Carbon capture and storage is drawing major industrial and government commitments, yet its operating record and cost estimates are putting pressure on the case for rapid expansion. The tension is clear: a pipeline of large projects points to growth, while current facilities capture a tiny share of global emissions and often fall short of their design targets.
Big commitments meet a limited operating base
The World Economic Forum predicted in 2025 that the CCS industry could grow fourfold by the end of the decade. Energy companies including ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, TotalEnergies, Equinor and Occidental have pledged major investments, and governments are offering substantial support.
Germany launched a $5.7 billion Carbon Contracts for Difference scheme in May to support carbon capture and storage, as well as carbon capture and utilisation projects. The United Kingdom announced up to $29 billion over 25 years for CCUS and hydrogen, with funding allocated between the two sectors.
Denmark has also committed significant support. Cement producer Aalborg Portland signed a $2.55 billion CCS contract with the country’s energy agency. Chief Executive Soren Holm Christensen called the project “among the largest industrial CO2 capture projects in Europe.”
These commitments signal that governments and industry see a role for carbon capture, particularly in sectors where direct emissions cuts can be difficult. But announced capacity and public funding don’t establish that projects can meet targets at an acceptable cost.
Performance remains the central test
An Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis review of 13 operating CCS projects worldwide found that most captured less than the 90% of emissions specified in their designs. Some projects failed outright. Shortfalls can increase the cost per tonne captured and stored, weakening the economics behind projects that already depend on complex infrastructure.
The Global CCS Institute counted 50 operating facilities worldwide in 2024. Their combined capacity was around one-thousandth of global emissions. That gap between the scale of the climate challenge and current capture capacity is substantial, even as the project pipeline expands.
CCS captures carbon dioxide at an emissions source for transport and underground storage. Direct air capture instead removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Both approaches have attracted interest as a way to address emissions from industries that can’t readily switch to clean energy. Their value, though, depends on reliable performance and the cost of capturing, transporting and storing the carbon.
Costs complicate the expansion case
In the United States, adding CCS to gas power plants is estimated to cost $20 to $30 per megawatt hour, potentially doubling the cost of power production. In Europe, Agora Industry and Oeko-Institut put the combined cost of capture, transport and storage at $170 to $340 per tonne. The think tanks said planned or existing storage projects were at least 50% more expensive than earlier forecasts.
That price burden helps explain why public support is a central feature of many plans. At a 2025 conference in London, industry participants argued that CCS should be considered after other green solutions. The sequencing matters: where emissions can be avoided through other means, carbon capture’s added expense may be harder to justify.
Environmental groups also question whether CCS extends the life of fossil fuel use. They argue that companies may use the technology to defend continued reliance on natural gas or to market oil as “low-carbon,” even though burning fossil fuels still emits carbon. Those criticisms sharpen the question of what captured emissions can realistically achieve alongside direct reductions.
What the project pipeline needs to prove
The pandemic period helped lift interest in CCS, as governments and businesses made green transition pledges and looked for ways to cut emissions from hard-to-abate industries. The current wave of spending suggests that support hasn’t disappeared. Yet the evidence from operating projects points to a technology still facing performance, cost and scale constraints.
My read is that CCS may have a focused role where other emissions cuts are difficult, but broad adoption will depend on projects delivering their promised capture rates and controlling costs. The next measure of progress is not the size of announced commitments; it’s whether new facilities can turn those commitments into dependable capacity.