How carbon capture works and the debate about whether it's a future climate solution

Energy Transition

“It’s one piece of a puzzle in this broad fight against the climate change.” Photo via Getty Images

Power plants and industrial facilities that emit carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global warming, are hopeful that Congress will keep tax credits for capturing the gas and storing it deep underground.

The process, called carbon capture and sequestration, is seen by many as an important way to reduce pollution during a transition to renewable energy.

But it faces criticism from some conservatives, who say it is expensive and unnecessary, and from environmentalists, who say it has consistently failed to capture as much pollution as promised and is simply a way for producers of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal to continue their use.

Here's a closer look.

How does the process work?

Carbon dioxide is a gas produced by burning of fossil fuels. It traps heat close to the ground when released to the atmosphere, where it persists for hundreds of years and raises global temperatures.

Industries and power plants can install equipment to separate carbon dioxide from other gases before it leaves the smokestack. The carbon then is compressed and shipped — usually through a pipeline — to a location where it’s injected deep underground for long-term storage.

Carbon also can be captured directly from the atmosphere using giant vacuums. Once captured, it is dissolved by chemicals or trapped by solid material.

Lauren Read, a senior vice president at BKV Corp., which built a carbon capture facility in Texas, said the company injects carbon at high pressure, forcing it almost two miles below the surface and into geological formations that can hold it for thousands of years.

The carbon can be stored in deep saline or basalt formations and unmineable coal seams. But about three-fourths of captured carbon dioxide is pumped back into oil fields to build up pressure that helps extract harder-to-reach reserves — meaning it's not stored permanently, according to the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

How much carbon dioxide is captured?

The most commonly used technology allows facilities to capture and store around 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions during the production process. Anything above that rate is much more difficult and expensive, according to the IEA.

Some companies have forecast carbon capture rates of 90% or more, “in practice, that has never happened,” said Alexandra Shaykevich, research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project’s Oil & Gas Watch.

That's because it's difficult to capture carbon dioxide from every point where it's emitted, said Grant Hauber, a strategic adviser on energy and financial markets at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Environmentalists also cite potential problems keeping it in the ground. For example, last year, agribusiness company Archer-Daniels-Midland discovered a leak about a mile underground at its Illinois carbon capture and storage site, prompting the state legislature this year to ban carbon sequestration above or below the Mahomet Aquifer, an important source of drinking water for about a million people.

Carbon capture can be used to help reduce emissions from hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel, but many environmentalists contend it's less helpful when it extends the use of coal, oil and gas.

A 2021 study also found the carbon capture process emits significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s shorter-lived than carbon dioxide but traps over 80 times more heat. That happens through leaks when the gas is brought to the surface and transported to plants.

About 45 carbon-capture facilities operated on a commercial scale last year, capturing a combined 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — a tiny fraction of the 37.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector alone, according to the IEA.

It's an even smaller share of all greenhouse gas emissions, which amounted to 53 gigatonnes for 2023, according to the latest report from the European Commission’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis says one of the world's largest carbon capture utilization and storage projects, ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek facility in Wyoming, captures only about half its carbon dioxide, and most of that is sold to oil and gas companies to pump back into oil fields.

Future of US tax credits is unclear

Even so, carbon capture is an important tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, particularly in heavy industries, said Sangeet Nepal, a technology specialist at the Carbon Capture Coalition.

“It’s not a substitution for renewables ... it’s just a complementary technology,” Nepal said. “It’s one piece of a puzzle in this broad fight against the climate change.”

Experts say many projects, including proposed ammonia and hydrogen plants on the U.S. Gulf Coast, likely won't be built without the tax credits, which Carbon Capture Coalition Executive Director Jessie Stolark says already have driven significant investment and are crucial U.S. global competitiveness.

From Your Site Articles

A key threshold for limiting global warming will be nearly unavoidable, scientists say. Photo via Pexels

Scientists warn greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come

Climate Report

Humans are on track to release so much greenhouse gas in less than three years that a key threshold for limiting global warming will be nearly unavoidable, according to a study released June 19.

The report predicts that society will have emitted enough carbon dioxide by early 2028 that crossing an important long-term temperature boundary will be more likely than not. The scientists calculate that by that point there will be enough of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere to create a 50-50 chance or greater that the world will be locked in to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of long-term warming since preindustrial times. That level of gas accumulation, which comes from the burning of fuels like gasoline, oil and coal, is sooner than the same group of 60 international scientists calculated in a study last year.

“Things aren’t just getting worse. They’re getting worse faster,” said study co-author Zeke Hausfather of the tech firm Stripe and the climate monitoring group Berkeley Earth. “We’re actively moving in the wrong direction in a critical period of time that we would need to meet our most ambitious climate goals. Some reports, there’s a silver lining. I don’t think there really is one in this one.”

That 1.5 goal, first set in the 2015 Paris agreement, has been a cornerstone of international efforts to curb worsening climate change. Scientists say crossing that limit would mean worse heat waves and droughts, bigger storms and sea-level rise that could imperil small island nations. Over the last 150 years, scientists have established a direct correlation between the release of certain levels of carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases like methane, and specific increases in global temperatures.

In Thursday's Indicators of Global Climate Change report, researchers calculated that society can spew only 143 billion more tons (130 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide before the 1.5 limit becomes technically inevitable. The world is producing 46 billion tons (42 billion metric tons) a year, so that inevitability should hit around February 2028 because the report is measured from the start of this year, the scientists wrote. The world now stands at about 1.24 degrees Celsius (2.23 degrees Fahrenheit) of long-term warming since preindustrial times, the report said.

Earth's energy imbalance

The report, which was published in the journal Earth System Science Data, shows that the rate of human-caused warming per decade has increased to nearly half a degree (0.27 degrees Celsius) per decade, Hausfather said. And the imbalance between the heat Earth absorbs from the sun and the amount it radiates out to space, a key climate change signal, is accelerating, the report said.

“It's quite a depressing picture unfortunately, where if you look across the indicators, we find that records are really being broken everywhere,” said lead author Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds in England. “I can't conceive of a situation where we can really avoid passing 1.5 degrees of very long-term temperature change.”

The increase in emissions from fossil-fuel burning is the main driver. But reduced particle pollution, which includes soot and smog, is another factor because those particles had a cooling effect that masked even more warming from appearing, scientists said. Changes in clouds also factor in. That all shows up in Earth’s energy imbalance, which is now 25% higher than it was just a decade or so ago, Forster said.

Earth’s energy imbalance “is the most important measure of the amount of heat being trapped in the system,” Hausfather said.

Earth keeps absorbing more and more heat than it releases. “It is very clearly accelerating. It’s worrisome,” he said.

Crossing the temperature limit

The planet temporarily passed the key 1.5 limit last year. The world hit 1.52 degrees Celsius (2.74 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since preindustrial times for an entire year in 2024, but the Paris threshold is meant to be measured over a longer period, usually considered 20 years. Still, the globe could reach that long-term threshold in the next few years even if individual years haven't consistently hit that mark, because of how the Earth's carbon cycle works.

That 1.5 is “a clear limit, a political limit for which countries have decided that beyond which the impact of climate change would be unacceptable to their societies,” said study co-author Joeri Rogelj, a climate scientist at Imperial College London.

The mark is so important because once it is crossed, many small island nations could eventually disappear because of sea level rise, and scientific evidence shows that the impacts become particularly extreme beyond that level, especially hurting poor and vulnerable populations, he said. He added that efforts to curb emissions and the impacts of climate change must continue even if the 1.5 degree threshold is exceeded.

Crossing the threshold "means increasingly more frequent and severe climate extremes of the type we are now seeing all too often in the U.S. and around the world — unprecedented heat waves, extreme hot drought, extreme rainfall events, and bigger storms,” said University of Michigan environment school dean Jonathan Overpeck, who wasn't part of the study.

Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate scientist who wasn't part of the study, said the 1.5 goal was aspirational and not realistic, so people shouldn’t focus on that particular threshold.

“Missing it does not mean the end of the world,” Dessler said in an email, though he agreed that “each tenth of a degree of warming will bring increasingly worse impacts.”

A new study on Mars is shining a light on the Earth's own climate mysteries. Image via UH.edu

Houston scientists create first profile of Mars’ radiant energy budget, revealing climate insights on Earth

research findings

Scientists at the University of Houston have found a new understanding of climate and weather on Mars.

The study, which was published in a new paper in AGU Advances and will be featured in AGU’s science magazine EOS, generated the first meridional profile of Mars’ radiant energy budget (REB). REB represents the balance or imbalance between absorbed solar energy and emitted thermal energy across latitudes. An energy surplus can lead to global warming, and a deficit results in global cooling, which helps provide insights to Earth's atmospheric processes too. The profile of Mars’ REB influences weather and climate patterns.

The study was led by Larry Guan, a graduate student in the Department of Physics at UH's College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics under the guidance of his advisors Professor Liming Li from the Department of Physics and Professor Xun Jiang from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and other planetary scientists. UH graduate students Ellen Creecy and Xinyue Wang, renowned planetary scientists Germán Martínez, Ph.D. (Houston’s Lunar and Planetary Institute), Anthony Toigo, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University) and Mark Richardson, Ph.D. (Aeolis Research), and Prof. Agustín Sánchez-Lavega (Universidad del País, Vasco, Spain) and Prof. Yeon Joo Lee (Institute for Basic Science, South Korea) also assisted in the project.

The profile of Mars’ REB is based on long-term observations from orbiting spacecraft. It offers a detailed comparison of Mars’ REB to that of Earth, which has shown differences in the way each planet receives and radiates energy. Earth shows an energy surplus in the tropics and a deficit in the polar regions, while Mars exhibits opposite behavioral patterns.

The surplus is evident in Mars’ southern hemisphere during spring, which plays a role in driving the planet’s atmospheric circulation and triggering the most prominent feature of weather on the planet, global dust storms. The storms can envelop the entire planet, alter the distribution of energy, and provide a dynamic element that affects Mars’ weather patterns and climate.

The research team is currently examining long-term energy imbalances on Mars and how it influences the planet’s climate.

“The REB difference between the two planets is truly fascinating, so continued monitoring will deepen our understanding of Mars’ climate dynamics,” Li says in a news release.

The global-scale energy imbalance on Earth was recently discovered, and it contributes to global warming at a “magnitude comparable to that caused by increasing greenhouse gases,” according to the study. Mars has an environment that differs due to its thinner atmosphere and lack of anthropogenic effects.

“The work in establishing Mars’ first meridional radiant energy budget profile is noteworthy,” Guan adds. “Understanding Earth’s large-scale climate and atmospheric circulation relies heavily on REB profiles, so having one for Mars allows critical climatological comparisons and lays the groundwork for Martian meteorology.”

The world can't keep on with what it's doing and expect to reach its goals when it comes to climate change. Radical innovations are needed at this point, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Only radical innovation can get the world to its climate goals, says this Houston expert

guest column

Almost 3 years ago, McKinsey published a report arguing that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was “technically achievable,” but that the “math is daunting.” Indeed, when the 1.5°C figure was agreed to at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the assumption was that emissions would peak before 2025, and then fall 43 percent by 2030.

Given that 2022 saw the highest emissions ever—36.8 gigatons—the math is now more daunting still: cuts would need to be greater, and faster, than envisioned in Paris. Perhaps that is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted March 20 (with “high confidence”) that it was “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century.”

I agree with that gloomy assessment. Given the rate of progress so far, 1.5°C looks all but impossible. That puts me in the company of people like Bill Gates; the Economist; the Australian Academy of Science, and apparently many IPCC scientists. McKinsey has estimated that even if all countries deliver on their net zero commitments, temperatures will likely be 1.7°C higher in 2100.

In October, the UN Environment Program argued that there was “no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place” and called for “an urgent system-wide transformation” to change the trajectory. Among the changes it considers necessary: carbon taxes, land use reform, dietary changes in which individuals “consume food for environmental sustainability and carbon reduction,” investment of $4 trillion to $6 trillion a year; applying current technology to all new buildings; no new fossil fuel infrastructure. And so on.

Let’s assume that the UNEP is right. What are the chances of all this happening in the next few years? Or, indeed, any of it? President Obama’s former science adviser, Daniel Schrag, put it this way: “ Who believes that we can halve global emissions by 2030?... It’s so far from reality that it’s kind of absurd.”

Having a goal is useful, concentrating minds and organizing effort. And I think that has been the case with 1.5°C, or recent commitments to get to net zero. Targets create a sense of urgency that has led to real progress on decarbonization.

The 2020 McKinsey report set out how to get on the 1.5°C pathway, and was careful to note that this was not a description of probability or reality but “a picture of a world that could be.” Three years later, that “world that could be” looks even more remote.

Consider the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter. In 2021, 79 percent of primary energy demand (see chart) was met by fossil fuels, about the same as a decade before. Globally, the figures are similar, with renewables accounting for just 12.5 percent of consumption and low-emissions nuclear another 4 percent. Those numbers would have to basically reverse in the next decade or so to get on track. I don’t see how that can happen.

Credit: Energy Information Administration

But even if 1.5°C is improbable in the short term, that doesn’t mean that missing the target won’t have consequences. And it certainly doesn’t mean giving up on addressing climate change. And in fact, there are some positive trends. Many companies are developing comprehensive plans for achieving net-zero emissions and are making those plans part of their long-term strategy. Moreover, while global emissions grew 0.9 percent in 2022, that was much less than GDP growth (3.2 percent). It’s worth noting, too, that much of the increase came from switching from gas to coal in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; that is the kind of supply shock that can be reversed. The point is that growth and emissions no longer move in lockstep; rather the opposite. That is critical because poorer countries are never going to take serious climate action if they believe it threatens their future prosperity.

Another implication is that limiting emissions means addressing the use of fossil fuels. As noted, even with the substantial rise in the use of renewables, coal, gas, and oil are still the core of the global energy system. They cannot be wished away. Perhaps it is time to think differently—that is, making fossil fuels more emissions efficient, by using carbon capture or other technologies; cutting methane emissions; and electrifying oil and gas operations. This is not popular among many climate advocates, who would prefer to see fossil fuels “stay in the ground.” That just isn’t happening. The much likelier scenario is that they are gradually displaced. McKinsey projects peak oil demand later this decade, for example, and for gas, maybe sometime in the late 2030s. Even after the peak, though, oil and gas will still be important for decades.

Second, in the longer term, it may be possible to get back onto 1.5°C if, in addition to reducing emissions, we actually remove them from the atmosphere, in the form of “negative emissions,” such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in power and heavy industry. The IPCC itself assumed negative emissions would play a major role in reaching the 1.5°C target; in fact, because of cost and deployment problems, it’s been tiny.

Finally, as I have argued before, it’s hard to see how we limit warming even to 2°C without more nuclear power, which can provide low-emissions energy 24/7, and is the largest single source of such power right now.

None of these things is particularly popular; none get the publicity of things like a cool new electric truck or an offshore wind farm (of which two are operating now in the United States, generating enough power for about 20,000 homes; another 40 are in development). And we cannot assume fast development of offshore wind. NIMBY concerns have already derailed some high-profile projects, and are also emerging in regard to land-based wind farms.

Carbon capture, negative emissions, and nuclear will have to face NIMBY, too. But they all have the potential to move the needle on emissions. Think of the potential if fast-growing India and China, for example, were to develop an assembly line of small nuclear reactors. Of course, the economics have to make sense—something that is true for all climate-change technologies.

And as the UN points out, there needs to be progress on other issues, such as food, buildings, and finance. I don’t think we can assume that such progress will happen on a massive scale in the next few years; the actual record since Paris demonstrates the opposite. That is troubling: the IPCC notes that the risks of abrupt and damaging impacts, such as flooding and crop yields, rise “with every increment of global warming.” But it is the reality.

There is one way to get us to 1.5°C, although not in the Paris timeframe: a radical acceleration of innovation. The approaches being scaled now, such as wind, solar, and batteries, are the same ideas that were being discussed 30 years ago. We are benefiting from long-term, incremental improvements, not disruptive innovation. To move the ball down the field quickly, though, we need to complete a Hail Mary pass.

It’s a long shot. But we’re entering an era of accelerated innovation, driven by advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning that could narrow the odds. For example, could carbon nanotubes displace demand for high-emissions steel? Might it be possible to store carbon deep in the ocean? Could geo-engineering bend the curve?

I believe that, on the whole, the world is serious about climate change. I am certain that the energy transition is happening. But I don’t think we are anywhere near to being on track to hit the 1.5°C target. And I don’t see how doing more of the same will get us there.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Greentown names 5 climatech startups to manufacturing accelerator

Catalyst Cohort

Greentown Labs has named five climatech startups to its Go Make 2026 cohort, including one from Houston.

Greentown Go Make 2026 is in partnership with Shell Catalysts & Technologies and Technip Energies. Startups will be able to collaborate with leadership from Shell and Technip and have opportunities to work directly with their process engineering teams and develop potential partnerships, pilots and demonstrations, according to Greentown.

This year's manufacturing cohort focuses specifically on process technology and catalytic innovations, which, according to Greentown, have the potential to be a "critical enabler of the global energy transition." Greentown shares that 90 percent of chemical processes depend on catalysis, but traditional methods rely on fossil fuels and consume significant amounts of energy.

“Catalysis underpins the majority of industrial chemical processes, which together account for a significant share of global emissions, making it a critical lever for reducing carbon intensity while improving performance,” Georgina Campbell Flatter, CEO of Greentown, said in a news release. “Greentown Go Make 2026 is designed to close the gap between breakthrough innovation and industrial deployment. By connecting startups with Shell and Technip Energies’ technical expertise and global scale, we’re helping accelerate solutions that improve efficiency and drive industrial decarbonization.”

The five Greentown Go Make 2026 companies include:

Houston-based Biosimo, which makes scalable biochemicals from ethanol
Missouri-based Catalyxx, which transforms bioethanol into drop-in, cost-competitive, carbon-negative chemicals
Sydney, Australia-based HydGene Renewables, which produces low-carbon hydrogen and industrial chemicals from waste biomass
Switzerland-based TreaTech, which turns waste into renewable gas, water and minerals through catalytic hydrothermal gasification
California-based Unifuel, which has developed a chemical technology platform to make sustainable aviation fuel, renewable gasoline and other renewable chemicals

The cohort will be celebrated at a kickoff event in Houston at The Ion on June 9.

In addition to Greentown Go Make, Greentown also runs its Go Move (transportation), Go Energize (energy and electricity), Go Build (buildings), and Go Grow (food and agriculture) cohort-based programs. The climatech incubator announced its Go Build 2026 cohort in March. Read more here.

Houston developer launches AI-powered water platform to boost efficiency

eyes on AI

Houston real estate company McCord Development has launched an artificial-Intelligence-run water management platform, MizuWatch.

MizuWatch aims to help operators, districts, and municipalities detect leaks faster, reduce water loss and improve efficiency, according to the company. MizuWatch pulls data from supply sources, smart meters, historical usage and maintenance records, and combines them into a single platform. The AI system also uses visual mapping and digital twin technology to deliver near-real-time system insights.

“MizuWatch brings the right data together daily, so teams can see what’s happening now, intervene earlier and focus their resources where they have the greatest impact,” Jerzy Wielgus, chief product officer for MizuWatch, said in a news release.

MizuWatch was built to “scale across geographies and system sizes to help assist with water scarcity, aging infrastructure, and operational complexity,” according to the company. It was developed at Houston’s Generation Park, McCord’s 4,300-acre master planned commercial district. McCord was able to pilot the platform onsite to help manage its complex, real-world water systems at scale.

“Resilient infrastructure is a key factor for the companies choosing Generation Park,” Ryan McCord, CEO of McCord Development and Founder & CEO of MizuWatch, added in the release. “We made the decision to deploy smart meters, but no one knew how to use the data they generate. This is an opportunity across all infrastructure where sensors are deployed. What started as an internal solution has become a platform we believe can help stakeholders everywhere be more efficient in their operations, investment, and compliance.”

Last fall, Eli Lilly and Co. selected Generation Park for its $6.5 billion manufacturing plant. More than 300 locations in the U.S. competed for the factory. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., another pharmaceutical giant, also announced it is considering Generation Park for a new manufacturing hub earlier this month.

Oil giant BP ousts new chairman over serious conduct concerns

Sudden Exit

BP has ousted its chairman over what it called serious concerns related to “important governance standards, oversight and conduct.”

The departure was abrupt and unexpected, with Albert Manifold having been appointed to the position late last year.

“Albert has helped bring a welcome focus and pace to BP’s transformation," Amanda Blanc, senior independent director, said in a statement Tuesday, May 26. "However, the board has been surprised and disappointed to learn of governance oversight and conduct issues it deems unacceptable and has taken decisive action.”

BP's board named Ian Tyler as interim chair, effective immediately.

BP, based in London and with North American headquarters in Houston, is a “supermajor,” one of the five largest oil production and exploration companies in the world when measured by revenue and profit.

Manifold, who had been the top executive at Dublin-based global building materials company CRH for 10 years, became the chair at BP in October. BP was looking for someone to revamp the oil giant and went with an industry outsider in Manifold, who had made major strategic changes at CRH.

After a new focus on renewable energy at BP in 2020, by 2025 the company was seeking a return to its roots. BP's hard reset was criticized by environmentalists, as well as some shareholders.

CEO Murray Auchincloss said last year that optimism over opportunities in renewable energy was misplaced, with the company moving “too far and too fast.”

Changes in leadership at BP in recent years has been tumultuous.

CEO Bernard Looney resigned in late 2023 after BP determined that he had misled the company over his past relationships with colleagues.

Auchincloss stepped down in December, and the company named Meg O'Neill as his successor.

Manifold’s was challenged almost immediately when shareholders defeated company resolutions this spring that would have allowed BP to reduce climate reporting requirements and move its annual meetings fully online. Some 18% of shareholders voted against Manifold’s election as chairman, a high level of opposition for an appointment that is generally rubber stamped by investors.

Legal & General, one of Britain’s largest insurers and investment companies, said at the time that Manifold was responsible for resolutions that would have had “a negative impact on shareholders’ insight into how the company is addressing financially material long-term risks, and seizing long-term value creation opportunities, associated with the energy transition,” the Times of London reported on April 23.

Glass Lewis, an influential shareholder advisor, urged investors to vote against Manifold’s election. It held that BP took “unprecedented action” by refusing to consider a resolution from a group of climate activists and pension funds hoping to force the board to create an alternative strategy should demand for fossil fuels decline, the Times reported.

Like other big oil companies, BP has struggled with falling demand in recent years.

BP’s 2025 earnings fell 16% from a year earlier to $7.49 billion as the price of Brent crude, a benchmark for international oil prices, dropped 16.9%. The company’s preferred measure of earnings is underlying replacement cost profit, which adjusts for one-time items and fluctuations in the market value of inventories. Net income plunged 86% to $55 million.

Last year there were media reports that British oil giant Shell was in talks to buy rival BP. Shell denied the reports at the time.

The search for a new chair is underway, BP said Tuesday. Shares of BP Plc slid nearly 5% in midday trading on the NYSE.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME