the key to its viability as a climate change solution stems from holistically evaluating the sustainability of the energy resource pipeline tied to a project.

The communities targeted for hosting CCS projects may meet the geologic and technical siting criteria; however, non-technical social characterizations are equally important factors in the success of an individual project and the global deployment of this technology. Failing to provide meaningful engagement with local communities can drive resistance to CCS projects and enable feelings of mistrust and injustice from project developers and supporting government entities.^[143]

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 CO₂ emissions or just perpetuate the use of fossil fuels.^[144]

For instance, Greenpeace is strongly against CCS. According to the organization, the use of the technology will keep the world dependent on fossil fuels.^[145]

On the other hand, BECCS is used in some IPCC scenarios to help meet mitigation targets.^[146] Adopting the IPCC argument that CO₂ emissions need to be reduced by 2050 to avoid dramatic consequences, the Bellona Foundation justified CCS as a mitigation action.^[145] They claimed fossil fuels are unavoidable for the near term and consequently, CCS is the quickest way to reduce CO₂ emissions.

Related concepts

CO₂ utilization in products

While nearly all utilization of CO₂ is for enhanced oil recovery, CO₂ can be used as a feedstock for making various types of products. As of 2022, usage in products consumes around 1% of the CO₂ captured each year.^[147] As of 2023, it is commercially feasible to produce the following products from captured CO_2: methanol, urea, polycarbonates, polyols, polyurethane, and salicylic acids.^[148] Methanol is currently primarily used to produce other chemicals, with potential for more widespread future use as a fuel.^[149] Urea is used in the production of fertilizers.^[150]

Technologies for sequestering CO₂ in mineral carbonate products have been demonstrated, but are not ready for commercial deployment as of 2023. Research is ongoing into processes to incorporate CO₂ into concrete or building aggregate. The utilization of CO₂ in construction materials holds promise for deployment at large scale,^[151] and is the only foreseeable CO₂ use that is permanent enough to qualify as storage.^[152] Other potential uses for captured CO₂ that are being researched include the creation of synthetic fuels, various chemicals and plastics, and the cultivation of algae. The production of fuels and chemicals from CO₂ is highly energy-intensive.

Capturing CO₂ for use in products does not necessarily reduce emissions. The climate benefits associated with CO₂ use primarily arise from displacing products that have higher life-cycle emissions. The amount of climate benefit varies depending on how long the product lasts before it re-releases the CO₂, the amount and source of energy used in production, whether the product would otherwise be produced using fossil fuels, and the source of the captured CO2. Higher emissions reductions are achieved if CO₂ is captured from bioenergy as opposed to fossil fuels.

The potential for CO₂ utilization in products is small compared to the total volume of CO₂ that could foreseeably be captured. For instance, in the International Energy Agency (IEA) scenario for achieving net zero emissions by 2050, over 95% of captured CO₂ is geologically sequestered and less than 5% is used in products. According to the IEA, products created from captured CO₂ are likely to cost a lot more than conventional and alternative low-carbon products.

Direct air carbon capture and sequestration (DACCS)

See also

• List of carbon capture and storage projects
• Timeline of carbon capture and storage
• Carbon sink
• Carbon storage in the North Sea
• Climate engineering
• Greenwashing
• Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources
• Low-carbon economy
• Methane pyrolysis
• Oceanic carbon cycle
• Solid sorbents for carbon capture

External links

• • Timeline
• DOE Fossil Energy Department of Energy programs in CO₂ capture and storage
• US Department of Energy
• US Gulf coast
• Zero Emissions Platform - technical adviser to the EU Commission on the deployment of CCS and CCU
• National Assessment of Geologic CO₂ Storage Resources: Results United States Geological Survey
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT

Notes and References

1. IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
2. Web site: Metz. Bert. Davidson. Ogunlade. De Conink. Heleen. Loos. Manuela. Meyer. Leo. March 2018 . IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage . 16 August 2023 . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press.
3. Book: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7991-9_37 . Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions with CO2 Capture and Geological Storage . Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation . 2012 . Ketzer . J. Marcelo . Iglesias . Rodrigo S. . Einloft . Sandra . 1405–1440 . 978-1-4419-7990-2 .
4. Web site: Westervelt . Amy . 2024-07-29 . Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution — and swindled taxpayers out of billions . 2024-07-30 . Vox . en-US.
5. IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, A. Reisinger, R. Slade, R. Fradera, M. Pathak, A. Al Khourdajie, M. Belkacemi, R. van Diemen, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, D. McCollum, S. Some, P. Vyas, (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.001.
6. Web site: The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned . 2022-10-01 . ieefa.org . en.
7. A Moseman, 'How efficient is carbon capture and storage?' (21 February 2021) MIT Climate Portal
8. A Vaughan, 'Most major carbon capture and storage projects haven't met targets' (1 September 2022) New Scientist
9. Phelps . Jack J.C. . Blackford . Jerry C. . Holt . Jason T. . Polton . Jeff A. . Modelling large-scale leakages in the North Sea . International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control . July 2015 . 38 . 210–220 . 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.013 . 2015IJGGC..38..210P . free .
10. Web site: Climatewire . Christa Marshall . Can Stored Carbon Dioxide Leak? . 20 May 2022 . Scientific American . en.
11. Vinca . Adriano . Emmerling . Johannes . Tavoni . Massimo . 2018 . Bearing the Cost of Stored Carbon Leakage . Frontiers in Energy Research . 6 . 10.3389/fenrg.2018.00040 . free . 11311/1099985 . free .
12. Alcalde . Juan . Flude . Stephanie . Wilkinson . Mark . Johnson . Gareth . Edlmann . Katriona . Bond . Clare E. . Scott . Vivian . Gilfillan . Stuart M. V. . Ogaya . Xènia . Haszeldine . R. Stuart . 12 June 2018 . Estimating geological CO₂ storage security to deliver on climate mitigation . Nature Communications . en . 9 . 1 . 2201 . 10.1038/s41467-018-04423-1 . 29895846 . 5997736 . 2018NatCo...9.2201A . 48354961 .
13. Web site: Alcade . Juan . Flude . Stephanie . Carbon capture and storage has stalled needlessly – three reasons why fears of CO₂ leakage are overblown . 20 May 2022 . The Conversation . 4 March 2020 . en.
14. Sekera . June . Lichtenberger . Andreas . 6 October 2020 . Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need: A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal . Biophysical Economics and Sustainability . 5 . 3 . 14 . 10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5 . free. 2020BpES....5...14S .
15. Web site: Ghilotti . Davide . 2022-09-26 . High carbon prices spurring Europe's CCS drive Upstream Online . 2022-10-01 . Upstream Online Latest oil and gas news . en.
16. Stone . Maddie . 2019-09-16 . Why Are Progressives Wary of Technologies That Pull Carbon From the Air? . live . Rolling Stone . en-US . https://web.archive.org/web/20210428074255/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/carbon-capture-technologies-2020-election-candidates-policies-884956/ . April 28, 2021 . 2021-04-28.
17. Web site: 6 August 2023 . 'Pioneering' CO2 storage projects could have leaked . 16 August 2023 . The Ferret . 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..
18. Alexander, Chloe; Stanley, Anna (2022-12). "The colonialism of carbon capture and storage in Alberta's Tar Sands". Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. 5 (4): 2112–2131. doi:10.1177/25148486211052875. ISSN 2514-8486.
19. McLaren, D.P., 2012, Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage, Energy & Environment, Vol. 23, No. 2 & 3, p. 345-365, https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.345
20. Web site: 2022-01-05 . Biden's Infrastructure Law: Energy & Sustainability Implications Mintz . 2023-09-21 . www.mintz.com . en.
21. Web site: Carbon Capture Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 . 2023-09-21 . Clean Air Task Force . en.
22. Web site: 2022 Status Report . 2023-09-21 . Global CCS Institute . Page 6 . en-AU.
23. Web site: April 2023 . CCUS Net Zero Investment Roadmap . September 21, 2023 . HM Government.
24. IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
25. Olfe-Kräutlein . Barbara . Armstrong . Katy . Mutchek . Michele . Cremonese . Lorenzo . Sick . Volker . 2022-05-30 . Why Terminology Matters for Successful Rollout of Carbon Dioxide Utilization Technologies . Frontiers in Climate . English . 4 . 10.3389/fclim.2022.830660 . free . 2624-9553.
26. Baena-Moreno . Francisco M. . Rodríguez-Galán . Mónica . Vega . Fernando . Alonso-Fariñas . Bernabé . Vilches Arenas . Luis F. . Navarrete . Benito . 2019-06-18 . Carbon capture and utilization technologies: a literature review and recent advances . Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects . 41 . 12 . 1403–1433 . 10.1080/15567036.2018.1548518 . 1556-7036.
27. Web site: Robertson . Bruce . Mousavian . Milad . September 1, 2022 . The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned . 2024-06-27 . Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis . 10.
28. Sekera . June . Lichtenberger . Andreas . 6 October 2020 . Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need: A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal . Biophysical Economics and Sustainability . 5 . 3 . 14 . 10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5 . free . 2020BpES....5...14S .
29. Web site: Robertson . Bruce . Mousavian . Milad . September 1, 2022 . The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned . 2024-06-27 . Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis . 10.
30. Martin-Roberts . Emma . Scott . Vivian . Flude . Stephanie . Johnson . Gareth . Haszeldine . R. Stuart . Gilfillan . Stuart . November 2021 . Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade . One Earth . 4 . 11 . 1645–1646 . 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.023 . 2021OEart...4.1645M . 2590-3322 . 2024-06-21. 20.500.11820/45b9f880-71e1-4b24-84fd-b14a80d016f3 . free .
31. Web site: CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System . 2024-06-27 . IEA . en-GB.
32. IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
33. Rochelle . Gary T. . 2009-09-25 . Amine Scrubbing for CO 2 Capture . Science . en . 325 . 5948 . 1652–1654 . 10.1126/science.1176731 . 19779188 . 0036-8075.
34. IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
35. Web site: United States Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management . Enhanced Oil Recovery . August 9, 2024.
36. Ma . Jinfeng . Li . Lin . Wang . Haofan . Du . Yi . Ma . Junjie . Zhang . Xiaoli . Wang . Zhenliang . July 2022 . Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead . Engineering . 14 . 33–43 . 2022Engin..14...33M . 10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024 . 247416947.
37. On geoengineering and the CO2 problem . 10.1007/BF00162777 . 1977 . Marchetti . Cesare . Climatic Change . 1 . 1 . 59–68 . 1977ClCh....1...59M .
38. Wang . Nan . Akimoto . Keigo . Nemet . Gregory F. . 2021-11-01 . What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects . Energy Policy . 158 . 112546 . 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112546 . 2021EnPol.15812546W . 0301-4215 . 2024-06-24.
39. News: Natter . Ari . 4 February 2015 . DOE Suspends $1 Billion in FutureGen Funds, Killing Carbon Capture Demonstration Project . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20150212031152/http://www.bna.com/doe-suspends-billion-n17179922773/ . 12 February 2015 . 10 February 2015 . Energy and Climate Report . Bloomberg BNA.
40. The FutureGen Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project: A Brief History and Issues for Congress . Folger . Peter . 10 Feb 2014 . Congressional Research Service . 21 July 2014.
41. Web site: Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage - Energy System . 2024-08-10 . IEA . en-GB.
42. Web site: Global Status Report . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20210113024246/https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/ . 13 January 2021 . 31 May 2021 . Global CCS Institute . en-AU.
43. Web site: 17 March 2021 . Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage: Effects on Climate Change . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20210602213844/https://actionaidrecycling.org.uk/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage-effects-on-climate-change/ . 2 June 2021 . 31 May 2021 . actionaidrecycling.org.uk.
44. Book: Arias . Paola A. . Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Bellouin . Nicolas . Coppola . Erika . Jones . Richard G. . 2021 . Technical Summary . etal . https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS.pdf.
45. IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
46. Book: IPCC . IPCC . Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change . Cambridge University Press (In Press) . 2022 . Shukla . P.R. . Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA . 10.1017/9781009157926 . 978-1-009-15792-6 . . Skea . J. . Slade . R. . Al Khourdajie . A. . van Diemen . R. . McCollum . D. . Pathak . M. . Some . S. . Vyas . P. . 4 . R. . Fradera . M. . Belkacemi . A. . Hasija . G. . Lisboa . S. . Luz . J. . Malley.
47. Schumer . Clea . Boehm . Sophie . Fransen . Taryn . Hausker . Karl . Dellesky . Carrie . 2022-04-04 . 6 Takeaways from the 2022 IPCC Climate Change Mitigation Report . World Resources Institute . en.
48. Book: IPCC . IPCC . Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change . Cambridge University Press (In Press) . 2022 . Shukla . P.R. . Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA . 10.1017/9781009157926 . 978-1-009-15792-6 . . Skea . J. . Slade . R. . Al Khourdajie . A. . van Diemen . R. . McCollum . D. . Pathak . M. . Some . S. . Vyas . P. . 4 . R. . Fradera . M. . Belkacemi . A. . Hasija . G. . Lisboa . S. . Luz . J. . Malley.
49. Web site: Lebling . Katie . Gangotra . Ankita . Hausker . Karl . Byrum . Zachary . 2023-11-13 . 7 Things to Know About Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration . . en. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
50. Breyer . Christian . Khalili . Siavash . Bogdanov . Dmitrii . Ram . Manish . Oyewo . Ayobami Solomon . Aghahosseini . Arman . Gulagi . Ashish . Solomon . A. A. . Keiner . Dominik . Lopez . Gabriel . Østergaard . Poul Alberg . Lund . Henrik . Mathiesen . Brian V. . Jacobson . Mark Z. . Victoria . Marta . 2022 . On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research . IEEE Access . 10 . 78176–78218 . 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3193402 . 2022IEEEA..1078176B . 2169-3536.
51. De Ras . Kevin . Van de Vijver . Ruben . Galvita . Vladimir V . Marin . Guy B . Van Geem . Kevin M . Carbon capture and utilization in the steel industry: challenges and opportunities for chemical engineering . Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering . 1 December 2019 . 26 . 81–87 . 10.1016/j.coche.2019.09.001 . 2019COCE...26...81D . 1854/LU-8635595 . 210619173 . free .
52. Web site: Capturing CO₂ From Air . 29 March 2011 . 5 March 2016 . https://web.archive.org/web/20160305101315/http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf . dead .
53. Web site: May 2018 . Direct Air Capture Technology (Technology Fact Sheet), Geoengineering Monitor . 1 July 2018 . 26 August 2019 . https://web.archive.org/web/20190826112625/http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/05/direct-air-capture/ . dead .
54. Farajzadeh . R. . Eftekhari . A.A. . Dafnomilis . G. . Lake . L.W. . Bruining . J. . On the sustainability of CO2 storage through CO2 – Enhanced oil recovery . Applied Energy . March 2020 . 261 . 114467 . 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114467 .
55. McDonald . Thomas M. . Mason . Jarad A. . Kong . Xueqian . Bloch . Eric D. . Gygi . David . Dani . Alessandro . Crocellà . Valentina . Giordanino . Filippo . Odoh . Samuel O. . Drisdell . Walter S. . Vlaisavljevich . Bess . Dzubak . Allison L. . Poloni . Roberta . Schnell . Sondre K. . Planas . Nora . 11 March 2015 . Cooperative insertion of CO₂ in diamine-appended metal-organic frameworks . Nature . 519 . 7543 . 303–308 . 2015Natur.519..303M . 10.1038/nature14327 . 25762144 . 4447122 . free . Lee . Kyuho . Pascal . Tod . Wan . Liwen F. . Prendergast . David . Neaton . Jeffrey B. . Smit . Berend . Kortright . Jeffrey B. . Gagliardi . Laura . Bordiga . Silvia . Reimer . Jeffrey A. . Long . Jeffrey R. . 11250/2458220.
56. Web site: Good plant design and operation for onshore carbon capture installations and onshore pipelines - 5 CO₂ plant design. Energy Institute. 13 March 2012. 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. 15 October 2013. dead.
57. Book: 10.2316/P.2012.788-067 . Overview of Carbon Dioxide Separation Technology . Power and Energy Systems and Applications . 2012 . Badiei . Marzieh . Asim . Nilofar . Yarmo . Mohd Ambar . Jahim . Jamaliah Md . Sopian . Kamaruzzaman . 978-0-88986-939-4 .
58. Kanniche . Mohamed . Gros-Bonnivard . René . Jaud . Philippe . Valle-Marcos . Jose . Amann . Jean-Marc . Bouallou . Chakib . Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for CO2 capture . Applied Thermal Engineering . January 2010 . 30 . 1 . 53–62 . 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.005 .
59. Sumida . Kenji . Rogow . David L. . Mason . Jarad A. . McDonald . Thomas M. . Bloch . Eric D. . Herm . Zoey R. . Bae . Tae-Hyun . Long . Jeffrey R. . CO₂ Capture in Metal–Organic Frameworks . Chemical Reviews . 28 December 2011 . 112 . 2 . 724–781 . 10.1021/cr2003272 . 22204561 .
60. Web site: Gasification Body . 2 April 2010 . https://web.archive.org/web/20080527234540/http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/brochures/pdfs/Gasification_Brochure.pdf . 27 May 2008 . dead.
61. Web site: (IGCC) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle for Carbon Capture & Storage . Claverton Energy Group. (conference, 24 October, Bath)
62. Web site: Carbon Capture and Storage at Imperial College London. Imperial College London. 8 November 2023 .
63. Bryngelsson . Mårten . Westermark . Mats . Feasibility study of CO₂ removal from pressurized flue gas in a fully fired combined cycle: the Sargas project . Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems . 703–10 . 2005 .
64. 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.184 . CO₂ capture pilot test at a pressurized coal fired CHP plant . 2009 . Bryngelsson . Mårten . Westermark . Mats . Energy Procedia . 1 . 1 . 1403–10. free . 2009EnPro...1.1403B .
65. 10.1109/MSPEC.2008.4428318 . Winner: Clean Coal - Restoring Coal's Sheen . 2008 . Sweet . William . IEEE Spectrum . 45 . 57–60. 27311899 .
66. Web site: Facility Data - Global CCS Institute. 17 November 2020. co2re.co.
67. Bui . Mai . Adjiman . Claire S. . Bardow . André . Anthony . Edward J. . Boston . Andy . Brown . Solomon . Fennell . Paul S. . Fuss . Sabine . Galindo . Amparo . Hackett . Leigh A. . Hallett . Jason P. . Herzog . Howard J. . Jackson . George . Kemper . Jasmin . Krevor . Samuel . 2018 . Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward . Energy & Environmental Science . 11 . 5 . 1062–1176 . 10.1039/C7EE02342A . free . free . Maitland . Geoffrey C. . Matuszewski . Michael . Metcalfe . Ian S. . Petit . Camille . Puxty . Graeme . Reimer . Jeffrey . Reiner . David M. . Rubin . Edward S. . Scott . Stuart A. . Shah . Nilay . Smit . Berend . Trusler . J. P. Martin . Webley . Paul . Wilcox . Jennifer . Mac Dowell . Niall . 10044/1/55714.
68. Jensen . Mark J. . Russell . Christopher S. . Bergeson . David . Hoeger . Christopher D. . Frankman . David J. . Bence . Christopher S. . Baxter . Larry L. . November 2015 . Prediction and validation of external cooling loop cryogenic carbon capture (CCC-ECL) for full-scale coal-fired power plant retrofit . International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control . en . 42 . 200–212 . 2015IJGGC..42..200J . 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.04.009 . free.
69. Baxter. Larry L. Baxter. Andrew. Bever. Ethan. Burt. Stephanie. Chamberlain. Skyler. Frankman. David. Hoeger. Christopher. Mansfield. Eric. Parkinson. Dallin. Sayre. Aaron. Stitt. Kyler. Cryogenic Carbon Capture Development Final/Technical Report. 28 September 2019. DOE–SES–28697, 1572908. 10.2172/1572908. 1572908. 213628936.
70. Jackson . S . Brodal . E . 2018-07-23 . A comparison of the energy consumption for CO₂ compression process alternatives . IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science . 167 . 1 . 012031 . 10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012031 . 2018E&ES..167a2031J . 149934234 . 10037/14718 . free .
71. Hedlund . Frank Huess . The extreme carbon dioxide outburst at the Menzengraben potash mine 7 July 1953 . Safety Science . March 2012 . 50 . 3 . 537–553 . 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.10.004 . 49313927 .
72. News: Dan Zegart . August 26, 2021 . The Gassing Of Satartia . Huffington Post.
73. News: Julia Simon . May 10, 2023 . A rupture that hospitalized 45 people raised questions about CO2 pipelines' safety . NPR.
74. Web site: Bill Caram . 2023-03-08 . TESTIMONY OF THE PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST, US House of Representatives . 2024-06-27 . Pipeline Safety Trust.
75. Web site: CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System . 2024-07-18 . IEA . en-GB. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
76. Web site: CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System . 2024-07-18 . IEA . en-GB. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
77. Web site: Robertson . Bruce . Mousavian . Milad . September 1, 2022 . The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned . 2024-06-27 . Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis . 10.
78. IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
79. Web site: CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System . 2024-07-18 . IEA . en-GB. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
80. Ma . Jinfeng . Li . Lin . Wang . Haofan . Du . Yi . Ma . Junjie . Zhang . Xiaoli . Wang . Zhenliang . July 2022 . Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead . Engineering . 14 . 33–43 . 2022Engin..14...33M . 10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024 . 247416947.
81. Ma . Jinfeng . Li . Lin . Wang . Haofan . Du . Yi . Ma . Junjie . Zhang . Xiaoli . Wang . Zhenliang . July 2022 . Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead . Engineering . 14 . 33–43 . 2022Engin..14...33M . 10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024 . 247416947.
82. Dziejarski . Bartosz . Krzyżyńska . Renata . Andersson . Klas . June 2023 . Current status of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the global economy: A survey of technical assessment . Fuel . 342 . 127776 . 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776 . 2023Fuel..34227776D . 0016-2361 . 2024-06-17. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
83. Snæbjörnsdóttir . Sandra Ó . Sigfússon . Bergur . Marieni . Chiara . Goldberg . David . Gislason . Sigurður R. . Oelkers . Eric H. . February 2020 . Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation . Nature Reviews Earth & Environment . 1 . 2 . 90–102 . 10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8 . 2020NRvEE...1...90S . 2662-138X . 2024-06-21.
84. Kim . Kyuhyun . Kim . Donghyun . Na . Yoonsu . Song . Youngsoo . Wang . Jihoon . December 2023 . A review of carbon mineralization mechanism during geological CO2 storage . Heliyon . 9 . 12 . e23135 . 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23135 . free . 2405-8440 . 10750052 . 38149201.
85. Web site: Making Minerals-How Growing Rocks Can Help Reduce Carbon Emissions . 31 October 2021 . www.usgs.gov.
86. Book: Ringrose, Philip . How to Store CO2 Underground: Insights from early-mover CCS Projects . Springer . 2020 . 978-3-030-33113-9 . Switzerland.
87. Smit, Berend; Reimer, Jeffrey A.; Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Bourg, Ian C. (2014). Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration. London: Imperial College Press. .
88. Web site: IPCC Special Report: CO₂ Capture and Storage Technical Summary . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20111005090148/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdf . 5 October 2011 . 5 October 2011 . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
89. Viebahn . Peter . Nitsch . Joachim . Fischedick . Manfred . Esken . Andrea . Schüwer . Dietmar . Supersberger . Nikolaus . Zuberbühler . Ulrich . Edenhofer . Ottmar . April 2007 . Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, and ecological aspects in Germany . International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control . 1 . 1 . 121–133 . 10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00024-2. 2007IJGGC...1..121V .
90. Web site: March 2013 . University of Sydney: Global warming effect of leakage from CO₂ storage .
91. Web site: Global Status of BECCS Projects 2010 - Storage Security . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20130519131259/http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-beccs-projects-2010/online/27051#storage-security . 19 May 2013 . 5 April 2012.
92. Web site: 8 March 2009 . Norway: StatoilHydro's Sleipner carbon capture and storage project proceeding successfully . 19 December 2009 . Energy-pedia.
93. Rochon, Emily et al. False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate Greenpeace, May 2008, p. 5.
94. Thorbjörnsson. Anders. Wachtmeister. Henrik. Wang. Jianliang. Höök. Mikael. April 2015. Carbon capture and coal consumption: Implications of energy penalties and large scale deployment. Energy Strategy Reviews. 7. 18–28. 10.1016/j.esr.2014.12.001. 2015EneSR...7...18T .
95. Rubin. Edward S.. Mantripragada. Hari. Marks. Aaron. Versteeg. Peter. Kitchin. John. October 2012. The outlook for improved carbon capture technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 38. 5. 630–671. 10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.003. 2012PECS...38..630R .
96. IPCC, 2005
97. Web site: Keating. Dave. 18 September 2019. 'We need this dinosaur': EU lifts veil on gas decarbonisation strategy. 27 September 2019. euractiv.com. en-GB.
98. Web site: Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization to the Rescue of Coal? Global Perspectives and Focus on China and the United States. 27 September 2019. www.ifri.org. en.
99. Web site: CCUS in Power – Analysis. 20 November 2020. IEA. en-GB.
100. Web site: 27 September 2018. Call for open debate on CCU and CCS to save industry emissions. 17 June 2019. Clean Energy Wire. en.
101. Web site: Butler. Clark. July 2020. Carbon Capture and Storage Is About Reputation, Not Economics. IEEFA.
102. News: Twidale. Susanna. 14 October 2021. Analysts raise EU carbon price forecasts as gas rally drives up coal power. en. Reuters. 1 November 2021.
103. News: 30 October 2021. Scaling Carbon Capture Might Mean Thinking Small, Not Big. en. Bloomberg.com. 1 November 2021.
104. Web site: 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. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20150923234730/http://www.ekopolitan.com/news/ccs-norway-amines-nitrosamines-and-nitramines-released-carbon-capture-proce. 23 September 2015. 19 December 2012. www.ekopolitan.com.
105. Web site: IPCC Special Report: Carbon Capture and Storage Technical Summary. IPCC. p. 27 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20131101215706/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdf . 1 November 2013 . 6 October 2013.
106. Book: TSD - GHG Mitigation Measures for Steam EGUs . Environmental Protection Agency . 2023 . Pages 43-44.
107. Achakulwisut . Ploy . Erickson . Peter . Guivarch . Céline . Schaeffer . Roberto . Brutschin . Elina . Pye . Steve . 13 September 2023 . Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions . Nature Communications . 14 . 1 . 5425 . 2023NatCo..14.5425A . 10.1038/s41467-023-41105-z . 10499994 . 37704643 . free.
108. Zoback . Mark D. . Gorelick . Steven M. . 2012-06-26 . Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . en . 109 . 26 . 10164–10168 . 2012PNAS..10910164Z . 10.1073/pnas.1202473109 . 0027-8424 . 3387039 . 22711814 . free.
109. Smit, Berend; Reimer, Jeffrey A.; Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Bourg, Ian C. (2014). Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration. London: Imperial College Press. .
110. Book: Smit . Berend . Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration . Reimer . Jeffery A. . Oldenburg . Curtis M. . Bourg . Ian C. . Imperial College Press . The Berkeley Lectures on Energy - Vol. 1.
111. 5.2 Continuous passive-seismic monitoring of CO₂ geologic sequestration projects. Biondi. Biondo. de Ridder. Sjoerd. 2013. Chang. Jason. 6 May 2016. Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Project 2013 Technical Report. 19 June 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150619235939/http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/TechReports2013/5.2_Biondi_Public_Version_2013.pdf. dead.
112. Web site: Review of Offshore Monitoring for CCS Projects. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20160603062639/http://ieaghg.org/member/49-publications/technical-reports/590-2015-02-review-of-offshore-monitoring-for-ccs-projects. 3 June 2016. 6 May 2016. IEAGHG. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme.
113. Pevzner. Roman. Urosevic. Milovan. Popik. Dmitry. Shulakova. Valeriya. Tertyshnikov. Konstantin. Caspari. Eva. Correa. Julia. Dance. Tess. Kepic. Anton. Glubokovskikh. Stanislav. Ziramov. Sasha. August 2017. 4D surface seismic tracks small supercritical CO₂ injection into the subsurface: CO2CRC Otway Project. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 63. 150–157. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.05.008. Michelle. Barry. Freifeld. Gurevich. Boris. Tom. Daley. Max. Watson. Matthias. Raab. Rajindar. Singh. Robertson. 2017IJGGC..63..150P . free.
114. Mathieson . Allan . Midgely . John . Wright . Iain . Saoula . Nabil . Ringrose . Philip . 2011 . In Salah Storage JIP: sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria . Energy Procedia . en . 4 . 3596–3603 . 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.289 . free .
115. Vandeweijer . Vincent . van der Meer . Bert . Hofstee . Cor . Mulders . Frans . D'Hoore . Daan . Graven . Hilbrand . 2011 . Monitoring the injection site: K12-B . Energy Procedia . 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies . en . 4 . 5471–5478 . 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.532 . free .
116. Madsen. Rod. Xu. Liukang. Claassen. Brent. McDermitt. Dayle. February 2009. Surface Monitoring Method for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects. Energy Procedia. 1. 1. 2161–2168. 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.281. free. 2009EnPro...1.2161M .
117. Trautz. Robert C.. Pugh. John D.. Varadharajan. Charuleka. Zheng. Liange. Bianchi. Marco. Nico. Peter S.. Spycher. Nicolas F.. Newell. Dennis L.. Esposito. Richard A.. Wu. Yuxin. Dafflon. Baptiste. 20 September 2012. Effect of Dissolved CO₂ on a Shallow Groundwater System: A Controlled Release Field Experiment. Environmental Science & Technology. 47. 1. 298–305. 10.1021/es301280t. 22950750. Hubbard. Susan S.. Birkholzer. Jens T.. 7382685 .
118. Web site: InSAR—Satellite-based technique captures overall deformation "picture". 6 May 2016. USGS Science for a Changing World. US Geological Survey.
119. Anderson. Carmel. Schirmer. Jacki. Abjorensen. Norman. August 2012. Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 17. 6. 687–706. 10.1007/s11027-011-9312-z. 2012MASGC..17..687A . 153912327.
120. L׳Orange Seigo. Selma. Dohle. Simone. Siegrist. Michael. October 2014. Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 38. 848–863. 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017. 2014RSERv..38..848L .
121. Agaton . Casper Boongaling . Application of real options in carbon capture and storage literature: Valuation techniques and research hotspots . Science of the Total Environment . November 2021 . 795 . 148683 . 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148683 . 34246146 . 2021ScTEn.79548683A . free .
122. Poumadère . Marc . Bertoldo . Raquel . Samadi . Jaleh . 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 . Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change . September 2011 . 2 . 5 . 712–727 . 10.1002/wcc.134. 153185757 .
123. Tcvetkov . Pavel . Cherepovitsyn . Alexey . Fedoseev . Sergey . December 2019 . Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview . Heliyon . 5 . 12 . e02845 . 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845 . free . 2405-8440 . 6906669 . 31867452. 2019Heliy...502845T .
124. Kainiemi . Laura . Toikka . Arho . Jarvinen . Mika . 2013-01-01 . Stakeholder Perceptions on Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies in Finland- economic, Technological, Political and Societal Uncertainties . Energy Procedia . GHGT-11 Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 18-22 November 2012, Kyoto, Japan . 37 . 7353–7360 . 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.675 . 1876-6102. free . 2013EnPro..37.7353K .
125. L'Orange Seigo . Selma . Wallquist . Lasse . Dohle . Simone . Siegrist . Michael . Communication of CCS monitoring activities may not have a reassuring effect on the public . International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control . November 2011 . 5 . 6 . 1674–1679 . 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.05.040 . 2011IJGGC...5.1674L .
126. McLaren, D.P., 2012, Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage, Energy & Environment, Vol. 23, No. 2 & 3, p. 345-365, https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.345
127. Anderson . Jason . Chiavari . Joana . Understanding and improving NGO position on CCS . Energy Procedia . February 2009 . 1 . 1 . 4811–4817 . 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.308 . free . 2009EnPro...1.4811A .
128. Wong-Parodi . Gabrielle . Ray . Isha . Farrell . Alexander E . Environmental non-government organizations' perceptions of geologic sequestration . Environmental Research Letters . April 2008 . 3 . 2 . 024007 . 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024007 . 2008ERL.....3b4007W . free .
129. Mulkens . J. . Carbon Capture and Storage in the Netherlands: protecting the growth paradigm? . Localhost . 2018 . 1874/368133 .
130. Carton . Wim . Asiyanbi . Adeniyi . Beck . Silke . Buck . Holly J. . Lund . Jens F. . Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal . WIREs Climate Change . November 2020 . 11 . 6 . 10.1002/wcc.671 . 2020WIRCC..11E.671C . free .
131. Web site: Westervelt . Amy . 2024-07-29 . Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution — and swindled taxpayers out of billions . 2024-07-30 . Vox . en-US.
132. News: Cutting Carbon: Should We Capture and Store It? . https://web.archive.org/web/20100124095650/http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1954176_1954175_1955868,00.html . dead . 24 January 2010 . Simon Robinson . 22 January 2012 . Time.
133. Web site: Hunt . Kara . 2022-04-20 . What does the latest IPCC report say about carbon capture? . 2022-10-01 . Clean Air Task Force . en.
134. News: Gardner . Timothy . Volcovici . Valerie . 2020-03-09 . Where Biden and Sanders diverge on climate change . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20210418074311/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-idUSKBN20W2FN . April 18, 2021 . 2021-04-28 . Reuters . en.
135. Web site: Project . Stanford Solutions . 21 May 2022 . Why not Carbon Capture? . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20221010101911/http://medium.com/@stanfordsolutionsproject/why-not-carbon-capture-b8bdd03f977c . October 10, 2022 . 8 June 2022 . Medium . en.
136. Oltra . Christian . Upham . Paul . Riesch . Hauke . Boso . Àlex . Brunsting . Suzanne . Dütschke . Elisabeth . Lis . Aleksandra . May 2012 . Public Responses to Co 2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases . Energy & Environment . en . 23 . 2–3 . 227–248 . 2012EnEnv..23..227O . 10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.227 . 0958-305X . 53392027.
137. Web site: Department of Energy Invests $72 Million in Carbon Capture Technologies . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20201127110907/https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-invests-72-million-carbon-capture-technologies . November 27, 2020 . 2020-12-16 . Energy.gov . en.
138. Web site: Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel Fired Power Plants Proposed Rule . September 20, 2023 . EPA.
139. Web site: Environmental Protection Agency . May 23, 2023 . 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 . September 20, 2023 . Federal Register . Page 333447.
140. Røttereng . Jo-Kristian S. . When climate policy meets foreign policy: Pioneering and national interest in Norway's mitigation strategy . Energy Research & Social Science . May 2018 . 39 . 216–225 . 10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.024 . 2018ERSS...39..216R .
141. Malin, S. Ryder, S., Lyra, M.G., 2019, Environmental justice and natural resource extraction: intersections of power, equity and access, Environmental Sociology, Vol. 5, Issue 2, p. 109-116, https://doi.org/10.1080.2351042.2019.1608420
142. White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 2021, Executive Order 12898 Revisions: Interim Final Recommendations, Council on Environmental Quality, https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2021/05/17/document_ew_01.pdf
143. Web site: Drugmand . Dana . 2023-11-06 . The Carbon Capture Sector's Community-Involvement Rhetoric Doesn't Match Reality . 2024-03-11 . DeSmog . en-US.
144. Corry. Olaf. Reiner. David. 2011. Evaluating global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) communication materials: A survey of global CCS communications. CSIRO. 1–46. Global CCS Institute.
145. Book: Corry. Olaf. The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS Representations, Governance and Innovation. Riesch. Hauke. 2012. Routledge. 978-1-84971-315-3. Markusson. Nils. 91–110. Beyond 'For Or Against': Environmental NGO-evaluations of CCS as a climate change solution. Shackley. Simon. Evar. Benjamin. https://books.google.com/books?id=NvRNqpzMrwMC&pg=PA91.
146. Web site: Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 °C. 1 June 2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20190531192512/https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/. 31 May 2019. dead.
147. Martin-Roberts . Emma . Scott . Vivian . Flude . Stephanie . Johnson . Gareth . Haszeldine . R. Stuart . Gilfillan . Stuart . November 2021 . Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade . One Earth . 4 . 11 . 1645–1646 . 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.023 . 2021OEart...4.1645M . 2590-3322 . 2024-06-21 . free . 20.500.11820/45b9f880-71e1-4b24-84fd-b14a80d016f3.
148. Dziejarski . Bartosz . Krzyżyńska . Renata . Andersson . Klas . June 2023 . Current status of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the global economy: A survey of technical assessment . Fuel . 342 . 127776 . 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776 . 0016-2361 . free . 2023Fuel..34227776D . Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
149. Kim . Changsoo . Yoo . Chun-Jae . Oh . Hyung-Suk . Min . Byoung Koun . Lee . Ung . November 2022 . Review of carbon dioxide utilization technologies and their potential for industrial application . Journal of CO2 Utilization . 65 . 102239 . 10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102239 . 2212-9820. free . 2022JCOU...6502239K .
150. IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
151. Li . Ning . Mo . Liwu . Unluer . Cise . November 2022 . Emerging CO2 utilization technologies for construction materials: A review . Journal of CO2 Utilization . 65 . 102237 . 10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102237 . 2212-9820. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
152. Web site: CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System . 2024-07-18 . IEA . en-GB. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License