By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Today, global operating nameplate capture capacity is approximately 60 million tonnes a year. If fully utilised, that would represent gross capture equivalent to roughly 14-15 hours of annual global energy and industrial emissions. Actual verified net storage is lower.” (- Martin Jagger, below)
Martin Jagger, a climate activist specializing in carbon capture & storage, recently wrote a sobering post on the progress of this technology in addressing the assumed-to-be climate crisis. This problematic approach is another example of the tears-in-the-ocean choices of climate mitigation policy.
“For twenty years,” he begins, “I have argued that CCS has an important role to play in managing emissions from industries where practical alternatives remain limited.” The progress to date has been small, and the effect on global emissions minuscule. He explains:
Today, global operating nameplate capture capacity is approximately 60 million tonnes a year. If fully utilised, that would represent gross capture equivalent to roughly 14-15 hours of annual global energy and industrial emissions. Actual verified net storage is lower…. Closing even the gap between today’s operating capacity and the announced [EIA estimated] 2030 pipeline would require an extraordinary acceleration in permitting, financing, construction, commissioning and sustained operating performance.
The interest and potential investment are there, he believes, but “delivery” is small and problematic.
… announcements are not delivery, storage resources are not injection capacity, and nameplate capacity is not independently verified climate impact. The next phase of CCS must therefore be more demanding than the last. By 2030, success should no longer be measured primarily by the number of projects announced, memoranda signed, licences awarded or billions committed. It should be measured by verified net tonnes securely stored, year after year. That requires a tougher delivery model.
He alludes to the problem of getting from hyperbole to practice.
We have largely solved the problem of attracting interest and announcing investment. We have not yet solved the delivery problem. That distinction matters because CCS cannot indefinitely be judged by its potential. Nor should every delay be explained by saying that the industry simply needs more policy support or more public money. After two decades, the burden of proof must begin to shift.
Continuing:
That shift also requires greater honesty about how progress is reported. Too many of the institutions responsible for advocacy and industry leadership still present CCS largely as a good-news story. New projects, funding awards and headline capacity are publicised; delays, cancellations, operating shortfalls and the absence of verified storage receive much less attention.
Final Comment
Government incentives for carbon capture and storage, formalized in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (Section 45Q tax credit), should be terminated to please the free-market community and many environmentalists. [2] The whole initiative is inconsequential to global or regional climate, and projects have been opposed by local residents in the U.S. and elsewhere. [3]
[1] Martin Jagger’s bio reads:
I am an Executive Consultant in Energy Transition Strategy and Decarbonisation Delivery with a track record of bringing operator discipline to CCS policy and projects. I established Shell’s Carbon Capture and Storage Centre of Excellence in 2007 and helped shape international frameworks for long-term CO₂ storage that informed UNFCCC CDM mechanisms and regulatory guidance.
I currently advise sovereigns, regulators and innovators on areas where policy realism, technical feasibility and capital must align. My work tests the credibility of targets, the true scaling pathways for CCS and low-carbon fuels, and the structural barriers that stall momentum – especially FID drag, subsidy distortion, infrastructure mis-sequencing and the policy-performance gap.
[2] The tax credits since 2022 are $85 per ton of CO₂ stored for dedicated geologic storage projects and $60 per ton for CO₂ utilization projects with associated storage, increased subsidies from $50 and $35 (2018) and $20 and $10 (2008). A summary of federal largess from Taxpayers for Common Sense reads:
For decades, the federal government has provided billions of dollars in both direct and indirect subsidies to support CCS technology and projects. These subsidies have included research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) funding, loan guarantees, and tax credits.
Over the past few decades some of these subsidies have gone to projects that have been repeatedly started and stopped, only to eventually collapse due to various economic issues and controversies (e.g., FutureGen, Kemper). Additionally, the 45Q tax credit, which has grown significantly in both size and scope, has been mired in fraud and waste. To date, the federal government has spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on CCS through research and development funding and tax credits, yet the technology is still struggling with widescale deployment issues due to high costs….
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Congress provided roughly $9 billion (in nominal dollars) in annual appropriations for DOE’s FECM from FY2010 to FY2023, with over $2.8 billion specifically directed towards CCS line items…. Congress appropriated $12 billion more to the technology through the infrastructure law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, P.L. 117-58) and greatly expanded the already lucrative tax credit in the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law 117-169).
[3] There are currently 15 operating CCS facilities in the U.S. and another 120 projects under development. The top ten projects are (verbatim):
1. Stratos Direct Air Capture (DAC) Project
Companies: Occidental Petroleum (through its subsidiary 1 Point Five) and Origis Energy
Capacity: 500, 000 metric tons of CO₂ annually
Application: Direct Air Capture powered by a dedicated solar portfolio
Source: Origis Energy Commissions 500 MWdc Swift Air Solar Projects in …
2. CF Industries Donaldsonville CCS Facility
Companies: Calpine Corporation and Exxon Mobil
Capacity: Approximately 2 million metric tons of CO₂ annually
Application: Low-carbon power generation from a new natural gas plant
Source: Calpine, Exxon Mobil sign CO 2 transportation and storage …
3. Calpine Baytown Energy Center CCS Project
Companies: CF Industries and Exxon Mobil
Capacity: A key component of Exxon Mobil’s contracted ~9 million metric tons per annum (MTA) portfolio
Application: Decarbonization of ammonia production
Source: Here’s How XOM Is Scaling Up Its CCS Footprint to Reduce Emissions
4. Google-Backed Gas Power Plant with CCS
Companies: Google and Mitsubishi Power
Capacity: Designed to capture 90% of CO₂ emissions
Application: Firm, low-carbon power for data centers
Source: Google Commits to First U.S. Gas-Fired Power Plant with Integrated …
5. California Resources Corporation (CRC) Carbon Terra Vault I (CTV I)
Company: California Resources Corporation
Capacity: Not specified; designed as a dedicated CO₂ storage facility
Application: CO₂ injection and permanent geologic storage
Source: California Resources Corporation Breaks Ground on California’s …
6. Sweetwater Carbon Storage Hub (SCS Hub)
Companies: Frontier Infrastructure and Baker Hughes
Capacity: Positioned to be one of the largest U.S. CO₂ sequestration assets (specific tonnage not provided)
Application: Multi-user CO₂ sequestration hub for industrial emitters
Source: Baker Hughes, Frontier Infrastructure Partner on Carbon Capture …
7. ADM Decatur CCS Facility
Company: Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM)
Capacity: Averages nearly 0.5 Mtpa (based on 4.5 million metric tons sequestered over a decade)
Application: Long-term industrial CCS for ethanol production
Source: ADM and Carbon Capture and Storage
8. Lake Charles Power Station Integrated CO₂ Capture Project
Company: Project supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Capacity: Not specified; large-scale pilot
Application: Advancing capture technologies for power generation
Source: [XLS] Sheet 1 – Climate Program Portal
9. Illinois CO₂ Injection Project
Company: Unnamed Texas-based developer
Capacity: Not specified; early-stage regulatory filing
Application: New CO₂ injection and storage project
Source: CP Daily Newsletter: Wednesday February 18, 2026 – Carbon Pulse
10. Bantam DAC Facility
Company: Climeworks
Capacity: Over 5, 000 tons of CO₂ annually
Application: Direct Air Capture, noted as the largest operational DAC in the U.S. as of October 2025
Source: Facilities – CO 2 RE – Global CCS Institute
The taxpayers who paid for this junk should be entitled to reparations from the grifters who mis-sold it.
It would be actually funny if the CCS is eventually being used to store gas.
It has the chance to become the first woke thing in history that works and serves a real purpose.
But it could get much worse.
If current facilities capture 15 minutes of annual global emissions, that’s a magnificent grand total of 0.17% of emissions. And expenditure to get there was something like $200 billion, with annual operating costs of $4 billion.
Capture the lot and you’re looking at global capital deployment of $120 TRILLION and annual operating costs of 2.5 TRILLION.
The concept is . . . far more than utterly stupid.
But (random hand waving) it’s got electrolytes.
— Compliments to Idiocracy
Current and even future CCS projects will be a minute proportion of total CO2, the increase of which is having a minor effect on global temperatures, so it is not worth spending anything on these projects — a complete waste of time and money. Letting the plants consume the CO2 is a better idea, and will be eventually eaten as fruit,vegetables and meat
Just put into perspective : Earth has become greener in an area of roughly 40 mio km2.
How the hell will you compete with so much carbon capture?
And if building storage would be so easy and cheap on a megascale
every country would have built up reserves for at least a decade.
Just a question. Those 40 mio km2 of greening? Is there a tons of CO2 plant consumption to go along with that?
Not arguing the value of trees.
Just anticipating the counter-argument that while planting trees is relative to CCS much less expensive, trees do use a lot more land.
On an aside…
The comment in number 5 (CRC CTV I) in the article?
“permanent geologic storage”
Nothing can be “permanently” stored geologically speaking.
Landuse shouldn’t be a factor in this case as the Greening is more of the natural kind.
Nature pure – i don’t think that planting is anyhow relevant..
The intake of carbon dioxide by each leaf is more efficient the higher the CO2 level, so water loss through the pores is decreased. Bottom line, marginal land too dry for growth is now sustaining growth so fertile land area is increased in every region where these conditions prevail.
More importantly food crop yields are increasing significantly across the entire fertile growing areas without changing any other factors.
Even at that, most of these “top 10” projects in the list are not yet in service. One, the ADM project, has been service for years, injecting into the Mt. Simon sandstone. But CO2 from an ethanol plant is almost pure, so the energy-intensive absorbents and complex separation processes needed for fossil fuel plants is not needed. Just compress and inject, easy peasy.
Even so, the technology to separate CO2 has been used for years and is commercially available. However, a large share of power plants is not anywhere near a sequestration friendly geological formation. So, we can capture it, but where to put it? And don’t give me a lot of noise about pipelines. Try to put a CO2 pipeline anywhere near the east coast and the crazies will come out in full force with demonstrations, lawsuits and outright sabotage. Dakota Access Pipeline squared.
“Just compress and inject, easy peasy”
– tell that to the pumps-
CCS is a fools errand; trees and grasses and plankton will continue to scale and utilize CO2 without any effort on our part.
Such a waste of taxpayers $dollars.
Trees do the job for free and provide a much better scene than an industrial eye-saw ever could.
Why are governments in the western world so gullible? It looks like any grifter/charlatan can get what ever they want in state support simply by claiming their crazy idea will reduce climate change?
And growing more trees means the lumber industry can grow- to allow the construction at lower cost more homes to alleviate the affordability crisis.
Environmentalists want to burn the trees rather than harvesting them. They also want make sure that no one makes money off of the forests. That is a common theme.
Oh, here we go again. I have 50 years experience as a forester for starters. No, the enviros DON’T want to burn trees. There are some people who want to burn WASTE WOOD in power plants. Such biomass plants are actually a good deal if it’s all done right. The enviros, on the other hand, don’t want any trees cut for any reasons- thinking it’s a great way to sequester carbon- and, they already have nice wood homes, wood furniture and tons of paper products. The big forestry firms in the American southeast (often considered the wood basked of the planet) want to grow high quality timber- what doesn’t qualify they send to pulp plants, local firewood markets, etc. But they also now have developed chip plants and they ship it to many countries including of course to Drax in the UK. But, it’s not enviros. Go ask The Sierra Club or Audubon or Environmental Defense Fund or any other big enviro group and ask them if they want to burn trees for electricity. Of course, I know many enviros here in Wokeachuetts and many have wood stoves- shown their hypocrisy, but they don’t support woody biomass power plants. You’re right though that they don’t want anyone to make a profit from forests- as if that’s some kind of evil- making a profit from nature! OMG! Excellent forestry is comparable to excellent agriculture. We need it. But I’m the first to complain about BAD forestry and I’ve been a rebel in the forestry world for exposing bad forestry. Twice they tried to bust me at the forester licensing board- but that attempt failed. 🙂
Not sure you’re giving a complete picture when advocating the burning of wood to generate power. Even though some of the wood burnt for generation comes from managed forests, when the amount of CO2 emitted per kWh is double that of burning coal, and when the global forest area is being reduced per year by an area twice the size of Switzerland, burning wood for power is . . . beyond the height of stupidity and hypocrisy.
And then in the UK, where DRAX has to get its wood shipped across the Atlantic from north America, and when the only way the DRAX plant can stay in business is through taxpayer subsidies, then the maximum possible extent of stupidity has surely been breached.
Regardless of how much CO2 emissions come from burning wood- what should be looked at is the “landscape mode”- that is, if the total amount of carbon in the forest being managed is increasing over time, then whatever is lost from death and decay and harvesting and burning is irrelevant. That’s perspective I’m talking about- keeping in mind the carbon remaining and increasing in the forest. If the wood is coming from forests being permanently destroyed, that’s different. I don’t like seeing ANY forests destroyed for any purpose. Of course, most people here don’t see carbon emissions as a problem. Even if it’s true that they’re not a problem- it is a problem if a forest is destroyed to build wind and solar “farms” or for commercial development.
You miss the point, I’m afraid.
The burning of wood for generation is considered “renewable”. However, when total global forest acreage is being reduced by an area twice the size of Switzerland annually, whittering on about managed forests is . . . pointless – globally speaking, the burning of wood for electrical generation is the furthest thing from “renewable”.
If global forest areas were expanding, well, that’s a different matter. But that’s not the case . . . is it.
Joseph, I’m definitely not some sort of nutcase climate catastrophist trying to give you a hard time. What I’m doing is essentially countering the utter stupidity of the clean energy brigade who claim that wood burning generation is “renewable” . . . when it patently isn’t.
And, yes, when there is a wood burning generation plant right next to a forest which contributes towards sensible pragmatic forest management – action towards avoiding uncontrolled forest fires – hey . . . nobody with a brain in their head would argue.
Because no one does the thermodynamics, the cost benefit ratio or consider the opportunity costs-the Greens are petulant children that throw a hissy fit to get their desires- no matter how foolish or poorly thought out- done NOW! NOW! NOW!
Veruca Salt?
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 426 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains a mere 0.84 g of CO2. The reason there is so little CO2 in the air is because most of it is absorbed by the cold oceans and land surface fresh waters.
Mother Nature’s efficient CCS systems consists of: (1) plants on land, (2) plants in the oceans and in surface fresh waters, and (3) the oceans and land surface fresh waters. One liter of ice cold water can hold 3.6 g of CO2 (1.8 liters of CO2 gas.). This water is known as club soda.
The chemical engineers know all of the above but are just capturing and using the huge amount of free subsidy money.
It is worrying that the author does not seem to realise that CCS of 7,800 million tons of CO2 emissions only removes 0.5 ppm from the atmosphere, as opposed to direct air capture which removes 1 ppm. The IPCC make it very clear that around 50% of emissions are naturally sequestrated so to prevent 1 ppm from entering the atmosphere, 2 ppm needs to be captured?
Climate nut jobs here in Wokachusetts (with PhDs) say we not only must stop the increase in atmospheric CO2, but we must reduce it- bring it back to what it was a century ago. I suggest there are more climate nut jobs per square mile here than anywhere on the planet.
Your math is unclear unless your 2 ppm captured includes the 50% by nature.
CCS is the modern equivalent of people of Schilda trying to catch sunlight in bags to light up their townhouse after they realised they forgot to built it with windows.
The Schildburgers were the progressives of the middle ages, but they never existed( until recently)
Thanks for this – I had to look up the story of the Schildburgers, but your comment is very apt
There is no costing per unit for the pitifully small amount of current CCS. ;(
I still don’t see the economic model. You can create a market out of everything but it adds nothing to our living standard. You can insert a ass meter to measure ass gas and charge people money for it. Then you can have catching ass gas and getting money for it. Imaging someone during the stone age came up with that idea, how would that improve our cave mens life?
I give it 3-4 years and nobody will talk abut it as the economy is in shambles, high employment, black outs, unaffordable energy and fuel. How much CO2 does burning our cities emit?
You are late to that party, son.
Imagine the shock when the buyers realize that 95% of the farts being sold turn out to be fake.
Carbon Capture and Storage is just a costly and energy expensive attempt to throw away irrelevantly small amounts of useful plant food. It is promoted by people who have conveniently forgotten the elementary biology they should have learnt in primary school.
And more CO2 in the atmosphere from now on can only have a minor and diminishing temperature effect on the planet.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/proportions-of-the-temperature-contributions-of-greenhouse-gasses-h2o-co2-n2o-ch4/
I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually turns out that the amounts of co2 released to build,absorb and store co2 turn out to be magnitudes higher than the volume that is being stored.
Like solar panels, wind turbine generators, and BEVs.
“Then suddenly, a teeny tiny light bulb flickered on within the vast cave, and for a brief moment he could see his hand in front of his face…”
To be continued.
” the federal government has spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on CCS through research and development funding and tax credits, yet the technology is still struggling with widescale deployment issues due to high costs”
Well, Duh! For starters, it is NOT carbon that is captured, it’s carbon dioxide, a totally different molecule. A successful project starts with a proper description and name for the project. Then, it’s relatively easy to calculate the energy actually used from the combustion of the carbon , as well as the total energy consumed by “capturing”, containing, transporting, injecting, and permanently sealing the carbon dioxide forever. The ratio of useful energy to capture energy can then be determined.
This calculation should be relatively easy to perform on a single page spreadsheet to be fully released to anyone who might be interested. Considerable scrutiny could result. Unless a significant positive ratio survives the scrutiny, no taxpayer money shall be released for the project.
Permanently sealing the carbon dioxide forever.
As I recall, on Diamonds are Forever.
All else are transient with a wide range of timescales.
If, repeat if, one could “permanently” store CO2, then one could “permanently” store spend uranium fuel rods.
Not proposing permanently storing uranium fuel.
There are ways to recycle that have good economic metrics.
Well, sounds like not a problem- just increase what’s being spent on it now by about 500 times and you might get close. /s
A billion here. A billion there. Soon you are talking about real money. 🙂
The only CCS that has ever worked, is to plant a tree.
Ummmmm . . . I think you overlooked the world’s oceans, which absorb vast quantities of atmospheric CO2, transforming it into carbonic acid which then breaks down into bicarbonate and free hydrogen ions in the seawater.
From Google’s AI bot:
“The world’s oceans absorb approximately 2.5 to 3 billion metric tonnes (or about 30%) of net anthropogenic carbon dioxide each year, whereas global forests (including trees and plants) absorb a net of about 7.6 to 15.6 billion tonnes of CO2 annually.”
So, in comparison, am I supposed to be impressed by the claim of “global operating nameplate {CCS} capture capacity is approximately 60 million tonnes a year”?
It amazes me that the oceans can distinguish between natural and anthropogenic CO2….. 🙂
Just one question: Is there any evidence . . . any scientific evidence at all . . . that CO2 “captured” out of Earth’s atmosphere has been verified to actually be “securely stored”? That is, that a particular sequestration/storage location has truly been leak-free.
Otherwise, it’s great,albeit expensive, virtue signaling.
“Direct Air Capture powered by a dedicated solar portfolio”
That made me laugh!
Right on! Only a person of the moral character of a Bernie Madoff could have come up with the phrase “solar portfolio” . . . as in a back alley conversation, “Hey, buddy, I’ve got this solid gold solar portfolio I can sell you for pennies on the dollar. Guaranteed to work.”
Martin Jagger: “I established Shell’s Carbon Capture and Storage Centre of Excellence in 2007 …”
At about that same time I told an acquaintance with a small foundation to NOT fund any Carbon capture schemes. Proposers never could grasp the concept of “scale”, as Jagger admits in his “gross capture equivalent” statement. He still hasn’t a clue after 20 years. Good Grief!
In a competitive race to the top, or bottom, of leading the CCS industry in sequestration efficiency I can envision the most efficient operator would build a coal plant next to an infinite capacity storage reservoir. A coal plant for its dense and localized CO2 emissions, with electricity as a by-product. That would be the theoretic CCS best case from which all other projects should be compared. Anybody know if CCS projects are assessed with a best case model?
Why in the world would anyone want to capture CO2? It is a plant food that makes dramatic improvements it plant yield and water usage. The small amount of warming it may cause is beneficial because it is mostly warmer cold not hotter hot. The small amount of warming also increases growing seasons and moves the frost line toward the poles. There is no downside to more CO2.
Jimmie, Exactly!
In the answer to your question one or more of the words “scam”, “fraud”, “grift” have to be prevalent.
In this post article there is the comment: “There are currently 15 operating CCS facilities in the U.S. and another 120 projects under development.”
I randomly took a look into this one of the provided links: 3) Source: Here’s How XOM Is Scaling Up Its CCS Footprint to Reduce Emissions to see what was said (I’ve included the salient quotes from the link at the very bottom). It starts with, to me, the false premise statement: “As rising carbon emissions contribute to worsening air quality“, then disingenuously discusses only CO2 thereafter – i.e. CO2 is their real victim target. CO2 is known “plant food”. Why does industry still target CO2 as a villain? Clearly, there is money and political posturing available to ANYONE that does.
WUWT keeps revealing the truth on this topic; one day the truth will hit critical mass. (Of course the greater truth, the only truth in all things is Jesus Christ)
“Exxon Mobil Corporation XOM engages in every stage of the hydrocarbon value chain. As rising carbon emissions contribute to worsening air quality, the global demand is increasingly shifting toward lower-carbon fuels. In response, the energy giant is expanding investments in various carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects.
The well-known integrated giant, ExxonMobil, recently started capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from a natural gas project in Louisiana called the NG3 project and storing it safely underground instead of releasing it into the air. This is an important step for the company’s CCS efforts and also helps Louisiana stay competitive in the global energy market. This initiative represents ExxonMobil’s second fully operational CCS site in Louisiana.”
For the last 4 decades I’ve been practicing a form of CCS commonly known as composting. Leaving crop residue in the field or garden is a close relative known as mulching. Done commercially, these techniques are forms of soil regeneration. Much of the carbon in agricultural soils is seriously depleted and the objective of soil regeneration is to replenish carbon.
Conventional agriculture attempts to make up for depleted carbon at a great cost via natural gas-fueled nitrogen fertilizer plants. As evidenced by nitrogen prices since Straits of Hormuz debacle, this nitrogen dependency is costly at best. At worst, it can lead to famine. This also presents legitimate security concerns.
IMO, it would be wise to differentiate and promote natural forms of CCS from mechanical travesties that this article is focused on.
CCS should be viewed for what it is. A tool for the redistribution of wealth and a monument to the stupidity and gullibility of the masses. This way it can be seen as 100% successful and fulfilling its objective.
Carbon capture captures 73% oxygen and 27% carbon by weight.
No wonder it doesn’t work — what you’ve got here is an oxygen capture machine.
Hasn’t Trump killed off these boondoggles? If not, somebody ought to let him know.
That is some fine looking steel. Could we use that to build nuclear power plants?
Oh, boy! When are these wackos going to realize finally the futility of the “decarbonisation” and the enormous waste of money this is causing.
Well , Duh !
It took him more than 10 seconds to know sucking 4 molecules out of 10,000 of air was Stupid , when you could collect saturated CO2 , plus water and waste heat directly from stack — maybe feed it into greenhouses or algae ponds ?
Willful corrupt Stupidity .