| 1. |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
| 1.1. |
What is Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS)? |
| 1.2. |
Why CCUS and why now? |
| 1.3. |
CCUS business model overview: Value from CO2 |
| 1.4. |
Development of the CCS business model |
| 1.5. |
CCUS business model: Networks and hub model |
| 1.6. |
CCUS business model: Partial-chain |
| 1.7. |
World map of operational and under construction large-scale dedicated CO2 storage sites |
| 1.8. |
Carbon dioxide storage-type maturity and operator landscape |
| 1.9. |
CO2-Enhanced oil recovery market |
| 1.10. |
Carbon pricing and carbon markets |
| 1.11. |
Compliance carbon pricing mechanisms across the globe |
| 1.12. |
Alternative to carbon pricing in the US: 45Q tax credits |
| 1.13. |
CCUS forecast by CO₂ end point – Storage and enhanced oil recovery |
| 1.14. |
Why CO2 utilization? |
| 1.15. |
Current scale for CO2U products |
| 1.16. |
Main CO2 capture systems |
| 1.17. |
Which carbon capture technologies are most mature? |
| 1.18. |
When should different carbon capture technologies be used? |
| 1.19. |
Point-source carbon capture technology providers |
| 1.20. |
High-concentration CO2 sources are the low-hanging fruits |
| 1.21. |
Point-source CCUS capture capacity forecast by CO2 source sector, Mtpa of CO2 |
| 1.22. |
Leading DAC companies |
| 1.23. |
What are the major challenges for scaling up direct air capture? |
| 1.24. |
The momentum behind CCUS is building up |
| 1.25. |
CCUS capture capacity by region – North America |
| 1.26. |
CO2 transportation overview |
| 1.27. |
Access More With an IDTechEx Subscription |
| 2. |
INTRODUCTION |
| 2.1. |
What is Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS)? |
| 2.2. |
The CCUS value chain |
| 2.3. |
Why CCUS and why now? |
| 2.4. |
Carbon capture |
| 2.5. |
Pathways to lower capture costs |
| 2.6. |
CO2 storage |
| 2.7. |
Development of the CCS business model |
| 2.8. |
Why CO2 utilization? |
| 2.9. |
CO2 transportation |
| 2.10. |
How much does CCUS cost? |
| 2.11. |
When can CCUS be considered net-zero? |
| 2.12. |
CCUS Market Challenges |
| 2.13. |
Enabling large-scale CCUS |
| 3. |
BUSINESS MODELS FOR CCUS |
| 3.1. |
Introduction |
| 3.1.1. |
CCUS business model overview: Value from CO2 |
| 3.1.2. |
Development of the CCS business model |
| 3.1.3. |
Government funding support mechanisms for CCS |
| 3.1.4. |
Government ownership of CCS projects varies across countries |
| 3.1.5. |
CCUS business model: Full chain |
| 3.1.6. |
CCUS business model: Networks and hub model |
| 3.1.7. |
CCUS business model: Partial-chain |
| 3.1.8. |
Carbon dioxide utilization business model |
| 3.2. |
Carbon Pricing and Carbon Markets |
| 3.2.1. |
Carbon pricing and carbon markets |
| 3.2.2. |
Compliance carbon pricing mechanisms across the globe |
| 3.2.3. |
What is the price of CO2 in global carbon pricing mechanisms? |
| 3.2.4. |
The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) |
| 3.2.5. |
Has the EU ETS had an impact? |
| 3.2.6. |
What changes are needed for the EU ETS to support CCUS? |
| 3.2.7. |
EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) |
| 3.2.8. |
EU CBAM will be the first of many internationally |
| 3.2.9. |
Alternative to carbon pricing in the US: 45Q tax credits |
| 3.2.10. |
The role of voluntary carbon markets in supporting CCUS |
| 3.2.11. |
How high does carbon pricing need to be to support CCS? |
| 4. |
STATUS OF THE CCUS INDUSTRY |
| 4.1. |
The momentum behind CCUS is building up |
| 4.2. |
CCUS milestones in 2024/2025 |
| 4.3. |
Global pipeline of carbon capture facilities built and announced |
| 4.4. |
Analysis of CCUS development |
| 4.5. |
CO2 source: From which sectors has CO2 been captured historically? |
| 4.6. |
Which sectors will see the biggest growth in CCUS? |
| 4.7. |
CO2 fate: Where does/will the captured CO2 go? |
| 4.8. |
Regional analysis of CCUS Projects |
| 4.9. |
Major CCUS players |
| 4.10. |
CCUS project performance – natural gas processing |
| 4.11. |
CCUS project performance – natural gas processing commentary |
| 4.12. |
CCUS project performance – power generation |
| 4.13. |
CCUS project performance – key takeaways |
| 4.14. |
Boundary Dam – battling capture technical issues |
| 4.15. |
Petra Nova’s long shutdown: Lessons for the industry? |
| 4.16. |
How much does CCUS cost? |
| 4.17. |
Costs and financing of large-scale CCUS projects |
| 5. |
CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES |
| 5.1. |
Introduction |
| 5.1.1. |
The CCUS value chain |
| 5.1.2. |
Main CO2 capture systems |
| 5.1.3. |
Status of point source carbon capture |
| 5.1.4. |
Natural gas sweetening |
| 5.1.5. |
Post-combustion CO2 capture |
| 5.1.6. |
Pre-combustion CO2 capture |
| 5.1.7. |
Oxy-fuel combustion CO2 capture |
| 5.1.8. |
Main CO2 capture technologies |
| 5.1.9. |
Comparison of CO2 capture technologies |
| 5.1.10. |
Maturity of carbon capture technologies – overview |
| 5.1.11. |
Which carbon capture technologies are most mature? |
| 5.1.12. |
When should different carbon capture technologies be used? |
| 5.1.13. |
Typical conditions and performance for different capture technologies |
| 5.1.14. |
CO2 concentration and partial pressure varies with emission source |
| 5.1.15. |
How does CO₂ partial pressure influence cost? |
| 5.1.16. |
High-concentration CO2 sources are the low-hanging fruits |
| 5.1.17. |
No single carbon capture technology will be the best across all applications |
| 5.1.18. |
Carbon capture technology providers for existing large-scale projects |
| 5.1.19. |
Capture percentage exceeding 90% are the current industry standard |
| 5.1.20. |
What is meant by CO2 capture rate? |
| 5.1.21. |
Making the case for CO2 capture percentages below 90% |
| 5.1.22. |
Contributions to carbon capture cost |
| 5.1.23. |
Metrics for CO2 capture agents |
| 5.1.24. |
State-of-the-art: Capture percentages |
| 5.1.25. |
State-of-the-art: Energy consumption |
| 5.1.26. |
Technology readiness of carbon capture technologies (1/2) |
| 5.1.27. |
Technology readiness of carbon capture technologies (2/2) |
| 5.1.28. |
Point-source carbon capture technology providers by technology |
| 5.2. |
Solvents for Carbon Capture |
| 5.2.1. |
Solvent-based CO₂ capture |
| 5.2.2. |
Chemical absorption solvents |
| 5.2.3. |
Amine-based post-combustion CO₂ absorption |
| 5.2.4. |
The development of amine solvents for carbon capture |
| 5.2.5. |
Innovations in amine solvents |
| 5.2.6. |
Amine-solvents dominate CCUS but challenges remain |
| 5.2.7. |
Amine solvent carbon capture technology providers for post-combustion capture (1/2) |
| 5.2.8. |
Amine solvent carbon capture technology providers for post-combustion capture (2/2) |
| 5.2.9. |
Hot Potassium Carbonate (HPC) process |
| 5.2.10. |
HPC carbon capture technology providers for carbon capture |
| 5.2.11. |
Chemical absorption solvents used in current operational CCUS point-source projects (1/2) |
| 5.2.12. |
Chemical absorption solvents used in current operational CCUS point-source projects (2/2) |
| 5.2.13. |
Cost breakdown of chemical solvent post-combustion capture |
| 5.2.14. |
Physical absorption solvents |
| 5.2.15. |
Comparison of key physical absorption solvents |
| 5.2.16. |
Physical solvents used in current operational CCUS point-source projects |
| 5.2.17. |
When should solvent-based carbon capture not be used? |
| 5.3. |
Balance of Plant for Amine Solvent Carbon Capture |
| 5.3.1. |
Introduction to amine solvent post-combustion carbon capture |
| 5.3.2. |
Summary of carbon capture balance of plant (BoP) components |
| 5.3.3. |
Flue gas preconditioning/pretreatment for post-combustion capture |
| 5.3.4. |
Babcock & Wilcox flue gas pretreatment portfolio |
| 5.3.5. |
Absorber columns for amine solvent based carbon capture |
| 5.3.6. |
Absorber column structured packing for amine solvent based carbon capture |
| 5.3.7. |
Material innovation in structured packing for absorber columns |
| 5.3.8. |
Water use in carbon capture plants |
| 5.3.9. |
Absorber/stripper innovation: Rotating packed beds |
| 5.3.10. |
Hybrid process – membrane contactors |
| 5.3.11. |
Main heat exchanger: Lean/rich amine cross exchanger |
| 5.3.12. |
Auxiliary heat exchangers |
| 5.3.13. |
Technology providers of heat exchangers for carbon capture |
| 5.3.14. |
Innovations in reducing reboiler duty |
| 5.3.15. |
Large-scale CO2 compression technologies |
| 5.3.16. |
CO2 compression costs |
| 5.3.17. |
BoP case study: ION Clean Energy |
| 5.3.18. |
Supply chain considerations of BoP technologies by region |
| 5.3.19. |
Equipment and Technology Providers for CCUS in China |
| 5.3.20. |
High value matrix for key components in post-combustion solvent-based carbon capture |
| 5.4. |
Emerging Solvents for Carbon Capture |
| 5.4.1. |
Company landscape: Emerging solvents for carbon capture |
| 5.4.2. |
Chilled ammonia process (CAP) |
| 5.4.3. |
Molten borates |
| 5.4.4. |
Applicability of chemical absorption solvents capture solvents for post-combustion applications |
| 5.5. |
Sorbents for Carbon Capture |
| 5.5.1. |
Solid sorbent-based CO₂ separation |
| 5.5.2. |
Adsorbents in pressure swing adsorption: Hydrogen separation |
| 5.5.3. |
Adsorbents in pressure swing adsorption: Carbon capture |
| 5.5.4. |
Overview of solid sorbents explored for carbon capture |
| 5.5.5. |
Zeolite-based adsorbents |
| 5.5.6. |
Carbon-based adsorbents |
| 5.5.7. |
Metal organic framework (MOF) adsorbents |
| 5.5.8. |
Solid amine-based adsorbents |
| 5.5.9. |
Solid sorbent processes used in operational CCUS point-source projects |
| 5.5.10. |
Solid sorbent materials for carbon capture overview |
| 5.5.11. |
Sorption enhanced water gas shift (SEWGS) |
| 5.6. |
Membrane-based Carbon Capture |
| 5.6.1. |
Introduction to gas separation membranes for decarbonization |
| 5.6.2. |
Developing new membrane materials: Key trends |
| 5.6.3. |
Comparing gas separation membrane materials |
| 5.6.4. |
Composite membranes for gas separation: Overview |
| 5.6.5. |
Membranes for post-combustion CO2 capture |
| 5.6.6. |
When should alternatives to solvent-based carbon capture be used? |
| 5.6.7. |
Leading players in membrane-based post-combustion capture |
| 5.6.8. |
Economics of polymer membranes for post-combustion capture |
| 5.6.9. |
Increasing CO2 recovery rates for polymer membranes: MTR example |
| 5.6.10. |
Facilitated transport membranes (FTM) for post-combustion carbon capture |
| 5.6.11. |
Facilitated transport membrane materials for post-combustion carbon capture |
| 5.6.12. |
Challenges and innovations for membranes in post-combustion capture |
| 5.6.13. |
2024/2025 Industry News: Membranes for post-combustion capture |
| 5.6.14. |
Graphene membranes for post-combustion carbon capture: emerging material |
| 5.6.15. |
MOF membranes for post-combustion carbon capture: Emerging material |
| 5.6.16. |
Membranes for direct air capture |
| 5.6.17. |
Gas separation membranes in blue hydrogen production (pre-combustion capture) |
| 5.7. |
Cryogenic CO2 Capture |
| 5.7.1. |
Cryogenic CO₂ capture: An emerging alternative |
| 5.7.2. |
When should cryogenic carbon capture be used? |
| 5.7.3. |
Status of cryogenic CO2 capture technologies |
| 5.7.4. |
Cryogenic direct air capture companies |
| 5.7.5. |
Cryogenic CO₂ capture in blue hydrogen: Cryocap™ |
| 5.8. |
Oxyfuel Combustion Capture |
| 5.8.1. |
Oxy-fuel combustion CO2 capture |
| 5.8.2. |
Oxygen separation technologies for oxy-fuel combustion |
| 5.8.3. |
Oxyfuel combustion in the cement sector |
| 5.8.4. |
Oxyfuel combustion for power generation |
| 5.8.5. |
Novel oxyfuel: Chemical looping combustion |
| 5.8.6. |
Oxyfuel combustion for blue hydrogen |
| 5.8.7. |
5.9 Novel Carbon Capture Technologies |
| 5.8.8. |
Calcium looping |
| 5.8.9. |
Leilac process: Direct CO2 capture in cement plants |
| 5.8.10. |
CO2 capture with Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFCs) |
| 5.8.11. |
Algae CO2 capture |
| 6. |
CARBON CAPTURE FOR KEY INDUSTRIES |
| 6.1. |
Introduction |
| 6.1.1. |
CO2 source: From which sectors has CO2 been captured historically? |
| 6.1.2. |
Which sectors will see the biggest growth in CCUS? |
| 6.1.3. |
Capture costs vary by sector |
| 6.2. |
Cement |
| 6.2.1. |
CCUS will be the most important cement decarbonization technology by 2050 |
| 6.2.2. |
Which cement decarbonization technology will have the biggest impact? |
| 6.2.3. |
Status of carbon capture in the cement industry |
| 6.2.4. |
First large-scale cement sector CCUS project |
| 6.2.5. |
Major CCUS projects in the cement sector |
| 6.2.6. |
Post-combustion solvent capture is less disruptive to clinker manufacturing |
| 6.2.7. |
Benchmarking carbon capture technologies in the cement sector |
| 6.2.8. |
Carbon capture in the cement sector: Key takeaways |
| 6.3. |
Steel |
| 6.3.1. |
CCUS will play a limited role in decarbonizing the iron and steel sector |
| 6.3.2. |
Overview of CCUS for iron & steel (1) |
| 6.3.3. |
Overview of CCUS for iron & steel (2) |
| 6.3.4. |
CCUS for BF-BOF (blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace) process |
| 6.3.5. |
Post combustion capture technologies for BF-BOF process |
| 6.3.6. |
Pre-combustion carbon capture for ironmaking (1) |
| 6.3.7. |
Pre-combustion carbon capture for ironmaking (2) |
| 6.3.8. |
Sorption enhanced water gas shift (SEWGS) |
| 6.3.9. |
Gas recycling and oxyfuel combustion for ironmaking |
| 6.3.10. |
Blast furnace gas CO2 capture technologies comparison |
| 6.3.11. |
Carbon capture for natural gas-based DRI |
| 6.3.12. |
CCUS project pipeline for the steel sector |
| 6.3.13. |
CO2 utilization for the steel sector |
| 6.3.14. |
Challenges and opportunities for CCUS in the steel sector |
| 6.4. |
Power Generation |
| 6.4.1. |
Power plants with CCUS generate less energy |
| 6.4.2. |
CO2 capture from coal power generation |
| 6.4.3. |
CO2 capture from gas power generation |
| 6.4.4. |
Carbon capture and gas power |
| 6.4.5. |
Gas power CCS for data centers |
| 6.4.6. |
Key cost reduction opportunities in power CCS |
| 6.5. |
Blue Hydrogen, Blue Ammonia, and Chemicals |
| 6.5.1. |
Major drivers for hydrogen production & adoption |
| 6.5.2. |
Hydrogen value chain overview |
| 6.5.3. |
State of the hydrogen market today |
| 6.5.4. |
Challenges in green hydrogen production |
| 6.5.5. |
Cost comparison of different types of hydrogen |
| 6.5.6. |
The case for blue hydrogen production |
| 6.5.7. |
Overview of blue, turquoise & biomass-based H2 production methods |
| 6.5.8. |
Blue hydrogen: Main syngas production technologies |
| 6.5.9. |
Key technology players in blue hydrogen |
| 6.5.10. |
Pre- vs post-combustion CO2 capture for blue hydrogen |
| 6.5.11. |
Overview of CCUS blue hydrogen projects |
| 6.5.12. |
Blue hydrogen production – SMR with CCUS |
| 6.5.13. |
Capturing CO2 from ATR & POX is easier |
| 6.5.14. |
CO2 capture retrofit options for blue H2 production |
| 6.5.15. |
CO2 capture retrofit options – Honeywell UOP example |
| 6.5.16. |
Cost comparison: Commercial CO2 capture systems for blue H2 |
| 6.5.17. |
Real world data: CO2 capture systems for blue hydrogen |
| 6.5.18. |
Technologies for future blue hydrogen projects |
| 6.5.19. |
Key innovation areas in blue hydrogen |
| 6.5.20. |
Impact on the US hydrogen industry – many project cancellations |
| 6.5.21. |
Outcome – a smaller green hydrogen market in the medium term |
| 6.5.22. |
Overview of EU hydrogen policy mechanisms |
| 6.5.23. |
Carbon capture for chemicals |
| 6.6. |
Maritime |
| 6.6.1. |
Remaining challenges for onboard carbon capture |
| 6.6.2. |
Recent developments in onboard carbon capture for the maritime sector |
| 6.6.3. |
Onboard carbon capture: Amine solvents |
| 6.6.4. |
Onboard carbon capture: CaO looping |
| 6.6.5. |
Onboard carbon capture: Other technologies |
| 6.6.6. |
Economics of onboard carbon capture and storage |
| 7. |
CARBON CAPTURE FOR CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL (CDR) |
| 7.1. |
CDR Introduction |
| 7.1.1. |
What is the difference between CDR and CCUS? |
| 7.1.2. |
The importance of carbon dioxide removals |
| 7.1.3. |
The CDR business model and its challenges: Carbon credits |
| 7.1.4. |
High-quality carbon removals: Durability, permanence, additionality |
| 7.1.5. |
Scale and technology readiness level of carbon dioxide removal methods |
| 7.1.6. |
Shifting buyer preferences for durable CDR in carbon credit markets |
| 7.1.7. |
Overall picture: voluntary carbon credit markets in 2024 |
| 7.1.8. |
Why voluntary and compliance carbon markets need to merge for CDR |
| 7.2. |
Direct Air Capture (DAC) Introduction |
| 7.2.1. |
What is direct air capture (DAC)? |
| 7.2.2. |
Current status of DACCS |
| 7.2.3. |
DACCS project pipeline: Locations and technologies |
| 7.2.4. |
Momentum: Policy support for DAC by region |
| 7.2.5. |
The role of tax credits in supporting DACCS: 45Q and ITC |
| 7.2.6. |
The US has plans to establish 20 large-scale regional DAC Hubs |
| 7.2.7. |
Momentum: Private investment in DAC |
| 7.2.8. |
Where did money for DAC come from in 2024? |
| 7.2.9. |
Power requirements for DAC |
| 7.2.10. |
Nameplate capacity vs actual net removal |
| 7.2.11. |
Difficulties sourcing clean energy |
| 7.2.12. |
Operational flexibility – powering DAC with intermittent renewables |
| 7.2.13. |
What are the major challenges for scaling up direct air capture? |
| 7.3. |
Leading DAC Technologies |
| 7.3.1. |
CO2 capture/separation mechanisms in DAC |
| 7.3.2. |
Direct air capture technologies |
| 7.3.3. |
Regeneration methods for solid and liquid DAC |
| 7.3.4. |
Comparing regeneration methods for solid and liquid DAC |
| 7.3.5. |
Leading DAC companies |
| 7.3.6. |
Direct air capture space: Technology and location breakdown |
| 7.3.7. |
Solid sorbents for DAC |
| 7.3.8. |
Climeworks |
| 7.3.9. |
Process flow diagram of S-DAC: Climeworks |
| 7.3.10. |
Solid sorbents – semi-continuous operation can lower energy intensity |
| 7.3.11. |
Heirloom |
| 7.3.12. |
Process flow diagram of CaO looping: Heirloom |
| 7.3.13. |
Liquid solvents for DAC |
| 7.3.14. |
Liquid solvent-based DAC: Carbon Engineering |
| 7.3.15. |
Carbon Engineering |
| 7.3.16. |
Stratos: Bringing DAC to the half megatonne scale |
| 7.3.17. |
Process flow diagram of L-DAC: Carbon Engineering |
| 7.3.18. |
Which DAC technologies will be the most successful? |
| 7.3.19. |
How will DAC technologies develop? |
| 7.4. |
Electroswing/Electrochemical DAC Technologies |
| 7.4.1. |
Electroswing/electrochemical DAC |
| 7.4.2. |
Types of electrochemical DAC (1/2) |
| 7.4.3. |
Types of electrochemical DAC (2/2) |
| 7.4.4. |
Desired characteristics of electrochemical cell components |
| 7.4.5. |
Electrochemical DAC company landscape |
| 7.4.6. |
Benchmarking electrochemical DAC methods |
| 7.4.7. |
Technical challenges in electrochemical DAC |
| 7.4.8. |
Electrochemical DAC: Flexibility for low-cost intermittent renewable power |
| 7.4.9. |
Electrochemical DAC costs depend strongly on electricity prices |
| 7.4.10. |
Electrochemical DAC: Key takeaways |
| 7.4.11. |
7.5 Novel DAC Technologies |
| 7.4.12. |
Moisture-swing direct air capture (humidity swing) |
| 7.4.13. |
Ion exchange resins for moisture swing DAC |
| 7.4.14. |
Reactive direct air capture – combined capture and conversion |
| 7.5. |
DAC Economics |
| 7.5.1. |
Business models for DAC |
| 7.5.2. |
Examples of storage providers for DAC |
| 7.5.3. |
Direct air capture carbon credit selling prices |
| 7.5.4. |
Component specific capture cost contributions for DACCS |
| 7.5.5. |
Reaching a capture cost of $100/tonne of CO2 |
| 7.6. |
BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) |
| 7.6.1. |
Introduction to BECCS |
| 7.6.2. |
Most existing BECCS projects are in ethanol production |
| 7.6.3. |
Amine solvents dominate BECCS for biomass power |
| 7.6.4. |
Government support for BECCS is accelerating |
| 7.6.5. |
BECCS business model – Ørsted example |
| 7.6.6. |
BECCS dominates the sales of durable, engineered CDR credits |
| 7.6.7. |
BECCS projects – trends and discussion |
| 7.6.8. |
Ethanol production dominates the BECCS project pipeline |
| 7.6.9. |
BECCS: Waste-to-energy |
| 7.6.10. |
BECCS: Biogas upgrading |
| 7.6.11. |
Network connecting bioethanol plants for BECCS |
| 7.6.12. |
BECCS: Key takeaways |
| 7.7. |
DOC (Direct Ocean Capture) |
| 7.7.1. |
Direct ocean capture |
| 7.7.2. |
Direct ocean capture status: Start-ups |
| 7.7.3. |
Electrochemical direct ocean capture |
| 7.7.4. |
Electrolysis for direct ocean capture: Avoiding chlorine formation |
| 7.7.5. |
Other direct ocean capture technologies |
| 7.7.6. |
Barriers remain for direct ocean capture |
| 8. |
EMERGING CARBON DIOXIDE UTILIZATION |
| 8.1. |
Introduction |
| 8.1.1. |
Why CO2 utilization? |
| 8.1.2. |
What is CO2 utilization? |
| 8.1.3. |
Mature vs emerging carbon dioxide utilization market sizes |
| 8.1.4. |
Why CO2 utilization should not be overlooked |
| 8.1.5. |
How much does CO2U cost? |
| 8.1.6. |
CO2 utilization pathways |
| 8.1.7. |
Some CO2U applications have already proven profitable |
| 8.1.8. |
Key Considerations for CO2U Market Growth |
| 8.1.9. |
What is the Climate Impact of CO2 Utilization? |
| 8.1.10. |
Current scale for CO2U products |
| 8.1.11. |
Market potential for CO2U in 2045 |
| 8.1.12. |
Emerging CO2 utilization players |
| 8.2. |
CO2-derived Concrete |
| 8.2.1. |
CO2-Derived Concrete has High Growth Potential |
| 8.2.2. |
The Basic Chemistry: CO2 Mineralization |
| 8.2.3. |
CO2 use in the cement and concrete supply chain |
| 8.2.4. |
CO2-Derived concrete application areas |
| 8.2.5. |
CO2 derived concrete: Carbon credits |
| 8.2.6. |
Ex-situ mineralization reactor types |
| 8.2.7. |
Key trends in CO2-derived concrete |
| 8.3. |
CO2-derived Chemicals and Fuels |
| 8.3.1. |
CO2 conversion pathways to methanol, methane, gasoline, kerosene, and diesel |
| 8.3.2. |
Decarbonization regulation mean sustainable fuels no longer need to achieve price-parity with fossil fuels |
| 8.3.3. |
Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) – role of CO2-derived fuels |
| 8.3.4. |
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: Syngas to hydrocarbons |
| 8.3.5. |
FT reactor design comparison |
| 8.3.6. |
FT reactor innovation – microchannel reactors |
| 8.3.7. |
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology suppliers by plant scale |
| 8.3.8. |
CO2 to CO pathways (syngas production) and players |
| 8.3.9. |
Key players in reverse water gas shift (RWGS) for e-fuels |
| 8.3.10. |
Start-ups in reverse water gas shift (RWGS) for e-fuels |
| 8.3.11. |
RWGS-FT e-fuel plant case study |
| 8.3.12. |
Direct Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: CO2 to hydrocarbons |
| 8.3.13. |
CO2 derived e-fuels: Fischer-Tropsch vs Methanol-to-gasoline |
| 8.3.14. |
MTG e-fuel plant case study |
| 8.3.15. |
Syngas production: Dry methane reforming |
| 8.3.16. |
CO2-derived methanol |
| 8.3.17. |
Methanation overview |
| 8.3.18. |
Biocatalytic methanation case study |
| 8.3.19. |
Biological conversion |
| 8.3.20. |
Electrochemical conversion |
| 8.3.21. |
Key milestones for CO2-derived fuels in 2024/2025 |
| 8.3.22. |
Partial CO2 utilization – CO2-derived polymers and polyols |
| 8.3.23. |
Catalysts for CO2-derived polymers |
| 9. |
CARBON DIOXIDE STORAGE |
| 9.1. |
Introduction |
| 9.1.1. |
The case for carbon dioxide storage or sequestration |
| 9.1.2. |
Storing supercritical CO2 underground |
| 9.1.3. |
Mechanisms of subsurface CO₂ trapping |
| 9.1.4. |
CO2 leakage is a small risk |
| 9.1.5. |
Earthquakes and CO2 leakage |
| 9.1.6. |
Storage type for geologic CO2 storage: Saline aquifers |
| 9.1.7. |
Storage type for geologic CO2 storage: Depleted oil and gas fields |
| 9.1.8. |
Unconventional storage resources: Coal seams and shale |
| 9.1.9. |
Unconventional storage resources: Basalts and ultra-mafic rocks |
| 9.1.10. |
Estimates of global CO₂ storage space |
| 9.1.11. |
CO2 storage potential by country |
| 9.1.12. |
Permitting and authorization of CO2 storage |
| 9.1.13. |
CO2 storage in the US: Class VI injection permits |
| 9.1.14. |
Class VI injection well permits in the US: Costs and timeline |
| 9.1.15. |
CO2 storage in the EU: Net-Zero Industry Act |
| 9.1.16. |
Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) in CO₂ storage |
| 9.1.17. |
MRV Technologies and Costs in CO2 Storage |
| 9.2. |
Status of CO2 Storage Projects |
| 9.2.1. |
Technology status of CO₂ storage |
| 9.2.2. |
World map of operational and under construction large-scale dedicated CO2 storage sites |
| 9.2.3. |
Available CO2 storage will soon outstrip CO2 captured |
| 9.2.4. |
Dedicated geological storage will soon outpace CO2-EOR |
| 9.2.5. |
Can CO₂ storage be monetized? |
| 9.2.6. |
Part-chain storage project in the North Sea: The Longship Project |
| 9.2.7. |
Part-chain storage project in the North Sea: The Porthos Project |
| 9.2.8. |
The cost of carbon sequestration (1/2) |
| 9.2.9. |
The cost of carbon sequestration (2/2) |
| 9.2.10. |
Carbon dioxide storage-type maturity and operator landscape |
| 9.2.11. |
CO2 storage: Key takeaways |
| 9.2.12. |
CO2 storage and geothermal energy |
| 9.3. |
CO2-EOR |
| 9.3.1. |
What is CO2-EOR? |
| 9.3.2. |
What happens to the injected CO2? |
| 9.3.3. |
Types of CO2-EOR designs |
| 9.3.4. |
CO2-Enhanced oil recovery market |
| 9.3.5. |
CO2-EOR in the US |
| 9.3.6. |
Most CO2 in the U.S. is still naturally sourced |
| 9.3.7. |
CO2-EOR main players in the U.S. |
| 9.3.8. |
World’s large-scale CO2 capture with CO2-EOR facilities |
| 9.3.9. |
Worldwide CO2-EOR Potential |
| 9.3.10. |
CO2-EOR in China |
| 9.3.11. |
The economics of promoting CO2 storage through CO2-EOR |
| 9.3.12. |
The impact of oil prices on CO2-EOR feasibility |
| 9.3.13. |
Climate considerations in CO2-EOR |
| 9.3.14. |
CO2-EOR: Progressive or “Greenwashing” |
| 9.3.15. |
Future advancements in CO2-EOR |
| 9.3.16. |
Economics of CO2-EOR vs CO2 storage |
| 9.3.17. |
Key takeaways: Market |
| 9.3.18. |
Key takeaways: Environmental |
| 9.3.19. |
Enhanced gas recovery |
| 10. |
CARBON DIOXIDE TRANSPORTATION |
| 10.1. |
Introduction to CO2 transportation |
| 10.2. |
Phases of CO2 for transportation |
| 10.3. |
Overview of CO2 transportation methods and conditions |
| 10.4. |
Status of CO2 transportation methods in CCS projects |
| 10.5. |
CO2 transportation by pipeline |
| 10.6. |
CO2 pipeline infrastructure development in the US |
| 10.7. |
CO2 pipelines: Technical challenges |
| 10.8. |
CO2 transportation by ship |
| 10.9. |
CO2 transportation by ship: Innovations in ship design |
| 10.10. |
CO2 transportation by rail and truck |
| 10.11. |
Purity requirements of CO2 transportation |
| 10.12. |
General cost comparison of CO2 transportation methods |
| 10.13. |
CAPEX and OPEX contributions |
| 10.14. |
Cost considerations in CO₂ transport |
| 10.15. |
Transboundary networks for CO2 transport: Europe |
| 10.16. |
CO2 pipeline development in Europe |
| 10.17. |
First cross-border CO2 T&S project: Northern Lights Longship project |
| 10.18. |
Available CO2 transportation will soon outstrip CO2 captured |
| 10.19. |
CO2 transport operators |
| 10.20. |
CO2 transport and/or storage as a service business model |
| 10.21. |
CO2 transportation: Key takeaways |
| 11. |
CCUS MARKET FORECASTS |
| 11.1. |
CCUS forecast methodology |
| 11.2. |
CCUS forecast breakdown |
| 11.3. |
CCUS market forecast – Overall discussion |
| 11.4. |
CCUS capture capacity forecast by CO2 end point, Mtpa of CO2 |
| 11.5. |
CCUS forecast by CO₂ end point – Storage and enhanced oil recovery |
| 11.6. |
CCUS forecast by CO₂ end point – Emerging utilization |
| 11.7. |
CCUS capacity forecast by capture type, Mtpa of CO₂ |
| 11.8. |
CCUS forecast by capture type – Direct Air Capture (DAC) capacity forecast |
| 11.9. |
Point-source capture capacity forecast by CO2 source sector, Mtpa of CO2 |
| 11.10. |
Point-source carbon capture forecast by CO2 source |
| 11.11. |
Point-source carbon capture forecast by CO2 source – power generation |
| 11.12. |
Point-source carbon capture forecast by CO2 source – cement and steel |
| 11.13. |
CCUS capture capacity by region, Mtpa of CO2 |
| 11.14. |
CCUS capture capacity by region – North America |
| 11.15. |
CCUS capture capacity by region – Europe and UK |
| 11.16. |
CCUS capture capacity by region – Asia Pacific, Middle East, and Rest of World |
| 11.17. |
Changes since the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Markets 2025-2045 IDTechEx forecasts |
| 12. |
COMPANY PROFILES |
| 12.1. |
8 Rivers |
| 12.2. |
Airhive |
| 12.3. |
Airrane: CCUS |
| 12.4. |
Ardent |
| 12.5. |
Atoco |
| 12.6. |
Axens: DMX |
| 12.7. |
Baker Hughes: Carbon Capture |
| 12.8. |
Brentwood Industries: Structured Packing |
| 12.9. |
Brineworks |
| 12.10. |
Capso |
| 12.11. |
Capsol Technologies |
| 12.12. |
Captura |
| 12.13. |
Carbon Blade |
| 12.14. |
Carbon Neutral Fuels |
| 12.15. |
Carbonbit Technologies |
| 12.16. |
CarbonBridge |
| 12.17. |
Chart Industries: CCUS |
| 12.18. |
Clairity Tech |
| 12.19. |
Climeworks |
| 12.20. |
CO2 Lock |
| 12.21. |
Concrete4Change |
| 12.22. |
CyanoCapture |
| 12.23. |
DACMA |
| 12.24. |
eChemicles |
| 12.25. |
Ecospray |
| 12.26. |
Equatic |
| 12.27. |
ESTECH |
| 12.28. |
ExxonMobil: Methanol-to-Gasoline (MTG) |
| 12.29. |
Fluor: Carbon Capture |
| 12.30. |
FuelCell Energy |
| 12.31. |
Heirloom |
| 12.32. |
Holocene |
| 12.33. |
Honeywell UOP: CO₂ Solutions |
| 12.34. |
HYCO1 |
| 12.35. |
INERATEC |
| 12.36. |
Infinium |
| 12.37. |
ION Clean Energy |
| 12.38. |
JCCL (Japan Carbon Cycle Labs) |
| 12.39. |
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (“K” Line): CCUS |
| 12.40. |
Mantel |
| 12.41. |
Mission Zero Technologies |
| 12.42. |
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: KM CDR Process |
| 12.43. |
MTR (Membrane Technology and Research) |
| 12.44. |
Nippon Chemical Industrial: R&D areas |
| 12.45. |
Nuada: MOF-Based Carbon Capture |
| 12.46. |
OXCCU |
| 12.47. |
Paebbl |
| 12.48. |
Parallel Carbon |
| 12.49. |
Phlair |
| 12.50. |
Q Power |
| 12.51. |
Saipem: Bluenzyme |
| 12.52. |
Shell & Technip Energies Alliance: CANSOLV Carbon Capture Technology |
| 12.53. |
Skytree |
| 12.54. |
SLB Capturi |
| 12.55. |
Sumitomo SHI FW: Carbon Capture |
| 12.56. |
Svante |
| 12.57. |
Syklea |
| 12.58. |
UniSieve |
| 12.59. |
Velocys |
| 12.60. |
Yama |
By user