Carbon capture and storage (CCS) - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Martijn Klinkhamer, Luis Guillermo Lopez Hernandez
Edited by: –
Last updated: May 17, 2026

Executive summary

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) reduces climate impacts by capturing CO₂ from large emission sources, transporting it, and storing it permanently or for long durations. Organizations consider CCS most relevant where process emissions are hard to eliminate, such as cement, steel, chemicals, and hydrogen production.

CCS systems typically include three stages: capture (separating CO₂ from industrial or power-plant streams), transport (usually via pipelines, but sometimes ships or other modes), and storage (injecting CO₂ into suitable geological formations). Alternatives and complements to conventional geologic storage include mineralization (in-situ or ex-situ) and carbon utilization pathways that convert CO₂ into products such as fuels, fertilizers, or industrial minerals.

Economics remain the primary barrier to scale. Capture is usually the largest cost component, and total project viability depends on site conditions, transport distance, and storage characteristics. Policy mechanisms—especially carbon pricing, tax credits, and public funding—often determine whether projects proceed, because CCS can remain unattractive without incentives.

From an ecological perspective, CCS can materially lower atmospheric CO₂ and support net-zero pathways, but it also creates risks that must be managed. Key concerns include additional energy demand, potential leakage, water use, induced seismicity, and local environmental impacts from siting and land-use change. Strong monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), careful site selection, and transparent operational practices help reduce these risks.

Social and governance factors strongly influence success. Public acceptance depends on credible communication, meaningful community engagement, and fair treatment of affected communities. Clear legal frameworks—especially around long-term liability, post-closure stewardship, and MRV requirements—reduce uncertainty for investors and improve accountability. For organizations, CCS works best as a targeted decarbonization measure within a broader transition plan that prioritizes efficiency, electrification, and renewable energy wherever feasible.

1 Description and history

1.1 Definition and basic principles

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technological process that helps mitigate climate change by reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions to the atmosphere.¹ CCS captures CO₂ from industrial facilities or power plants and stores it safely—either in geological formations or through reactions that turn CO₂ into stable minerals or useful chemical products—so it does not accumulate in the atmosphere. ¹ CCS addresses a major driver of anthropogenic climate change—excess CO₂—and therefore supports broader greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction efforts.³ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified CCS as an important tool for limiting global temperature rise under the Paris Agreement.⁴

The CCS value chain typically includes three stages:

Capture: Facilities separate CO₂ from flue gas or industrial streams using post-combustion capture, pre-combustion capture, or oxy-fuel combustion.⁵

Transport: After capture, operators compress the CO₂ and move it to a storage site—most often by pipeline, and sometimes by ship or other means.²

Storage: Operators inject compressed CO₂ into underground geological formations (such as depleted oil and gas fields or deep saline aquifers) that have impermeable caprock layers to minimize leakage risk.³

By capturing and storing CO₂ from high-emission sources, CCS can help countries pursue long-term GHG reduction targets.²

1.2 Early history: Initial motivations and technological origins scientific & environmental drivers

The growing awareness of global warming and climate change during the 1970s and 1980s spurred interest in methods to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.³ Scientific reports from this period highlighted the significant role of CO₂ in the greenhouse effect, which led policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers to seek technological solutions for mitigating its release.⁵ Early discussions on carbon management laid the foundation for broader strategies, ultimately contributing to the development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).² Regulatory frameworks also began emerging, including the 1990 U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments, which promoted CO₂ emission reductions. CCS was first introduced during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in the late 1990s. The technology was later endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), being mentioned as a pillar for avoiding climate change.²

Technological roots

Before CCS was formally recognized as a climate mitigation strategy, industries such as chemical production and natural gas processing already employed CO₂ separation techniques.³ In chemical manufacturing, CO₂ removal was crucial for ensuring product purity and maintaining process efficiency. Similarly, natural gas processing often involved “sweetening,” a step where CO₂ and hydrogen sulfide are separated to meet pipeline specifications.⁵ These established practices provided a technological foundation that was later adapted and refined for large-scale CCS, transforming what were once merely industrial gas-treatment methods into a vital tool for climate change mitigation.²

1.3 Key milestones and developments pioneering projects (1980s–1990s)

During the 1980s and 1990s, early laboratory and pilot studies conducted by universities and government research agencies formed the foundation for modern CCS technology (IPCC, 2005). Researchers explored methods for injecting CO₂ into underground formations, seeking to validate the feasibility of long-term geological storage. These initial trials tested the integrity of potential storage sites and laid the groundwork for larger-scale demonstration projects.²

1.4 Side technologies and alternatives for carbon storage

CO₂ storage by CCS normally encompasses geo-storage, meaning injecting the CO₂ into geological deposits like oil/gas reservoirs or saline aquifers. Yet, this approach can be questioned due to the uncertainties of the technology, the lack of a specific percentage of emissions avoided, potential leakages, contamination, and overall lack of public support ¹.

There are other methods for CO₂ storage which are technically less risky than conventional geo-storage ¹, but also less studied. One of these methods is Carbon Capture and Storage by Mineralization (CCSM). This sub-domain of CCS involves permanently storing the CO₂ in the surface of rocks or passing it through a reactor where it undergoes a conversion to minerals by a chemical reaction, to form carbonate precipitates or other valuable chemicals. ¹. The main technologies are: a) In-situ mineralization, b) Ex-situ mineralization, and c) Carbon capture utilization.

1.4.1 In-situ mineralization

This method occurs within deep surface formations, and it converts CO₂ into minerals depending on the formation used. CO₂ transforms either to calcium or magnesium silicates, or iron or aluminum oxide ¹.

Geological formations that originally stored oil and gas are usually the target of this technology ¹, highlighting the opportunity for these industries to use this method. The most important factors for the reliability of the method are the rock type used; the aspects of porosity, permeability, capillary pressure, and wettability of the rock formation are the prominent parameters influencing the CO₂ storage. In this case, sedimentary rocks (basalts) demonstrate the greater potential as compared to igneous rocks, carbonates, and sandstone ¹.

In-situ mineralization is the most widely used domain currently in the world, with projects like CarbFix in Iceland, Wallula basalt project, and Capitol’s SkyMine project, both in the USA, already operational since 2014 and showing both economic and technological feasibility ¹. However, due to the low number of projects and very limited research, more studies and pilot projects need to be developed in order to check the sturdiness and reliability of this method. More projects have been launched, but none have reached the commercial phase as of yet ¹.

1.4.2 Ex-situ mineralization

This method avoids injecting the CO₂ underground and instead extracts it to put it in a reactor to produce minerals. The advantage of this method is the minerals that can be synthesized (carbonates), which can be very valuable for certain industries (cement, paper, construction, paint, among others) ¹.

In contrast to in-situ, to optimize and get the most out of this technology, simulations for reaction need to be conducted (to control temperature, pressures, pH, volumes, etc.) to obtain the desired products in the chemical reactions ¹. In other words, reaction kinetics are the most decisive factor in the viability of this technology, and they need to be researched before considering industrial scalability. Due to the lack of many pilot projects and a knowledge gap, more studies on this technology need to be formalized ¹.

1.4.3 Carbon utilization

This subdomain encompasses the use of captured CO₂ to produce chemicals, not minerals like ex-situ mineralization (mainly fuels and fertilizers), with the help of reactions and catalysts. ³

The challenges for this technique are the high costs of catalysts, conductivity in reactions, formation of byproducts, low selectivity in reactions, and scaling challenges (economic costs, industrial scaling). Nonetheless, carbon utilization is one of the most viable paths in achieving long-term CCS spreading, given to the fact that valuable chemicals can be produced. To address the economic and technical challenges, materials to improve reactions, for example adsorbents, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), and catalysts, which will improve efficiencies, yielding, selectivity, and scalability, need to be studied ³.

1.5 Major demonstration projects

Several landmark initiatives in the late 1990s and early 2000s showcased the commercial-scale viability of CCS:

Sleipner Project (Norway): Initiated in 1996, it was one of the first large-scale efforts to inject and store CO₂ beneath the North Sea. By demonstrating the stability and safety of offshore storage, Sleipner became a global reference point for CCS efficacy.²

Weyburn-Midale Project (Canada): Begun in 2000, this project injected CO₂ for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) while simultaneously monitoring the potential for secure, long-term carbon storage. Its findings contributed critical data on storage integrity, CO₂ migration, and best practices for monitoring, reporting, and verification.³

Gorgon Project (Australia): The Gorgon Project in Australia is the world’s largest CCS effort, with the original aim of capturing 2 trillion cubic feet (or 0.1 gigatons) during the expected 40 year project life ⁴. The project was executed as a joint venture by some of the biggest oil companies in the world: Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, and Shell ⁴. However, the project has run into several technical difficulties that have undermined its performance.

The project was supposed to start running by 2015. Nevertheless, technical difficulties related to the management of the pressure of the reservoir during injection delayed the project, postponing it to begin the first CO₂ sequestration in August 2019 ⁴. After running, operational problems arose, which include sand clogging of wells, pressure failures of cap-rock sealing the CO₂ and water block due to condensation. These technical problems damaged pumping equipment and forced the injection to be restarted in 2021 ⁴.

Despite attempts to improve the technical conditions, the Australian government imposed an injection limit due to safety reasons. These two factors combined have caused the Gorgon Project to fall short of its CO₂ capture targets, achieving only 50% of the planned capture goals, with some sources in the Australian government claiming it’s even less ². The main investor, Chevron, has had to mitigate the missing CO₂ by buying carbon offsets and has announced plans to reinforce the mineral rock’s foundations to expand capacity and ensure safety ². All this has caused this project to become one of the most expensive CCS globally, increasing its original budget and reaching 3.1 billion USD. ² ⁴. As of 2024, the project has only managed to capture 7 Mt of CO₂, contrary to the 15 Mt of CO₂ that it should have captured by 2024.

International collaborations

Beyond individual national projects, several international initiatives have propelled CCS forward:

IEAGHG (IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme): Conducts technical studies and promotes information exchange on CCS technologies, fostering collaboration among member countries.

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum: Brings together governments, industries, and researchers to coordinate research efforts, develop best practices, and advance policy frameworks that encourage CCS deployment.²

EU CCS Directive (2009): Established a legal framework for CO₂ storage, ensuring environmental safety and setting the stage for wider CCS adoption in Europe.

These collaborative efforts have accelerated knowledge sharing, supported large-scale projects, and promoted a clearer understanding of both the opportunities and challenges of CCS on a global scale.²

2 CCS economics

2.1 Overview of CCS costs and investment trends

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is widely regarded as a promising climate mitigation strategy, but its economic feasibility remains a key challenge. The costs associated with CCS implementation vary significantly based on technology type, scale, and location. According to the International Energy Agency ⁵, the average cost of capturing CO₂ from industrial sources ranges between $40–$120 per ton, while the cost for power generation facilities can be $50–$150 per ton. Transport and storage add further costs, estimated at $10–$20 per ton depending on the distance and storage site characteristics.⁶

Despite high upfront investment, CCS deployment has increased due to government incentives and private sector interest. As of January 2025, there are 45 operational and fully functional CCS facilities worldwide, doubling in number since 2021, with a maximum capture capacity of 164.7 million tons of CO₂ per year (Mtpa). ⁶.

2.2 Cost breakdown and Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is a key economic metric used to assess the financial viability of power generation technologies, including CCS-equipped plants. A study by Rubin et al. (2015) found that integrating CCS into coal-fired power plants increases LCOE by 60%–80%, making it significantly more expensive than renewable energy alternatives like wind or solar.

CCS cost components include:

Capture costs: The largest expense, accounting for 65%–75% of total CCS costs.⁸

Transport costs: Pipeline construction and operational costs vary by geography.⁹

Storage costs: Depend on reservoir depth, geological suitability, and monitoring requirements.¹⁰

2.3 CCS in industrial sectors: Cost vs. benefits

While CCS in power generation remains costly, its application in hard-to-abate industries (e.g., cement, steel, power production, and chemicals) is considered more economically viable. Industries with limited alternatives for deep decarbonization benefit from CCS despite high costs.¹¹

Key examples include:

Cement industry: CCS can reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 95%, with estimated costs of$50–$90 per ton.¹²

Steel production: CCS is integrated into Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) processes, with costs around $80–$120 per ton.¹³

The cost difference between blue and green hydrogen is context-dependent. Blue hydrogen has often been proven to be cheaper in recent years. This has mainly depended on the prices of gas and power, and policies. Green hydrogen, however, has seen a rapid cost decline ⁷.

Economically and without any economic incentives (tax reductions, credits, carbon tax), CCS remains not very attractive. The estimated costs range between $20 to $80 USD per ton for only the storage. When taking into account costs and compression, the costs can exceed $100 USD per ton ². Figure 1 shows the current cost of CCS technologies per industry sector.

Figure 1: Costs of CCS in different industries. Costs of transport and storage are assumed to be 30 $/t CO₂ to simplify the model. The EU ETS average allowance price means the minimum price established by the European Union for the technology to be economically feasible and viable. Source: Fattouh et al. (2026).

2.4 Economic incentives and market mechanisms

Governments and financial institutions play a crucial role in making CCS economically viable. Several mechanisms help offset high costs:

Carbon pricing & taxes: The European Emissions Trading System (ETS) imposes a CO₂ price ranging from €85 to €100 per ton, improving CCS competitiveness.¹ In February 2023, the price reached an all-time high above 100 per ton, with an average of €85 throughout the year ⁸. For the last year at the time of writing (March 2026), the price ranged between €63 and €93 ⁹

Tax credits & subsidies: The U.S. 45Q tax credit provides up to $85 per ton of captured CO₂.¹⁵

Public-private partnerships: Government funding initiatives such as the EU Innovation Fund support large-scale CCS projects.⁷

It is demonstrated that higher carbon prices will help CCS expansion, as the savings for carbon tax will help justify the high investment in the technology. High carbon prices are an important incentive for CCS technologies to become economically viable ¹⁰ ¹¹. Without a carbon tax, CCS loses its financial incentive, and the project becomes unattractive economically.

2.5 Future cost reductions and economic outlook

Technological advancements, economies of scale, and policy support are expected to drive CCS cost reductions. The IEA (2023) predicts that:

– By 2030, CCS costs could decline by 20%–30% due to efficiency improvements.

– It is expected that by 2025, CCS will account for up to 15% cumulative CO₂ emission reductions ¹². Nevertheless, the International Energy Agency estimates only 7.6% by 2050 (IEA). The difference depends on the scenario reference considered. IEA assumes that the industries will gradually electrify and all energy will come from renewable energies, becoming net zero by 2050, and CCS will keep receiving funding and economic incentives. In this scenario, if emissions do not increase, the 7.6% makes more sense. In the case of increasing emissions and more CCS projects, more CO₂ will be captured, and a greater share will be expected. Depending on the scenario, CCS could account for roughly 7.6%–15% of cumulative CO₂ emission reductions by 2050.

CCS remains a key decarbonization tool in industrial sectors where emissions are difficult to eliminate. Future deployment depends on policy support, cost reductions, and integration with carbon markets.¹⁶

3 Ecological performance

3.1 Environmental benefits of CCS

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) plays a crucial role in mitigating climate change by significantly reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from industrial processes and power generation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022) states that CCS could contribute to a 15% reduction in global CO₂ emissions by 2050, positioning it as a vital tool for achieving net-zero targets. Key ecological benefits of CCS include:

Reduction of CO₂ emissions: By capturing CO₂ at its source, CCS prevents millions of tons of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere.⁵ According to the Global CCS Institute, CCS has the potential to reduce CO₂ emissions by 14% by 2060 under the 2°C scenario ¹³.

Mitigation of ocean acidification: Excess atmospheric CO₂ dissolves in oceans, forming carbonic acid. By curbing CO₂ emissions, CCS reduces the rate of ocean acidification, helping marine ecosystems.⁴

Preservation of air quality: Unlike conventional fossil fuel use, which emits pollutants such as sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), CCS-equipped plants can be optimized to minimize these harmful emissions, given that CCS can also remove these components as well as CO₂.¹³¹⁴ This is done by the use of integrated flue gas controls that are often integrated into CCS ¹⁵ .

3.2 Carbon storage and long-term environmental impact

The long-term effectiveness of CCS hinges on the stability of CO₂ storage sites. Geological sequestration is the most widely used method, involving the injection of CO₂ into underground formations such as deep saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, and basalt formations.¹⁰ These formations provide secure storage by trapping CO₂ beneath impermeable rock layers.

Key Types of geological storage:

Figure 2: CCS value chain overview.¹⁶

Saline aquifers: Consists of porous and permeable sedimentary rocks that contain brine (water and salt) ¹⁷. About 98% of the world’s estimated CO₂ resources are in the form of saline aquifers, theoretically offering a large storage capacity ¹⁷ ¹⁴. However, the exact number of saline aquifers is unknown due to two main factors: insufficient site-specific data to characterize them and the absence of a strong economic incentive to do so ¹⁷.

Depleted oil & gas reservoirs: consist of reservoirs where it is no longer possible to extract hydrocarbons. The geological processes that seal and trap these hydrocarbons can also trap CO₂. Even so, not every depleted reservoir is suitable to store CO₂, and a technical study is necessary to minimize the risk of leakage and interactions with the environment ¹⁷. Proven storage sites due to their natural ability to trap hydrocarbons for millions of years.²

Basalt formations: igneous rocks reactive to CO₂, which transforms it to minerals ¹⁷. These formations enhance permanent storage by reacting with CO₂ to form solid carbonates, significantly reducing leakage risks.¹⁷

Unmineable coal seams: can absorb CO₂ with the disadvantage of releasing methane. Research on these storage deposits is still ongoing.¹⁷

Organic shales: sedimentary rock rich in organic matter that can absorb CO₂ similar to coal. Limited technical knowledge stops this type of storage nor economically feasible at the moment ¹⁷.

Studies suggest that properly managed CO₂ storage sites can retain emissions for thousands to millions of years, with leakage risks estimated at less than 0.01% per year¹⁸ in a well-regulated industry. To achieve this, the following conditions need to be considered: suitable site selection, active monitoring, high-quality management, geological stability, and well-regulated environments. Without these requirements, the leakage rate will likely exceed the estimated 0,01% per year ¹⁸ ¹⁹ ²⁰.

CCS also introduces ecological risks and operational challenges, including:

Energy consumption: CCS increases the energy demand of fossil-fuel power plants by **20%–30%**, leading to higher resource consumption.⁹

Potential CO₂ leakage: Poorly managed storage sites pose a risk of CO₂ seepage, potentially negating the climate benefits of CCS.¹⁸ Underground CO₂ also threatens to contaminate water sources ¹⁴.

Water usage: CCS processes, especially post-combustion capture, require substantial amounts of water, raising concerns in water-scarce regions.¹⁰

Seismic activity: The injection of CO₂ into underground formations could induce minor seismic activity, as observed in some Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects.¹⁹

While these challenges exist, advances in monitoring and risk assessment technologies have significantly improved the safety and effectiveness of CCS operations.¹¹

3.3 Comparison of CCS with alternative climate mitigation strategies

CCS is frequently compared with other climate change mitigation strategies, each offering distinct benefits and limitations:

Figure 3: Comparison of CCS with alternative climate mitigation strategies

According to the International Energy Agency ⁵, CCS should be deployed alongside renewable energy and Direct Air Capture (DAC) to optimize global decarbonization efforts, as no single strategy is sufficient to achieve net-zero emissions.²⁰

3.4 Future outlook for CCS and environmental sustainability

Future advancements in **carbon mineralization, bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC)** are expected to enhance the ecological benefits of CCS. The IPCC (2022) emphasizes that **integrating CCS with renewables and hydrogen production** will help reduce its carbon footprint and make it more economically viable.¹⁸

Key drivers for the future of CCS include:

Improved monitoring and verification systems to prevent leakage and ensure storage integrity. Advancements in low-carbon energy integration to reduce CCS’s overall energy demand. Stronger international regulatory frameworks to enhance environmental safety and scalability.

Despite its challenges, CCS remains an essential tool for reducing industrial CO₂ emissions and achieving long-term climate goals.¹⁸

3.5 Decommissioning and site closure

Decommissioning and site closure planning are other aspects that require more study in the viability of CCS. The regulatory limitation that defines liability after closure of CCS plants is lacking, to say the least. After closing a CCS injection plant, the long-term burden of monitoring and ensuring containment of the CO₂ has no defined borders, parameters or obligations, as none have clearly been established in many countries ². Added to this, lifecycle assessments of CCS often exclude decommissioning, disposal, and/or leakage risks ¹⁴. This not only leads to incomplete cost-benefit analysis for CCS, but also to hesitation by investors due to the uncertainty of liability claims in the future. Few regions in the world have well-defined post-closure requirements that extend beyond a few years or decades, despite the CO₂ needing containment for a millennium ¹⁴. To improve the sturdiness of this technology, the legal requirements for CCS site closure need to be addressed, and they must have a well-defined procedure.

Knowing that long CCS operating plants range between 5 to 20 years ²¹, closing criteria for a CCS plant should include a well-studied capacity of the injection site, which should be below the safety limit. A good study of seismic activities should also be conducted to avoid leaks ²¹. Once this is reached, activities to monitor the post-closure of the CCS should include monitoring, verification, and leak studies for at least some time to demonstrate the long-term security of CCS ²².

3.6 Biodiversity and subsurface environmental safeguards

As mentioned above, CCS mitigates the effects of climate change. These CCS plants, therefore, help the world to fight climate change on a massive scale ²³ ²⁴. However, the plants harm the local sites where they are placed due to the land-use change that is required ²⁵. CCS plants can have a massive impact on the surrounding environment and should not be placed in biodiversity hotspots ²⁶.

In the case of a leak, there are vast negative impacts on the surrounding environment. A leak would cause an increase in the local CO₂ concentrations of the soil. This has a negative influence on the microbes living in the soil profiles, overall vegetation, and nutrients in the soil ²⁷ ²⁸. At the deeper surface, similar effects can be seen in aquifers. A decrease in microbial activity causes groundwater quality to decrease ²⁸. In the marine environment, the same negative effects can occur. A leak would cause a degraded organic matter production and a severe decrease in microbial recycling of organic matter. This causes a major loss of nutrients and seawater acidification ²⁹. Site selection and monitoring (described in paragraph 5.4) remain the most suitable way of preventing a significant biodiversity decrease ²⁶.

Furthermore, there are aspects where CCS also negatively influences the biodiversity further away from the CCS sites. In this case, we are talking about the process of combining bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). This describes a process where captured CO₂ is used to grow crops and other plants to store captured carbon in plants. The land that is required to grow these purpose-grown crops comes at the cost of losing biodiverse land ³⁰.

3.7 Upstream methane leakage from blue hydrogen

Hydrogen is considered a promising option in the global decarbonization edge, since it replaces the role of fossil fuel in key industrial processes, including power generation, transportation, steel and cement industry. CCS does not directly cause methane leakage to the atmosphere, but it is instead used to produce the so-called “Blue Hydrogen”, which uses natural gas (methane) and carbon dioxide, obtained with the help of CCS ³¹. Plus, the injected CO₂ may push methane present in the deep aquifers or oil fields out into the atmosphere, since CO₂ is used to extract the methane. Leakage or poor management of the stored CO₂ into the natural gas reservoirs may increase the leakage rate ³².

The normal methane leakage rates in Blue Hydrogen projects vary between 1 and 3% ³¹ ³². These emissions are of special concern because they can mitigate the environmental benefits of CCS for hydrogen production, given that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂ ³³. If one considers also that CCS does not capture all of the CO₂, with the normal efficiencies in real-life applications not going above 80% [1], one can make an argument that Blue Hydrogen is not an environmentally friendly technology for producing hydrogen for the green energy transition.

Since this technology is at an early stage, with only 28 CCS projects under development and 2 in operation, as of 2022 ³¹. An extensive study of the drawbacks of CCS use in Blue Hydrogen production and the viability of the method for future decarbonization needs to be conducted.

3.8 CCS full cycle footprint, transport, and storage

Another aspect to consider when using this technology for mitigating CO₂ emissions is the carbon footprint the technology has, including transport and storage of the carbon captured. It was found, however, that the extent and impacts related to transport and storage processes are often excluded from CCS projects. A wide variety of articles report a 27-98% efficiency of captured carbon ²¹. Naturally, the efficiency range is enormous, and this would mean that between 2-73% of the carbon capture is lost through the entire CCS process, which would represent the net stored volume of CO₂ that did not enter the atmosphere minus the emissions caused from all life cycle activities of the CCS process ²¹.

Because of this, it is hard to quantify exactly the precise loss of CO₂ in the life cycle of a CCS project. This shows the importance of choosing the best methods during the whole CCS process to avoid CO₂ as much as possible, given that the benefit of CCS can be debated depending on the loss of CO₂ during the life cycle of the CCS process, which corresponds to compression, pipeline transport, truck/vessel transport, and injection.

4 Social impact

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology has significant social implications, ranging from public acceptance to its impact on job creation, health, and environmental justice. Understanding the social dimensions of CCS is crucial to its successful implementation.

4.1 Public perception and acceptance

The level of societal acceptance of CCS varies across regions and is influenced by factors such as environmental awareness, perceived risks, and governmental support. According to the International Energy Agency ¹⁷, public perception of CCS is often mixed; while some view it as an essential tool for mitigating climate change, others are skeptical due to concerns about long-term storage safety and environmental risks.¹¹

A survey conducted by Upham & Roberts (2011)²¹ found that public acceptance of CCS is higher when:

• The benefits are well-communicated.

• The technology is linked to renewable energy integration.

• The public is involved in decision-making processes.

However, misinformation and limited public awareness can lead to opposition, as seen in past CCS projects where communities resisted CO₂ storage sites due to perceived risks of leakage and seismic activity.²⁰ Even though the risks of CCS are rare (leakage, seismic activities, and contamination), CCS remains a highly debated topic in communities, especially in places where big companies carry out engineering projects and do not release information to the public. To gain more public support, CCS projects need to be transparent with the community by sharing and receiving feedback ¹³.

Table 1: Perceived risks and benefits of CCS²²

4.2 Community engagement and environmental justice

As mentioned in paragraph 4.1, Public opinion can have a devastating effect on the implementation and process of CCS projects ³⁴. Public opinion does not solely consist of residents, but also includes residents with a local government function ³⁵. Residents are reliant on sufficient transparency and community engagement to let a CCS project succeed ³⁶.

It is important to note that every CCS project is different and that there is no single fix for the implementation of a CCS project ³⁷. There is more than one aspect on which a project can differ from another. Besides the public opinion information sharing, geographical differences, and individual views can cause problems for CCS. ³⁸.

CCS storage operators seem to have grown aware of this and are now undertaking more community engagement in their implementation strategies ³⁵. In a fictional scenario study by ³⁹, it became clear that local people can serve as more than a nuisance to CCS projects. In the study, close conversations between experts and locals help with the quality of risk management strategies. Knowledge of the local economic, environmental, cultural, and social status helped the operators develop a more secure risk management strategy while also conserving the wishes of the locals regarding their living situation.

Sometimes wishes of residents can not be granted without damage to houses or the environment. To compensate for these losses, financial compensations are often involved. These financial compensations, in combination with sufficient information sessions, have proven to convince the public to give a green light for CCS projects ³⁴ ³⁸.

4.3 Job creation and economic opportunities

CCS has the potential to generate employment, particularly in engineering, construction, and monitoring sectors. The Global CCS Institute (2023)²³ estimates that large-scale CCS deployment could create up to 100,000 jobs worldwide by 2040. Key employment areas include:

• CCS facility construction and operation

• Pipeline and transport infrastructure

• CO₂ monitoring and verification services

Moreover, CCS can support employment in industries transitioning from fossil fuels to low-carbon technologies, ensuring a just transition for workers in carbon-intensive sectors.²³

4.4 Supply‑chain readiness and workforce development

CCS is one of the most promising technologies combating climate change. However, it has not had much success in being implemented over the last three decades ⁴⁰. The main argument behind this is the costs involved in CCS projects. CCS projects require investments in new or renovated pipelines, complex specialized technology, risk management, and constant monitoring ⁴¹ ²⁰. Furthermore, there are more constraints on costs in the supply chain of CCS projects. Risk management seems to take up most of the cost related to CCS. From the results of the study by Wang et al. (2021), we can see that an increase of 1Mt of carbon capture per year increases the risk of failure by nearly 50%. Another study done by Olson and Yaw (2025) states that a decrease in this risk requires the plant to become less efficient in carbon capture and decrease the profit margin. A trade-off between risk and profit is necessary to assess the project’s feasibility.

A significant factor in this discussion is the social acceptance of these risks. A maximum-risk prevention would increase CCS prices by 34%, while a balanced, intermediate-risk prevention, instigated by social acceptance, would cause only an 8% increase in costs. Therefore, the degree of Social acceptance can play a crucial role in the supply chain ⁴².

The technology behind CCS is still relatively new and, therefore, expensive ⁴³. This restricts the feasibility of CCS projects. The workforce necessary to support the development of this technology is emerging, and in the UK, is predicted to surpass the jobs required in the current oil and gas industry ⁴⁴. The positions required for the shift, however, do not exist yet, and put pressure on the current workforce supply of CCS projects around the world ⁴⁴.

4.5 Health and safety considerations

By reducing CO₂ emissions, CCS contributes to improved air quality, indirectly lowering respiratory diseases caused by fossil fuel combustion. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2022), air pollution is responsible for approximately 7 million premature deaths annually, and CCS can help mitigate this by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.²⁴

However, potential health risks exist, particularly in the event of CO₂ leakage. Although rare, incidents like the Lake Nyos disaster (1986), where a natural CO₂ release led to fatalities, highlight the importance of strict monitoring and regulation.²⁵

4.6 Equity and social justice issues

CCS deployment must consider environmental justice to ensure that storage sites are not disproportionately placed in disadvantaged communities. Historically, industrial projects have often been located near marginalized populations, leading to environmental injustices.²⁶ To prevent similar concerns with CCS, policymakers must ensure equitable site selection and fair compensation for affected communities.

5 Political and legal aspects

The development and deployment of CCS are heavily influenced by political decisions and legal frameworks at national and international levels. Policies play a crucial role in determining the viability of CCS projects.

5.1 Global policies and agreements

CCS has been recognized as a vital climate mitigation tool in several international agreements:

• The Paris Agreement (2015): Encourages CCS as part of national carbon reduction strategies.²⁷

• European Green Deal (2020): Includes CCS in decarbonization plans for heavy industry.¹

• U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (2022): Offers tax incentives (e.g., 45Q tax credit) for CCS adoption.²⁸

Despite these initiatives, CCS deployment remains uneven, with some regions advancing more rapidly than others due to differing political priorities and financial incentives. Figure 4 shows a timeline of key CCS policies ⁴⁵.

Figure 4: Timeline of the key CCS policies worldwide.

5.2 National legal frameworks

Countries with strong CCS policies include:

• Norway: The first country to implement a CCS tax and regulations for offshore CO₂ storage.²⁰

• United States: Provides subsidies and tax credits to incentivize CCS projects.¹⁵

• Australia: Enforces environmental impact assessments before approving CCS storage sites.⁶

Conversely, some countries lack clear regulatory frameworks, hindering CCS development.

Figure 5: Carbon capture and storage model regulatory framework.²⁹

5.3 Long-term liability and stewardship

CCS projects require a significant amount of work and are not without risk. Liability and stewardship become important concepts to consider in the long-term future. Since not only governments, but also private firms invest in CCS, issues like health, safety, and long-term effects need to be considered ⁵. Due to the long-term influence of CCS on the environment, clearance can play an important role. A well-constructed legal construction can clarify potential liabilities, promote high standards, and attract investors ⁴⁶.

Liability can be divided into two different phases: the injection phase and the long-term storage phase ⁴⁷. For the first phase, typical liability instruments, like e.g. private insurance, trust funds, and letters of credit, are used. At the moment, there is a construct where the storage operator serves as the primary responsible party in cases of a breach at the moment of construction and shortly after building the facility ³⁶. For the long-term phase, this is not the case. A combination of private insurance and an industry pool is used for long-term monitoring of wells and potential accidents that cannot be covered by private insurance ⁴⁷.

This long-term liability can be split into three different jurisdictions: civil liability, administrative liability, and emission-trading liability. Civil liability concerns the compensation towards third parties or court-ordered trials. Administrative liability describes the extent to which authoritarian entities are allowed to enforce or serve a clean-up order. Emission-trading liability is where trading regimes provide a CO₂ benefit in case of a potential leakage ⁴⁶.

In the case of EU member states, the long-term liability shifts towards the government of the member state. This is done 20 years after the installation, provided that the conditions are suitable for permanent storage ⁴⁸. In North American countries, this is also common. In a study on the long-term liability in Alberta, Canada. It was found that government of Alberta took over the long-term liability. It even covered some of the cost of the injection after closure via a post-closure stewardship fund ⁴⁹.

5.4 Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) standards

To secure a safe form of CCS and prevent leakage, there is a need for MRV standards. MRV standards for CCS are set at the regional, national, international, and continental levels ⁵⁰. MRV standards underpin a scheme that aims to regulate GHG emission reductions and control the overall performance ⁵¹. They vary across different structural levels and are implemented for different purposes.

MRV in CCS can be divided into three different stages: pre-injection, injection, and post-injection. Each phase includes distinct objectives, requirements, and methods. They are dependent on the specific project and consist of different engineering challenges ⁵². The pre-injection phase involves surveying the injection site and evaluating geochemical, geological, hydrochemical, and geomechanically properties of the site and its surroundings. The injection phase focuses on the part of the injection until it is closed and transferred into the long-term storage facility. Activities include monitoring amounts, measuring pressure changes, monitoring injection rates, and detecting potential leakages ⁵³. The injection phase requires a combination of different MRV methods and technologies.

The post-injection phase monitors the behavior of the injected CO₂ ⁵¹. The most common methods to regulate this are geodetic and subsurface monitoring, subsurface seismic monitoring, and subsurface nonseismic monitoring ⁵⁴. Geodetic monitoring is done using GPS systems, tilt, and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR). It measures displacements and strains on the subsurface and within the Earth’s crust. CCS can cause deformations in the subsurface. Geodetic monitoring detects possible deformations and spots potential leakages.

Subsurface seismic monitoring is done using sensors and geophones that detect seismic activity on the subsurface at and near the injection site. Seismic monitoring uses time-lapses and transmission data to monitor the overall seismic activity in the area of injection. A similar approach is used in the marine injection sites using seismic and acoustic sensors ⁵⁵. These sensors measure the vibrations caused by the bubbles that occur in the case of a breach.

Subsurface nonseismic monitoring is done by monitoring pressure differences. Migration of CO₂ causes pressure differences. To monitor these differences, gravity sensors are used ⁵⁴. In marine environments, there is another nonseismic sensor. This is a chemical sensor that measures the pH levels in the water around a storage site. CO₂ causes the pH level to decrease. This way, a leakage can be discovered and solved using chemical measurements ⁵⁵.

MRV activities are applied to monitor and control CCS. These activities do not prevent leakages ¹⁹. Therefore, there is a need for more advanced technologies to prevent leakages. Furthermore, existing MRV measures lack focus on the transport and storage of CO₂, and an assurance of the permanent nature of the injected CO₂ ⁵¹. This would lower the risk of leakage and remind stakeholders that strict monitoring and control are necessary to ensure a safe way of CCS. Detailed risk assessments are needed for a suitable monitoring plan ⁵⁶.

5.5 Challenges in policy implementation

Despite political support, several legal and regulatory challenges remain:

• Liability issues: Determining who is responsible for long-term CO₂ storage.

• Financial risks: High upfront costs require government subsidies or carbon pricing mechanisms.

• Public trust: Policies must address transparency and community engagement to gain acceptance.

To overcome these hurdles, governments must establish clear guidelines, financial incentives, and international cooperation mechanisms.

5.6 CCS networks and cooperation

Joint ventures and cross-border CCS networks can help partners share knowledge and infrastructure, complement strengths, and improve overall outcomes. An example of this joint adventure is the bilateral collaboration between Norway and Poland ⁵⁷. In this case, Norway brings decades of technical expertise through various CCS projects, while Poland brings huge underground storage capacity ⁵⁷.

The main way two or more parties can benefit from joint campaigns is CO₂ transportation systems. This crucial component in the CCS process chain includes pipeline transport (trucks, rails, ships) and storage hubs. By sharing these resources, CO₂ can be transported faster and it is easier for the CO₂ to reach its final destination. Shared infrastructure between parties can help mitigate each other’s weaknesses and improve results, for example: the expertise is shared, the technology improves and is more widely used, and the transportation system and storage hubs are available for more parties, at more locations, to supply CO₂ on demand. Advancement in this sector plays a fundamental role in the viability and scalable aspects of CCS projects ¹³. This system can be exploited at its maximum with a seamless cross-border operation, which involves simplification of permitting processes, alignment of both parties’ strategies and implementing financial incentives.

It is clear that incentives play an important role in the feasibility of CCS projects, since the economic burden of these projects is too great ¹⁴. Incentives reduce investor risk, promote large scale projects and reduce costs in the future by the spread of technology ¹⁴. International collaboration with shared research, standardized guidelines, and shared infrastructure will greatly enhance these benefits. Organizations and investors should look for environments where both parties or countries share the same political objectives, the legal and economic systems are aligned, and policies/goals are shared.

5.7 Integration of CCS with decarbonization strategies

The question of whether CCS is a “miracle” solution for decarbonizing the economy naturally arises. Despite CCS being a good method for reducing carbon emissions, it promotes to keep using heavy-polluting industries in the long run since it shows that these types of industries can still run while keeping emissions low with the use of CCS ⁵⁸. CCS cannot be a permanent solution for decarbonization since transitioning to green economies will be cheaper and safer in the long run. Maqui and Choi (2026) consider the CCS as a necessary transition option for certain plants that are hard to decarbonize, like cement and steel, and developing economies. Only with this condition are CCS projects strategically appropriate.

CCS will “buy” time for the green energy transition while keeping an eye on carbon emissions. This is why CCS cannot replace the need for structural change in power production, since renewables need to be promoted, and CCS promotes the continued use of highly polluting industries.

In other words, CCS cannot be the permanent solution for decarbonizing, but instead must be used as a temporary fix to avoid shutdown shocks and supply failure during high peak demand ¹⁴. A CCS strategy should be accompanied by a comprehensible plan to a full green transition, favoring renewables and completely shutting down highly polluting sectors.

With this in mind, the development of a CCS plant must take into consideration the things mentioned above. Investors should note that CCS efficiencies must aim for a target of 90% of capture for the total processes ¹¹, though in real practice, this number decreases to 60-80% with the use of energy for the CCS ²¹. A reasonable value for capture goal lies in between 70-72% of CO₂ emissions captured ⁵⁹. Because of this, one must consider that the extra use of energy for CCS will coalesce as an energy penalty, reducing the energy efficiency of the whole plant by 14-20% ¹¹, showcasing the need not to count CCS as a permanent solution for decarbonization, as it means high investment and higher energy usage in the long run.

Another thing to consider is whether the region where the CCS is placed has a high carbon pricing, as higher carbon prices will mean that the avoided emissions will translate into savings ¹⁰, highlighting the importance of political policies to promote CCS.

Electrification techniques must also work together with CCS as much as possible, electrifying most of the process as possible. For example, Varnier et al. (2025) found that calciner electrification in a cement plant combined with CCS reduced the carbon emissions at rates exceeding 98%, making the combination of these technologies a very competitive green technology compared to others. Electrification should be applied in as many parts of the process both in the main industry, which is the source of the 〖C,O〗_2 as in the CCS process per se, by electrifying compressors and trucks, for example, to avoid emissions. This will allow the process to reach more efficiencies in CO₂ capture, and at the same time reach the green energy transition sooner.

References

1
European, C. The European Green Deal. (2021)
3
Ipcc. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. (2005).
4
Ipcc. Global Warming of 1.5°C: Special Report. (2018).
5
IEA (2021): Net Zero by 2050 (1), p. 224. Available online at https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050, checked on 2/16/2026.
2
Rasool, Muhammad Hammad; Moiz Hashmi, Syed Abdul (2025): Carbon capture and storage: An evidence-based review of its limitations and missed promises. In Petroleum Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.ptlrs.2025.09.005.
6
Global, C. C. S. I. The Cost of Carbon Capture and Storage: 2022 Update. (2022).
8
Enerdata (2025): What future for emission trading in the EU. With assistance of Enerdata. Enerdata. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/executive-briefing/carbon-price-projections-eu-ets.html#:~:text=The%20projections%20assume%20no%20change,leading%20to%20decreasing%20price%20trajectories. Available online at https://www.enerdata.net/publications/executive-briefing/carbon-price-projections-eu-ets.html#:~:text=The%20projections%20assume%20no%20change,leading%20to%20decreasing%20price%20trajectories., updated on 11/27/2025, checked on 3/2/2026.
9
Mac Dowell, N. & et al. The role of CO? capture and storage in climate policy. Nature Climate Change 7, 243-249 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3231
10
Clark, G.; Davis, M.; Kumar, A. (2025): The development of a framework to compare carbon capture and storage technologies as a means of decarbonizing cement production. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 214, p. 115556. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.115556.
11
Nasir, Ernieza; Go, Yun, II (2024): Carbon capture and storage at Malaysia power plants: Evaluation of its feasibility and requisite enablers. In Journal of Cleaner Production 469, p. 143173. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143173.
12
Martin-Roberts, Emma; Scott, Vivian; Flude, Stephanie; Johnson, Gareth; Haszeldine, R. Stuart; Gilfillan, Stuart (2021): Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade. In One Earth 4 (11), pp. 1569–1584. DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.002.
13
Ghiat, Ikhlas; Banu, Aliya; Bicer, Yusuf; Amhamed, Abdulkarem I.; Al-Ansari, Tareq (2025): Circularity within carbon capture networks: A review of capture and utilization technologies. In Journal of CO₂ Utilization 95, p. 103075. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2025.103075.
7
Organisation for Economic, C.-o. & Development. Government Support for CCS: Policies and Mechanisms. (2022).
15
Energy, U. S. D. o. U.S. Department of Energy Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. (2023).
16
Tamburini, Federica; Zanobetti, Francesco; Cipolletta, Mariasole; Bonvicini, Sarah; Cozzani, Valerio (2024): State of the art in the quantitative risk assessment of the CCS value chain. In Process Safety and Environmental Protection 191, pp. 2044–2063. DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2024.09.066.
14
Maqui, Diane Mariella; Choi, Angelo Earvin Sy (2026): Carbon capture, utilization, and storage: Scientific basis, practical applications, and climate role. In Chemical Engineering Journal Advances 25, p. 101049. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceja.2026.101049.
17
IEA (2022): CO₂ Storage Resources and their Development – An IEA CCUS Handbook. Available online at https://www.iea.org/reports/CO₂-storage-resources-and-their-development.
18
Ipcc. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. (2022).
19
Behrad Vakylabad, Ali (2024): Recent advances and new concepts of carbon storage and transportation, pp. 163–185. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-19067-4.00021-8.
20
International Energy, A. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage: A Global Perspective. (2021).
21
Emborg, M.; Kisieliene, L.; Thonemann, N.; Eftekhari, A. A.; Olsen, S. I. (2025): Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and storage value chains: A systematic, critical literature review. In Sustainable Production and Consumption. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2025.09.015.
22
L’Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). ‘Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, pp. 848-863.
23
Global, C. C. S. I. The Role of CCS in Net-Zero Strategies. (2023)
24
World Health, O. Air Pollution and Human Health. (2022).
25
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, C. Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. (2021).
26
Burnside WR, Pulver S, Fiorella KJ, Avolio ML, Alexander SM, eds. Robert D. Bullard (1990). In: Foundations of Socio-Environmental Research: Legacy Readings with Commentaries. Cambridge University Press; 2022:370-379.
27
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate, C. Paris Agreement and CCS Implementation Strategies. (2018).
28
International Energy, A. The Role of CCS in Net-Zero Pathways. (2023).
29
International Energy Agency. Carbon CAPTURE
and SToraGE
Model Regulatory Framework (2010).
30
Hanssen, Steef V.; Steinmann, Zoran J. N.; Daioglou, Vassilis; Čengić, Mirza; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Huijbregts, Mark A. J. (2022): Global implications of crop-based bioenergy with carbon capture and storage for terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity. In Global change biology. Bioenergy 14 (3), pp. 307–321. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12911.
31
Davids, Daniel; Grant, Neil; Mittal, Shivika; Hawkes, Adam; Oluleye, Gbemi (2025): Impact of methane leakage rate and carbon capture rate on blue hydrogen sustainability using combined warming index. In Applied Energy 394, p. 125888. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125888.
32
Hersbach, Thomas J.P.; Mastrandrea, Michael D.; Wara, Michael W. (2025): Flexible operation and fugitive methane emissions limit the potential of power plant carbon capture and storage. In The Electricity Journal 38 (3), p. 107494. DOI: 10.1016/j.tej.2025.107494.
33
Deng, Wenkang; Xie, Xiaofeng; Guo, Yalou; Hu, Guoping (2024): Breakthroughs in CH4 capture technologies: Key to reducing fugitive methane emissions in the energy sector. In Carbon Capture Science & Technology 13, p. 100316. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100316.
34
Boomsma, Christine; Mors, Emma ter; Jack, Corin; Broecks, Kevin; Buzoianu, Corina; Cismaru, Diana M. et al. (2020): Community compensation in the context of Carbon Capture and Storage: Current debates and practices. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 101, p. 103128. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103128.
35
Xenias, Dimitrios; Whitmarsh, Lorraine (2018): Carbon capture and storage (CCS) experts’ attitudes to and experience with public engagement. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 78, pp. 103–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.07.030.
36
Pereira, Eduardo G.; Omotuyi, Opeyemi; Righetti, Tara; Edwards, Hannah Hylton (2025): CCUS: Legal Developments, Policies, and Challenges, pp. 205–234. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-81272-9_8.
37
Nielsen, Jacob A. E.; Stavrianakis, Kostas; Morrison, Zoe (2022): Community acceptance and social impacts of carbon capture, utilization and storage projects: A systematic meta-narrative literature review. In PloS one 17 (8). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272409.
38
Whitmarsh, Lorraine; Xenias, Dimitrios; Jones, Christopher R. (2019): Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage. In Palgrave Commun 5 (1). DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0217-x.
39
Coyle, Fiona J. (2016): ‘Best practice’ community dialogue: The promise of a small-scale deliberative engagement around the siting of a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) facility. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 45, pp. 233–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.12.006.
40
Wang, Nan; Akimoto, Keigo; Nemet, Gregory F. (2021): What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects. In Energy Policy 158, p. 112546. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112546.
41
Dave Forecast (2025): The bottleneck of CCS – What’s holding the industry back and how can we move forward? In Shearwater, 10/16/2025. Available online at https://www.shearwatergeo.com/insights/the-bottleneck-of-ccs-whats-holding-the-industry-back-and-how-can-we-move-forward, checked on 2/16/2026.
42
d’Amore, Federico; Lovisotto, Leonardo; Bezzo, Fabrizio (2020): Introducing social acceptance into the design of CCS supply chains: A case study at a European level. In Journal of Cleaner Production 249, p. 119337. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119337.
43
Ming, Zeng; Shaojie, Ouyang; Yingjie, Zhang; Hui, Shi (2014): CCS technology development in China: Status, problems and countermeasures—Based on SWOT analysis. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 39, pp. 604–616. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.037.
44
Blunt, Carys; Gibbins, Jon; Roberts, Jennifer J.; Bray, Rachel (2024): Capacity Building for Ecrs: What’s Different About Ccs? In SSRN Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5043787.
45
POLLAK, MELISA; Wilson, Elizabeth J. (2009): Risk governance for geological storage of CO 2 under the Clean Development Mechanism. In Climate Policy 9 (1), pp. 71–87. DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2008.0528.
46
Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd 2014 (2014): Legal Liability and Carbon Capture and Storage A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE. Edited by Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd 2014. Internet: Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd 2014. Available online at https://bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.ucl.ac.uk/dist/e/211/files/2015/05/legal-liability-carbon-capture-storage-comparative-perspective.pdf, checked on 2/16/2026.
47
Elizabeth Aldrich; Cassandra Koerner; David Solan (2011): Analysis of Liability Regimes for Carbon Capture and Sequestration: A Review for Policymakers. In 1 1, pp. 3–46. Available online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269331, checked on 2/16/2026.
48
European Commission for Energy, Climate and Environment (2026): Legislative framework. The existing legislative framework ensures that capturing, transporting and storing CO₂ in Europe is safe for people and the environment. Read more about the requirements in place. Available online at https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/industrial-carbon-management/legislative-framework_en#:~:text=Apart%20from%20routine%20inspections%20carried,credited%20as%20%E2%80%9Cnot%20emitted%E2%80%9D., checked on 2/25/2026.
49
Bankes, Nigel (2019): Alberta’s approach to the transfer of liability for carbon capture and storage projects. In IJRAM 22 (3/4), Article 103331, p. 311. DOI: 10.1504/IJRAM.2019.103331.
50
Frattini, Linda; Becattini, Viola; Mazzotti, Marco (2024): Main current legal and regulatory frameworks for carbon dioxide capture, transport, and storage in the European Economic Area. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 136, p. 104172. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104172.
51
IEAGHG; Greg Cook; Paul Zakkour (2016): Review of GHG Accounting Rules for CCS. Available online at https://ieaghg.org/publications/review-of-ghg-accounting-rules-for-ccs/, checked on 2/24/2026.
52
Muhammad Zaki Naufal (2024): Measurement, Reporting, and Verification in Carbon Capture and Storage. Available online at https://www.petroraya.com/article/measurement-reporting-and-verification-in-carbon-capture-and-storage/, checked on 2/24/2026.
53
Plasynski, Sean I.; Litynski, John T.; McIlvried, Howard G.; Vikara, Derek M.; Srivastava, Rameshwar D. (2011): The critical role of monitoring, verification, and accounting for geologic carbon dioxide storage projects. In Environ. Geosci. 18 (1), pp. 19–34. DOI: 10.1306/eg.06231010008.
54
Lianjie Huang; Xianjin Yang (2022): Evaluating Different Geophysical Monitoring Techniques for Geological Carbon storage. Geophysical Monitoring for Geological Carbon Storage, Geophysical Monograph. In 1 1 (1), Article 1, pp. 1–5. Available online at https://books.google.de/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=48l6EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=carbon+storage+monitoring&ots=lf0VSF6ZVC&sig=xE-7cJlY-DOzmqFewYO8yFw9xmY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=carbon%20storage%20monitoring&f=false, checked on 2/16/2026.
55
Blomberg, Ann E. A.; Waarum, Ivar-Kristian; Totland, Christian; Eek, Espen (2021): Marine Monitoring for Offshore Geological Carbon Storage—A Review of Strategies, Technologies and Trends. In Geosciences 11 (9), p. 383. DOI: 10.3390/geosciences11090383.
56
Gaurina-Međimurec, Nediljka; Novak-Mavar, Karolina; Majić, Matej (2018): CCS TECHNOLOGY: OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS, TECHNOLOGY AND MONITORING. In MGPB 33 (2), pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.17794/rgn.2018.2.1.
57
Nooraiepour, Mohammad; Gladysz, Pawel; Melaaen, Eirik (2025): Norwegian–Polish carbon capture and storage network: Bilateral collaboration for European climate action. In Energy Research & Social Science 126, p. 104106. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2025.104106.
58
de Moura Maria Cecilia (2022): Carbon Capture and Storage Plays a Small but Important Role. In Low-Carbon Pathways for Transportation: Ramping up vehicle electrification and phasing out petroleum, pp. 27–28. Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep44913.11.
59
Varnier, Leonardo; d’Amore, Federico; Clausen, Kim; Melitos, Georgios; Groot, Bart de; Bezzo, Fabrizio (2025): Combined electrification and carbon capture for low-carbon cement: Techno-economic assessment of different designs. In Journal of Cleaner Production 498, p. 145029. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145029.

1
European, C. The European Green Deal. (2021)
3
Ipcc. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. (2005).
4
Ipcc. Global Warming of 1.5°C: Special Report. (2018).
5
IEA (2021): Net Zero by 2050 (1), p. 224. Available online at https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050, checked on 2/16/2026.
2
Rasool, Muhammad Hammad; Moiz Hashmi, Syed Abdul (2025): Carbon capture and storage: An evidence-based review of its limitations and missed promises. In Petroleum Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.ptlrs.2025.09.005.
6
Global, C. C. S. I. The Cost of Carbon Capture and Storage: 2022 Update. (2022).
8
Enerdata (2025): What future for emission trading in the EU. With assistance of Enerdata. Enerdata. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/executive-briefing/carbon-price-projections-eu-ets.html#:~:text=The%20projections%20assume%20no%20change,leading%20to%20decreasing%20price%20trajectories. Available online at https://www.enerdata.net/publications/executive-briefing/carbon-price-projections-eu-ets.html#:~:text=The%20projections%20assume%20no%20change,leading%20to%20decreasing%20price%20trajectories., updated on 11/27/2025, checked on 3/2/2026.
9
Mac Dowell, N. & et al. The role of CO? capture and storage in climate policy. Nature Climate Change 7, 243-249 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3231
10
Clark, G.; Davis, M.; Kumar, A. (2025): The development of a framework to compare carbon capture and storage technologies as a means of decarbonizing cement production. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 214, p. 115556. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.115556.
11
Nasir, Ernieza; Go, Yun, II (2024): Carbon capture and storage at Malaysia power plants: Evaluation of its feasibility and requisite enablers. In Journal of Cleaner Production 469, p. 143173. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143173.
12
Martin-Roberts, Emma; Scott, Vivian; Flude, Stephanie; Johnson, Gareth; Haszeldine, R. Stuart; Gilfillan, Stuart (2021): Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade. In One Earth 4 (11), pp. 1569–1584. DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.002.
13
Ghiat, Ikhlas; Banu, Aliya; Bicer, Yusuf; Amhamed, Abdulkarem I.; Al-Ansari, Tareq (2025): Circularity within carbon capture networks: A review of capture and utilization technologies. In Journal of CO₂ Utilization 95, p. 103075. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2025.103075.
7
Organisation for Economic, C.-o. & Development. Government Support for CCS: Policies and Mechanisms. (2022).
15
Energy, U. S. D. o. U.S. Department of Energy Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. (2023).
16
Tamburini, Federica; Zanobetti, Francesco; Cipolletta, Mariasole; Bonvicini, Sarah; Cozzani, Valerio (2024): State of the art in the quantitative risk assessment of the CCS value chain. In Process Safety and Environmental Protection 191, pp. 2044–2063. DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2024.09.066.
14
Maqui, Diane Mariella; Choi, Angelo Earvin Sy (2026): Carbon capture, utilization, and storage: Scientific basis, practical applications, and climate role. In Chemical Engineering Journal Advances 25, p. 101049. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceja.2026.101049.
17
IEA (2022): CO₂ Storage Resources and their Development – An IEA CCUS Handbook. Available online at https://www.iea.org/reports/CO₂-storage-resources-and-their-development.
18
Ipcc. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. (2022).
19
Behrad Vakylabad, Ali (2024): Recent advances and new concepts of carbon storage and transportation, pp. 163–185. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-19067-4.00021-8.
20
International Energy, A. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage: A Global Perspective. (2021).
21
Emborg, M.; Kisieliene, L.; Thonemann, N.; Eftekhari, A. A.; Olsen, S. I. (2025): Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and storage value chains: A systematic, critical literature review. In Sustainable Production and Consumption. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2025.09.015.
22
L’Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). ‘Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, pp. 848-863.
23
Global, C. C. S. I. The Role of CCS in Net-Zero Strategies. (2023)
24
World Health, O. Air Pollution and Human Health. (2022).
25
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, C. Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. (2021).
26
Burnside WR, Pulver S, Fiorella KJ, Avolio ML, Alexander SM, eds. Robert D. Bullard (1990). In: Foundations of Socio-Environmental Research: Legacy Readings with Commentaries. Cambridge University Press; 2022:370-379.
27
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate, C. Paris Agreement and CCS Implementation Strategies. (2018).
28
International Energy, A. The Role of CCS in Net-Zero Pathways. (2023).
29
International Energy Agency. Carbon CAPTURE
and SToraGE
Model Regulatory Framework (2010).
30
Hanssen, Steef V.; Steinmann, Zoran J. N.; Daioglou, Vassilis; Čengić, Mirza; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Huijbregts, Mark A. J. (2022): Global implications of crop-based bioenergy with carbon capture and storage for terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity. In Global change biology. Bioenergy 14 (3), pp. 307–321. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12911.
31
Davids, Daniel; Grant, Neil; Mittal, Shivika; Hawkes, Adam; Oluleye, Gbemi (2025): Impact of methane leakage rate and carbon capture rate on blue hydrogen sustainability using combined warming index. In Applied Energy 394, p. 125888. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125888.
32
Hersbach, Thomas J.P.; Mastrandrea, Michael D.; Wara, Michael W. (2025): Flexible operation and fugitive methane emissions limit the potential of power plant carbon capture and storage. In The Electricity Journal 38 (3), p. 107494. DOI: 10.1016/j.tej.2025.107494.
33
Deng, Wenkang; Xie, Xiaofeng; Guo, Yalou; Hu, Guoping (2024): Breakthroughs in CH4 capture technologies: Key to reducing fugitive methane emissions in the energy sector. In Carbon Capture Science & Technology 13, p. 100316. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100316.
34
Boomsma, Christine; Mors, Emma ter; Jack, Corin; Broecks, Kevin; Buzoianu, Corina; Cismaru, Diana M. et al. (2020): Community compensation in the context of Carbon Capture and Storage: Current debates and practices. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 101, p. 103128. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103128.
35
Xenias, Dimitrios; Whitmarsh, Lorraine (2018): Carbon capture and storage (CCS) experts’ attitudes to and experience with public engagement. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 78, pp. 103–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.07.030.
36
Pereira, Eduardo G.; Omotuyi, Opeyemi; Righetti, Tara; Edwards, Hannah Hylton (2025): CCUS: Legal Developments, Policies, and Challenges, pp. 205–234. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-81272-9_8.
37
Nielsen, Jacob A. E.; Stavrianakis, Kostas; Morrison, Zoe (2022): Community acceptance and social impacts of carbon capture, utilization and storage projects: A systematic meta-narrative literature review. In PloS one 17 (8). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272409.
38
Whitmarsh, Lorraine; Xenias, Dimitrios; Jones, Christopher R. (2019): Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage. In Palgrave Commun 5 (1). DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0217-x.
39
Coyle, Fiona J. (2016): ‘Best practice’ community dialogue: The promise of a small-scale deliberative engagement around the siting of a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) facility. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 45, pp. 233–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.12.006.
40
Wang, Nan; Akimoto, Keigo; Nemet, Gregory F. (2021): What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects. In Energy Policy 158, p. 112546. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112546.
41
Dave Forecast (2025): The bottleneck of CCS – What’s holding the industry back and how can we move forward? In Shearwater, 10/16/2025. Available online at https://www.shearwatergeo.com/insights/the-bottleneck-of-ccs-whats-holding-the-industry-back-and-how-can-we-move-forward, checked on 2/16/2026.
42
d’Amore, Federico; Lovisotto, Leonardo; Bezzo, Fabrizio (2020): Introducing social acceptance into the design of CCS supply chains: A case study at a European level. In Journal of Cleaner Production 249, p. 119337. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119337.
43
Ming, Zeng; Shaojie, Ouyang; Yingjie, Zhang; Hui, Shi (2014): CCS technology development in China: Status, problems and countermeasures—Based on SWOT analysis. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 39, pp. 604–616. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.037.
44
Blunt, Carys; Gibbins, Jon; Roberts, Jennifer J.; Bray, Rachel (2024): Capacity Building for Ecrs: What’s Different About Ccs? In SSRN Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5043787.
45
POLLAK, MELISA; Wilson, Elizabeth J. (2009): Risk governance for geological storage of CO 2 under the Clean Development Mechanism. In Climate Policy 9 (1), pp. 71–87. DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2008.0528.
46
Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd 2014 (2014): Legal Liability and Carbon Capture and Storage A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE. Edited by Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd 2014. Internet: Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd 2014. Available online at https://bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.ucl.ac.uk/dist/e/211/files/2015/05/legal-liability-carbon-capture-storage-comparative-perspective.pdf, checked on 2/16/2026.
47
Elizabeth Aldrich; Cassandra Koerner; David Solan (2011): Analysis of Liability Regimes for Carbon Capture and Sequestration: A Review for Policymakers. In 1 1, pp. 3–46. Available online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269331, checked on 2/16/2026.
48
European Commission for Energy, Climate and Environment (2026): Legislative framework. The existing legislative framework ensures that capturing, transporting and storing CO₂ in Europe is safe for people and the environment. Read more about the requirements in place. Available online at https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/industrial-carbon-management/legislative-framework_en#:~:text=Apart%20from%20routine%20inspections%20carried,credited%20as%20%E2%80%9Cnot%20emitted%E2%80%9D., checked on 2/25/2026.
49
Bankes, Nigel (2019): Alberta’s approach to the transfer of liability for carbon capture and storage projects. In IJRAM 22 (3/4), Article 103331, p. 311. DOI: 10.1504/IJRAM.2019.103331.
50
Frattini, Linda; Becattini, Viola; Mazzotti, Marco (2024): Main current legal and regulatory frameworks for carbon dioxide capture, transport, and storage in the European Economic Area. In International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 136, p. 104172. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104172.
51
IEAGHG; Greg Cook; Paul Zakkour (2016): Review of GHG Accounting Rules for CCS. Available online at https://ieaghg.org/publications/review-of-ghg-accounting-rules-for-ccs/, checked on 2/24/2026.
52
Muhammad Zaki Naufal (2024): Measurement, Reporting, and Verification in Carbon Capture and Storage. Available online at https://www.petroraya.com/article/measurement-reporting-and-verification-in-carbon-capture-and-storage/, checked on 2/24/2026.
53
Plasynski, Sean I.; Litynski, John T.; McIlvried, Howard G.; Vikara, Derek M.; Srivastava, Rameshwar D. (2011): The critical role of monitoring, verification, and accounting for geologic carbon dioxide storage projects. In Environ. Geosci. 18 (1), pp. 19–34. DOI: 10.1306/eg.06231010008.
54
Lianjie Huang; Xianjin Yang (2022): Evaluating Different Geophysical Monitoring Techniques for Geological Carbon storage. Geophysical Monitoring for Geological Carbon Storage, Geophysical Monograph. In 1 1 (1), Article 1, pp. 1–5. Available online at https://books.google.de/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=48l6EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=carbon+storage+monitoring&ots=lf0VSF6ZVC&sig=xE-7cJlY-DOzmqFewYO8yFw9xmY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=carbon%20storage%20monitoring&f=false, checked on 2/16/2026.
55
Blomberg, Ann E. A.; Waarum, Ivar-Kristian; Totland, Christian; Eek, Espen (2021): Marine Monitoring for Offshore Geological Carbon Storage—A Review of Strategies, Technologies and Trends. In Geosciences 11 (9), p. 383. DOI: 10.3390/geosciences11090383.
56
Gaurina-Međimurec, Nediljka; Novak-Mavar, Karolina; Majić, Matej (2018): CCS TECHNOLOGY: OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS, TECHNOLOGY AND MONITORING. In MGPB 33 (2), pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.17794/rgn.2018.2.1.
57
Nooraiepour, Mohammad; Gladysz, Pawel; Melaaen, Eirik (2025): Norwegian–Polish carbon capture and storage network: Bilateral collaboration for European climate action. In Energy Research & Social Science 126, p. 104106. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2025.104106.
58
de Moura Maria Cecilia (2022): Carbon Capture and Storage Plays a Small but Important Role. In Low-Carbon Pathways for Transportation: Ramping up vehicle electrification and phasing out petroleum, pp. 27–28. Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep44913.11.
59
Varnier, Leonardo; d’Amore, Federico; Clausen, Kim; Melitos, Georgios; Groot, Bart de; Bezzo, Fabrizio (2025): Combined electrification and carbon capture for low-carbon cement: Techno-economic assessment of different designs. In Journal of Cleaner Production 498, p. 145029. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145029.