Carbon Capture and Storage (\(\text{CCS}\)) involves capturing carbon dioxide (\(\text{CO}_2\)) emissions from large industrial sources and storing them permanently underground. It is an end-of-pipe solution that attempts to decarbonize sectors where emissions are difficult to eliminate, such as cement production and heavy industry. Despite its potential to reduce greenhouse gases, \(\text{CCS}\) has not achieved the widespread deployment necessary to meaningfully impact global climate targets. Financial burdens, massive infrastructure requirements, safety concerns, and complex regulatory hurdles restrict its implementation. These obstacles make the technology currently impractical as a large-scale, standalone climate solution.
High Economic and Energy Costs
The largest barrier to widespread \(\text{CCS}\) adoption is the high financial and energy cost associated with the capture process. Retrofitting existing power plants or building new facilities requires massive Capital Expenditure (\(\text{CAPEX}\)), often adding over \(40\%\) to the initial construction cost of an industrial plant. For proposed projects, the median unit \(\text{CAPEX}\) can be around \(\\)800$ for every annual ton of \(\text{CO}_2\) collected.
Operational costs (\(\text{OPEX}\)) are driven up by the “energy penalty,” the substantial energy required to separate and compress the captured \(\text{CO}_2\). Post-combustion capture, for example, uses chemical solvents that must be heated to release the \(\text{CO}_2\) for storage, which is highly energy-intensive. This parasitic load can reduce the net power output of a plant by \(10\%\) to \(40\%\), requiring more fuel to be burned to generate the same usable electricity.
This loss of efficiency translates to a higher cost per ton of \(\text{CO}_2\) captured, typically ranging from \(\\)40$ to \(\\)120$ for dilute gas streams like those from coal power or cement plants. These high capture costs must be absorbed by the operator without a strong market mechanism to offset the expense. Without a high, stable price on carbon emissions, the technology remains economically uncompetitive with alternatives, making the business case for \(\text{CCS}\) difficult to justify.
Logistical Hurdles of Transport and Storage
After \(\text{CO}_2\) is captured and compressed, the challenge shifts to moving and securely storing the gas. Efficient transport over long distances requires keeping \(\text{CO}_2\) in a dense, supercritical state, necessitating high-pressure pipelines operating at over \(1,080\) pounds per square inch. Scaling \(\text{CCS}\) to meet global climate goals requires constructing new pipeline networks capable of transporting gigatons of gas, a buildout rate rarely achieved historically.
The location of emission sources rarely aligns with suitable geological storage sites, creating a “source-sink matching problem.” Viable reservoirs, such as deep saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas fields, must be located at least \(800\) meters underground to maintain the pressure and temperature needed for dense-phase storage. These sites also require a thick, impermeable caprock to ensure the \(\text{CO}_2\) remains trapped over millennia.
Identifying, characterizing, and permitting these formations is a time-consuming and complex process. Transporting massive volumes of high-pressure \(\text{CO}_2\) across long distances necessitates securing extensive rights-of-way and navigating public opposition to pipeline construction. The physical difficulty and cost of creating this infrastructure network pose a major practical obstacle to deployment.
Environmental and Safety Concerns
The long-term integrity of geological storage sites raises safety concerns for local populations. A primary risk is the potential for \(\text{CO}_2\) to migrate or leak out of the deep formation over time, which would negate the climate benefit. Since \(\text{CO}_2\) is buoyant, it naturally wants to rise. Potential escape pathways include fractures in the caprock, faults, and abandoned wells that were not properly sealed.
Another safety concern is induced seismicity, where injecting vast volumes of fluid increases the pore pressure deep underground. This pressure increase travels along existing faults, altering mechanical stress and potentially triggering seismic events. For example, the Illinois Basin-Decatur Project (\(\text{IBDP}\)) linked \(\text{CO}_2\) injection to hundreds of microearthquakes. Although the \(\text{IPCC}\) suggests that retention in well-selected sites exceeds \(99\%\) over a century, the public perception of storing gas that could cause tremors remains a significant hurdle.
Policy and Regulatory Complexities
A lack of clear, long-term legal and financial frameworks complicates investment in \(\text{CCS}\) projects. A major contention point is the long-term liability for stored \(\text{CO}_2\), which must remain sequestered for thousands of years, far exceeding a corporation’s typical operational lifetime. Investors are reluctant to assume unbounded financial responsibility for potential leakage or environmental damage decades in the future.
Regulatory frameworks establish a “stewardship period” during which the company is liable. After this period (e.g., \(20\) years in the \(\text{EU}\)), liability transfers to a government entity. This transfer requires operators to post financial assurance mechanisms, such as bonds or trust funds, to cover future remediation costs, but the long-term adequacy of these funds is uncertain. This lack of a unified policy on liability and financial risk stalls investment and creates market uncertainty.
The absence of a robust, universally applied carbon pricing mechanism fails to provide an economic incentive for polluters to adopt this expensive technology. While tax credits exist, a stable, high carbon price or a strong regulatory mandate is necessary to make carbon capture financially competitive with simply emitting \(\text{CO}_2\). Policy fragmentation and regulatory uncertainty act as significant administrative barriers to large-scale deployment.