Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies are getting increasing attention and investment as climate mitigation solutions. It is a way to reduce CO2 using technologies that separate them from other gases before going into the atmosphere, then CO2 is incorporated into products or stored underground. Similarly, there are carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies that remove CO2 that is already in the air, such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). While BECCS involves capturing emissions at the source where biomass is combusted, it is considered carbon removal because the captured CO2 came from the air and was absorbed by plants through photosynthesis.

In 2024, there are around 45 commercial carbon capture facilities operating globally with sequestration capacity of more than 50 megatons of CO2 per year. However, not a few people oppose the idea of CCUS development, deeming that it is only perpetuating the real problem: continued use of emission-intensive fossil fuels. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) analysis of 16 carbon capture facilities found that no project has consistently captured 80% of carbon, underperforming the industry’s claim of 95% of carbon capture rate. Even if we can realize the full planned potential of CCUS, it will contribute to only 2.4% of global mitigation efforts by 2030, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In addition, the technology is notorious for being costly and often delayed.

So, do we still need CCUS?

We need CCUS to complement other mitigation efforts, including renewable energy and nature-based carbon offset. In IPCC’s scenarios in which warming is kept close to 1.5°C, we need to eliminate deforestation almost immediately and restore 250 billion tons of CO2 back into the biosphere by 2100. In the same period, we need to capture an additional 1,000 billion tons of CO2 and reduce fossil fuel use by 75-80%. Overall, nature-based solutions are more affordable and beneficial for biodiversity and communities, while technology-based solutions offer more certainty of carbon permanence and easier calculation of captured carbon. CCUS technologies need to be deployed responsibly, meaning we shouldn’t only focus on ensuring emission reduction, but also minimizing negative impacts to people living around the CCUS area.

---

Want to expand your knowledge on decarbonization and carbon market topics? Don’t miss our weekly articles on Insights page and follow our LinkedIn to stay updated 🌳

References:

Allen, M. (2024). Getting carbon capture right will be hard – but that doesn’t make it optional. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/getting-carbon-capture-right-will-be-hard-but-that-doesnt-make-it-optional-241515

Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis. (n.d.). Carbon Capture and Storage. IEEFA. https://ieefa.org/ccs

International Energy Agency. (2024). Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage. IEA. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage#tracking

Lebling, K., Gangotra, A., Hausker, K., & Byrum, Z. (2023, November 13). 7 Things to Know About Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/carbon-capture-technology

Rattenbury, B. (2022). Tackling carbon emissions: nature vs technology? Both! Sylvera. https://www.sylvera.com/blog/tackling-carbon-emissions-nature-vs-technology-both