The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential
Open accessAbstract
Global decarbonisation scenarios include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a key technology to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power and industrial sectors. However, few large scale CCS plants are operating worldwide. This mismatch between expectations and reality is caused by a series of barriers which are preventing this technology from being adopted more widely. The goal of this paper is to identify and review the barriers to CCS development, with a focus on recent cost estimates, and to assess the potential of CCS to enable access to fossil fuels without causing dangerous levels of climate change. The result of the review shows that no CCS barriers are exclusively technical, with CCS cost being the most significant hurdle in the short to medium term. In the long term, CCS is found to be very cost effective when compared with other mitigation options. Cost estimates exhibit a high range, which depends on process type, separation technology, CO2 transport technique and storage site. CCS potential has been quantified by comparing the amount of fossil fuels that could be used globally with and without CCS. In modelled energy system transition pathways that limit global warming to less than 2 °C, scenarios without CCS result in 26% of fossil fuel reserves being consumed by 2050, against 37% being consumed when CCS is available. However, by 2100, the scenarios without CCS have only consumed slightly more fossil fuel reserves (33%), whereas scenarios with CCS available end up consuming 65% of reserves. It was also shown that the residual emissions from CCS facilities is the key factor limiting long term uptake, rather than cost. Overall, the results show that worldwide CCS adoption will be critical if fossil fuel reserves are to continue to be substantively accessed whilst still meeting climate targets.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2014) · doi:10.59327/ipcc/ar5-9789291691432 · Cited by 5,217
An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies
Leung, D. Y. C., Caramanna, G., & Maroto-Valer, M. M. (2014) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093 · Cited by 3,198
Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., et al. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3800.1 · Cited by 2,902
Carbon capture and storage update
Boot-Handford, M. E., Abanades, J. C., Anthony, E. J., Blunt, M. J., Brandani, S., Mac Dowell, N., Fernández, J. R., Ferrari, M.-C., Gross, R., Hallett, J. P., et al. (2014) · Energy Environ. Sci. · doi:10.1039/c3ee42350f · Cited by 2,386
International Energy Agency (2012) · World Energy Outlook · doi:10.1787/weo-2012-en · Cited by 1,219
The cost of CO2 capture and storage
Rubin, E. S., Davison, J. E., & Herzog, H. J. (2015) · International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control · doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.018 · Cited by 1,008
Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions?
Fajardy, M., & Mac Dowell, N. (2017) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c7ee00465f · Cited by 392
Riahi, K., Kriegler, E., Johnson, N., Bertram, C., den Elzen, M., Eom, J., Schaeffer, M., Edmonds, J., Isaac, M., Krey, V., et al. (2015) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016 · Cited by 360
Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled
Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Friedlingstein, P., Gillett, N. P., van Vuuren, D. P., Riahi, K., Allen, M., & Knutti, R. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2868 · Cited by 288
Fossil fuels in a trillion tonne world
Scott, V., Haszeldine, R. S., Tett, S. F. B., & Oschlies, A. (2015) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2578 · Cited by 124
Cited by
Low‐carbon transition risks for finance
Semieniuk, G., Campiglio, E., Mercure, J., Volz, U., & Edwards, N. R. (2021) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.678 · Cited by 441
Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade
Martin-Roberts, E., Scott, V., Flude, S., Johnson, G., Haszeldine, R. S., & Gilfillan, S. (2021) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.002 · Cited by 312
Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview
Tcvetkov, P., Cherepovitsyn, A., & Fedoseev, S. (2019) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845 · Cited by 185
Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Foley, A. M., Griffiths, S., Bazilian, M., Kim, J., & Rooney, D. (2022) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111885 · Cited by 171
The climate benefits from cement carbonation are being overestimated
Van Roijen, E., Sethares, K., Kendall, A., & Miller, S. A. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48965-z · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Budinis, S., Krevor, S., Dowell, N. M., Brandon, N., & Hawkes, A.
- Venue
- Energy Strategy Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 22
- Pages
- 61-81
- ISSN
- 2211-467X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2888662929
- Cited by
- 583
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 24.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003
- The paper
- Budinis, S., Krevor, S., Dowell, N. M., Brandon, N., & Hawkes, A. (2018). An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential. Energy Strategy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
