{"id":421628,"date":"2026-01-16T16:29:44","date_gmt":"2026-01-16T15:29:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=421628"},"modified":"2026-01-16T16:29:46","modified_gmt":"2026-01-16T15:29:46","slug":"carbon-capture-utilisation-storage-separating-fact-from-fiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=421628","title":{"rendered":"\u201cCarbon\u201d Capture, Utilisation & Storage \u2013 Separating Fact from Fiction"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Illustration<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, Commodity Trader, Author (recent book \u201c<\/em>The Unpopular Truth\u2026 about Electricity and the Future of Energy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u201d<\/em><\/strong>)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Details inc the full Blog are available at <\/em>www.unpopular-truth.com<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Why CCUS sounds convincing but fails in practice<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCarbon\u201d Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) is widely described as essential for meeting \u201cclimate targets\u201d. Most \u201cnet-zero\u201d plans assume large amounts of future CO\u2082 removal to offset emissions that cannot be eliminated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question is\u2026 does carbon dioxide removal actually work at scale?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The short answer is\u2026no<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my blog post, I examine whether Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)<\/strong>, \u201cCarbon\u201d Capture and Storage (CCS)<\/strong>, \u201cCarbon\u201d Capture and Utilisation (CCU)<\/strong>, or Direct Air Capture (DAC)<\/strong> actually deliver meaningful climate benefits in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making use of published data from the IEA, IPCC, BCG, McKinsey, and peer-reviewed literature, I show that CCUS requires large amounts of energy and capital and delivers no measurable climate impact at scale as very little CO\u2082 is actually removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before dismissing my conclusion as \u201charsh,\u201d I invite you to read on (full blog here<\/a>). Let\u2019s look at what these terms really mean, what they aim to achieve, and what the data actually shows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can read the full blog here:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cCarbon\u201d Capture Utilization & Storage (CCUS)<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Why carbon dioxide removal exists<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its Summary for Policymakers<\/em>, the IPCC states that \u201cnet-zero\u201d emissions must be reached \u201cas quickly as possible\u201d to limit global warming. Unlike emissions-reduction measures, which limit how much CO\u2082 is released, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)<\/strong> is defined as activities that remove CO\u2082 from the atmosphere and store it securely and long-term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This distinction matters because \u201cnet-zero\u201d cannot be reached through emissions reductions alone<\/strong> and therefore large future volumes of CO\u2082 removal are assumed. This is why CCS and DAC continue to attract policy attention and investment despite limited real-world results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. What are we really capturing?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the name, \u201ccarbon capture\u201d does not capture carbon. It captures carbon dioxide (CO<\/strong>\u2082<\/strong>)<\/strong>, a big difference, but let\u2019s ignore that for now\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carbon itself is a solid element and a basic building block of life. Roughly a quarter of the human body is carbon, and almost all of it ultimately comes from atmospheric CO\u2082, if you wish the real building block of life. Plants absorb CO\u2082, animals and humans eat plants, and we exhale most of that carbon again.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 1: CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> is not inherently a pollutant. It is a trace gas and a fundamental input to life.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. CO\u2082 and warming: Diminishing \u201creturns\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO\u2082 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere<\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 2: CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> is a trace gas that acts as a minor greenhouse gas, with diminishing impact on temperatures<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Water vapour and clouds account for most of the so called \u201cgreenhouse effect\u201d that makes Earth a liveable planet. Crucially, CO<\/strong>\u2082<\/strong>\u2019s warming effect decreases logarithmically<\/strong>. means that additional CO\u2082 translates into smaller and smaller temperature changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.  How much CO\u2082 has CCS actually removed?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After nearly 30 years<\/strong>, global CCS has captured less than 400 million tons of CO<\/strong>\u2082<\/strong>. Much of this was used for enhanced oil recovery<\/strong>, not permanent storage. Realistically, only 100-200 million tons<\/strong> were ever truly removed, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, global CCS capacity is about 50 million tons per year<\/strong>, while global emissions (including CH4 at GWP20) are roughly 70 billion tons per year<\/strong>. CCS remains a million-tons technology<\/strong>, while climate plans assume billion-tons deployment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That gap is not political. It is physical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. The energy penalty no one likes to discuss<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Capturing CO\u2082 is energy-intensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adding CCS to a modern coal power plant reduces efficiency by<\/strong> 25\u201330%<\/strong>. When additional fuel mining, transport, compression, and CO\u2082 handling are included, the plant requires about 40% more primary energy<\/strong> to deliver the same electricity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 3: For a modern coal-fired power plant with ~90% CCS, the all-in primary-energy requirement per delivered MWh is typically ~40% higher than without CCS<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This includes additional coal consumption, capture and compression, increased mining, handling and transport of the extra coal, and CO\u2082 transport and injection for storage, assuming all CO\u2082 is permanently removed, which in practice is not the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In simple terms: more fuel is burned to hide the exhaust<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CCS does not \u201cclean\u201d energy systems. It makes them larger, more complex, and less efficient.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 4: The \u201cenergy cost of CCS\u201d for a coal-fired power station is about 1 MWh per 1 ton of CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Considering the fuel multiplier for gas-fired power plants with CCS, we are looking at about 25% less, because gas-fired power stations tend to be more fuel efficient, despite the smaller CO\u2082 concentration in the exhaust stream.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Germany, for instance, plans to capture about 2 million tons of CO<\/strong>\u2082<\/strong> per year<\/strong>\u2026at that scale, the \u201cclimate impact\u201d is negligible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Australia\u2019s flagship Gorgon CCS project<\/strong> was approved on the condition it would capture 80% of reservoir CO<\/strong>\u2082<\/strong>. In reality, it captured less than half that amount in 2024. These examples show the same pattern of high ambition, but poor delivery<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7.  Using CO\u2082 doesn\u2019t remove it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCarbon\u201d Capture and Utilisation (CCU) turns CO\u2082 into products, often fuels. But CO\u2082 is already fully oxidised. Turning it into fuel requires large amounts of additional energy, mainly hydrogen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Producing fuels from CO\u2082 typically consumes 8\u201310+ MWh per tons of CO<\/strong>\u2082<\/strong>, and the CO\u2082 is released again when the fuel is burned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most common use today is enhanced oil recovery<\/strong> (EOR) which is economically sensible, energy-positive, and climatically questionable. EOR is a set of techniques used to extract oil that cannot be produced using normal primary or secondary methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 5: CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> utilization to produce fuels represents an additional energy sink, and one that is more energy-intensive than CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> capture and storage CCS. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 6: Producing fuels from CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> using hydrogen carries a total system-level energy cost of 8\u201310+ MWh per tonne of CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong>, and the CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> is ultimately still released into the atmosphere. The \u201cenergy cost\u201d for producing and refining oil is significantly lower.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Flowchart<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

8. Direct air capture is like fighting physics\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct Air Capture tries to remove CO\u2082 from ambient air, where concentrations are just 0.04%<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That extreme dilution means enormous volumes of air must be moved. Most of the energy is spent moving air, not capturing CO\u2082. Even optimistic estimates suggest 2\u20134 MWh per tons<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Removing 1 billion tons per year<\/strong> would require roughly 8\u201315% of global electricity production<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DAC is technically possible but practically unscalable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 7: Enhanced Oil Recovery it the most common utilization of CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong>, with questionable \u201cclimate benefits\u201d  if any at all. However, it makes economic sense and is energy positive because it produces oil that would otherwise not be recoverable.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. What is the climate impact?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact 9: Assuming that, during the past 30 year, CCUS removed about 200 million tons of CO<\/em><\/strong>\u2082<\/em><\/strong> (that never resurfaced) from the atmosphere then, according to IPCCs MAGICC, 2100 temperatures reduced by \u2248 0.0001 \u00b0C<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n