
How carbon capture works and the debate about whether it's a future climate solution
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.
They remain in the Senate Finance Committee's draft reconciliation bill, after another version passed the House, though the Carbon Capture Coalition said inflation has already slashed their value and could limit projects.
___
Associated Press reporter Jack Brook in New Orleans contributed to this report.
___
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Could this be the alternative to LASIK surgery?
LASIK eye surgery has been performed successfully in the U.S. since the late 90s, helping nearly 40 million patients to improve their vision through a procedure that cuts into the eye using lasers. Some 600,000 of the Food and Drug Administration-approved surgeries are carried out on American adults each year. Now, researchers say they have come up with an alternative method that wouldn't need invasive incisions and could be cheaper. It uses a process called electromechanical reshaping, which helps to reshape the cornea using electrical current. The cornea is a dome-shaped, clear structure at the front of the eye that helps us to process images. Irregularly shaped corneas are the cause of nearsighted and farsighted vision and astigmatism, and LASIK fixes that by burning away tissue to reshape it. 'The whole effect was discovered by accident,' Brian Wong, a professor and surgeon at the University of California, Irvine, explained in a statement. 'I was looking at living tissues as moldable materials and discovered this whole process of chemical modification.' While the work is in its early stages, it could offer an alternative to LASIK. Although the surgery has been safely performed for nearly 30 years with rare complications, it has some limitations and risks. The surgeons say that cutting the cornea compromises the structural integrity of the eye. This procedure has yet to be performed in humans, but researchers previously used electromechanical reshaping to alter scars and skin in pigs and reshape cartilage-rich rabbit ears. Working with rabbit eyeballs, they constructed platinum 'contact lenses' that served as a template for the corrected shape of the cornea, placing them over a rabbit eyeball in a saline solution meant to mimic natural tears. After about a minute following a small electric charge to the lens, the cornea's curvature conformed to the shape of the lens. That happened in the same amount of time as LASIK, with fewer steps, no incisions, and less expensive equipment. Then, they repeated the step on 12 other rabbit eyeballs. Of those dozen, 10 were treated as if they had nearsighted vision, and the researchers found success. In others, they saw that their technique might be able to reverse some chemical-caused cloudiness to the cornea, which is currently only treatable through a complete transplant of the cornea. In the future, the researchers are planning tests on living rabbits, and looking at far-sightedness and astigmatism. Uncertainties in the team's scientific funding have put those plans on hold, but Michael Hill, a professor of chemistry at Occidental College, will present their findings this week at the fall meeting of the American Chemical Society. 'There's a long road between what we've done and the clinic. But, if we get there, this technique is widely applicable, vastly cheaper and potentially even reversible,' said Hill.


The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The AI future is too scary even for James Cameron. Where can the Terminator franchise go from here?
James Cameron has a confession: he can't write Terminator 7. And it's not because Hollywood won't let him, as he's too busy making the new Avatar – it's because reality keeps nicking his plotlines. 'I'm at a point right now where I have a hard time writing science-fiction,' Cameron told CNN this week. 'I'm tasked with writing a new Terminator story [but] I don't know what to say that won't be overtaken by real events. We are living in a science-fiction age right now.' It's an understandable quandary for the veteran film-maker. Back in 1984, when the first Terminator movie came out, there was genuine shock value in the idea of a killer robot travelling through time from a future in which the wretched dregs of humanity survive in a chrome-plated hellscape dominated by their robot overlords. These days, the only far-fetched part of the movie is the bit where the T-800 turns up alone and completely naked, as opposed to arriving flanked by a swarm of AI-guided drones. We may not have achieved time travel just yet, but we do have artificial intelligences capable of quietly teaching themselves sarcasm, city-wide facial recognition, and robot learning systems deciding who lives and dies. That's the heart of Cameron's problem: in 1984, Skynet was a terrifying piece of speculative fiction. In 2025, it's basically LinkedIn with nukes. The creeping dread of AI isn't a future shock any more; it's the news cycle. From AI-powered spyware in our pockets to deepfake scams and voice-mimicking chatbots, the Terminator franchise no longer has the monopoly on making you want to hurl your hi-tech personal possessions into the sea. Cameron seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place here, especially as this grand old sci-fi saga hasn't exactly been blowing anyone's CPU in well … decades. Terminator: Dark Fate, which the saga's creator at least had a basic hand in developing, struggled at the 2019 box office despite the return of Linda Hamilton and a storyline that tried to mix the franchise's classic 'unstoppable hunter' formula with a reunion tour for its surviving stars. Before that, we have to go all the way back to 1991's Terminator 2: Judgment Day to find a film that audiences really warmed to. The wilderness years between those two movies were littered with sequels that were too bleak, or too daft. What Cameron should be looking for is a complete system reboot to reinvigorate the saga in the way Prey brought fans back to Predator and Alien: Romulus restored interest in slimy Xenomorphs. All evidence suggests that the 70-year-old film-maker is far more interested in the current challenges surrounding AI, superintelligences and humankind's constant efforts to destroy itself, which doesn't exactly lend itself to the sort of back-to-basics, relentless-monsters-hunt-a-few-unlucky-humans-for-two-hours approach that has worked elsewhere. The challenge here seems to be to fuse Terminator's core DNA – unstoppable cyborgs, explosive chase sequences, and Sarah Connor-level defiance – with the occasionally rather more prosaic yet equally scary existential anxieties of 21st-century AI doom-mongering. So we may get Terminator 7: Kill List, in which a single, battered freedom fighter is hunted across a decimated city by a T-800 running a predictive policing algorithm that knows her next move before she does. Or T7: Singularity's Mom, in which a lone Sarah Connor-type must protect a teenage coder whose chatbot will one day evolve into Skynet. Or Terminator 7: Terms and Conditions, in which humanity's downfall comes not from nuclear warfare but from everyone absent-mindedly agreeing to Skynet's new privacy policy, triggering an army of leather-clad enforcers to collect on the fine print. Or perhaps the future just looks terrifying enough without Cameron getting involved – which, rather worryingly for the future of the franchise, seems to be the director's essential point. Then again, if anyone can make the apocalypse feel even worse than it already does, it's the man who previously convinced us that autonomous drones would hunt humans from the sky and that machines would learn to think and kill for themselves. We should have confidence he can do it again.


The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Ozempic for dogs' may be the next big thing in pet health
With the runaway success of drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro effectively helping humans slim down, researchers and biotech firms are now sniffing out a new frontier: weight-loss drugs for dogs. With up to 60 per cent of dogs in the UK estimated to be overweight or obese, the market for such drugs could be considerable. Okava, a San Francisco-based bio-pharma company which specialises in pet health, is planning to run trials for a drug designed to mimic the effects of Ozempic, with the goal to produce an implant-version for dogs, which lasts six-months at a time. According to estimates on the company's website, the current market for such a product could be worth $10bn, and they hope to have a canine weight-loss drug available as early as 2028 or 2029. In human weight-loss drugs, the active ingredient in Mounjaro is called tirzepatide, and in Ozempic, it is semaglutide. Both work in similar ways, mimicking a natural hormone called GLP-1. This hormone regulates blood sugar and appetite, ultimately leading people to feel fuller longer and reducing food intake. The challenge for biotech firms is to reproduce that effect in dogs – a species well-known for practically limitless gorging. The hope is that an Ozempic-style drug may reduce dogs' begging behaviour, which many owners find it difficult to resist rewarding. Often, lack of appetite in dogs is associated with illness, meaning developing an effective drug that doesn't appear to make pets seem unwell is a fine balance. One such drug, named Slentrol, was launched in 2007, but did not sell well, partly due to how owners' perceived their pets behaviour when on the medication. Okava's planned implant, called OKV-119, contains a GLP-1 mimic called exenatide. Michael Klotsman, Okava's chief executive, said he hoped dogs' behavioural changes from OKV-119 would be quite different from illness-related appetite loss. 'What owners should expect to see is their pet eating appropriate portions without the previous food obsession – they'll still eat regularly and show interest in meals, just without the excessive begging, scavenging or gulping behaviour,' he told The Guardian. But not all tails are wagging. Vets have suggested that in most cases, dog owners would be better off avoiding obesity in their dogs through more exercise and by restricting their pets' diets. Caroline Allen, Chief Veterinary Officer at the RSPCA told The Independent: 'A healthy diet and exercise is the best way to keep our pets happy and well but we understand that owners can sometimes struggle to manage their pets' weight. There is currently little information about proposed weight-loss implants or vaccinations for animals, and owners shouldn't rely on them becoming available. 'Before resorting to these sorts of interventions, owners should seek help from their vet about how to reduce their pet's weight with a good diet and providing lots of opportunities to exercise and play in ways that their pet will enjoy." She added: 'It may be that weight loss jabs or implants may have a role to play in future in very limited circumstances where animals are clinically unwell, but the best thing we can do is set healthy habits from the start so our pets can live the best life possible.'