The role—and limits—of carbon capture in the energy transition

Wouldn’t it be a fantastic solution if we could just suck all the excess carbon out of the air? It sounds like the perfect shortcut to achieving the energy transition. Carbon capture has this almost magical appeal—and crucially, the technology already exists. 

“It’s not science fiction—carbon capture is real, and it’s already working. But that doesn’t mean it’s the silver bullet we’ve been waiting for,” explains Samantha Gross, energy expert at the Brookings Institution and guest on a recent podcast hosted by EsadeGeo. The initiative is part of the Observatory EsadeGeo-Fundación Repsol on the Geopolitics of Energy Transition.

While carbon capture technologies such as CCS, CCU, and CDR are often hailed as game-changers, Gross and other experts caution that their role is far more specific and much more limited than some headlines suggest. 

What is carbon capture?

Carbon capture can be done in different ways, each with its own plus points and pitfalls: 

• CCS – Carbon Capture and Storage. Capturing carbon at the source—used at power plants and cement facilities—and injecting it underground into geological reservoirs.
• CCU – Carbon Capture Utilization. Instead of storing CO₂, it is reused in industrial processes, such as in the production of fuels or chemicals.
• CDR/DAC – Carbon Dioxide Removal or Direct Air Capture. Pulling carbon directly out of the atmosphere, where it is only 0.04 percent of the air. 

As Gross puts it: “Capturing something that’s only 0.04 percent of the total is actually really difficult. It can be done, but it’s much easier and cheaper to get it from an industrial process.” 

All three approaches are proven to work, but CCS is at the most advanced stage of development. DAC, by contrast, is still prohibitively expensive and is at a very early stage of development. 

There is progress, albeit slowly. In 2023, the announced capture capacity for 2030 rose by 35 percent, while announced storage capacity jumped 70 percent. But even so, global capacity still falls far behind the levels required to meet climate targets. 

How is it used, and what does it cost?

Until carbon capture becomes consistently affordable, it will remain a peripheral technology. Still, some cases show promise. 

In specific scenarios—such as treating natural gas with high CO₂ content—storage can cost as little as $15–$20 per ton. “There are some applications where we’re well below $100 a ton now… you can add the additional step of storing [CO₂] for maybe $15 or $20 a ton,” notes Gross. 

To grow and scale new technologies, early government support is essential

The majority of CCS projects cost between $60 and $100+ per ton. DAC is costlier because it extracts such a small concentration of CO₂, but it’s an important benchmark for understanding the outer edge of abatement costs. 

Geography directly affects costs. The US Gulf Coast, for example, is ideal for carbon capture thanks to its mix of heavy industry and nearby geological reservoirs for storage. Norway’s offshore fields provide the advantage of the right geology, and expertise in underground operations. But as soon as CO₂ must be transported long distances—through pipelines or by ship—the economics quickly deteriorate. 

Arguments for and against carbon capture

The very existence of working carbon capture projects raises a key question: if we can already extract CO₂, should we focus on this approach? The answer is more nuanced than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. 

The argument in favor alludes to the fact that some industries will always emit CO₂, regardless of how clean their energy source is. The cement and steel industries are prime examples. For these sectors, CCS is one of the only real options. In future, as with other technologies, costs are likely to decline as experience and investment grow, making CCS more scalable. 

Opposition to CCS cannot be ignored. Carbon capture is expensive and energy-intensive. Critics argue it risks diverting resources from cheaper, proven solutions such as renewable energy. It can also create ethical hazards. If companies assume they can capture emissions later, they lose the urgency to reduce them now. This could effectively give industries carte blanche to keep on producing carbon. 

There is also skepticism about its uses: “Carbon capture technologies are mainly used to extract more oil,” argues international NGO, Global Witness, in a blog post. The risk is that billions invested in CCS could actually help extend the fossil fuel era rather than end it. 

Not the solution to all our problems

Gross is clear that CCS is not a Swiss Army Knife to solve all problems: “Carbon capture and storage is a tool in the toolkit,” she emphasizes. It is particularly valuable for hard-to-abate industries where CO₂ is a byproduct of the industry process. But it should not replace the rapid rollout of hydrogen and renewables. 

CCS should not be used as an excuse to downplay or ignore a shift toward renewables

To expect CCS on its own to lead us down the pathway to decarbonization would be risky, expensive, and ultimately insufficient. 

The role of government

Policy frameworks are essential to make carbon capture viable. “We’ve treated the environment as a free place to deposit CO₂ forever. And the only way to change that is with policy,” says Gross. 

Policy varies across the globe. In the US, subsidies are used, providing financial incentives to companies that capture and store carbon. In the EU, carbon pricing plays a central role. Polluters pay for their emissions, making capture economically attractive. Although carbon pricing isn’t without its pitfalls, it sometimes leads to climate dumping, where carbon-intensive production is outsourced to countries outside the EU. 

To grow and scale new technologies, early government support is essential. Banks are reluctant to finance the first or second large-scale plant using an unproven approach. Public backing is therefore critical until costs stabilize and confidence builds. 

The future of carbon capture

CCS is not magic. It should not be used as an excuse to downplay or ignore a shift toward renewables. But it does offer value if its deployment is targeted, supported by smart policy and integrated with broader decarbonization strategies. 

Gross offers a final reminder: “If you remember one thing, remember that [direct air capture] is going to be the most expensive way to capture carbon.” 

The future challenge will be balancing engineering, economics, and policy to deploy carbon capture pragmatically—without losing sight of the bigger energy transition goals.