The Electricity Journal 34 (2021) 106996

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Electricity Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tej

The role of carbon capture and storage in the race to carbon neutrality
George Peridas *, Briana Mordick Schmidt
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research and observable climate impacts point almost unequivocally to the need for a larger and faster climate
Climate change mitigation effort that includes capturing and permanently storing CO2 both from large sources and from the
Carbon capture atmosphere directly. Carbon capture and storage technologies are mature and available, with considerable real-
Carbon storage
world experience, but their deployment is still limited. We examine why this is so and suggest viable path
Carbon removal
Carbon neutrality
forward.
Decarbonization
CCS
CCUS

1. Introduction Reducing existing emissions by switching to cleaner forms of energy

The race to mitigate the worst effects of a rapidly worsening climate
has intensified significantly in recent years. These effects have been
progressing at a faster rate than had been anticipated, and scientists are
calling for increasingly decisive action.1
The Earth’s climate has already warmed by about 1.8 ◦ F (1 ◦ C) on
average due to excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmo­
sphere, and further warming will occur due to existing greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, even if emissions were to stop altogether immedi­
ately. Most experts agree we need to limit warming to no more than 2.7◦ -
3.6 ◦ F (1.5◦ -2 ◦ C) if we want to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of a
changed climate. But even that amount of warming can have major
consequences for life as we know it: more frequent and severe storms,
extreme heat events, wildfires, severe droughts in some regions and
heavy precipitation and flooding in others, sea level rise, species loss and
extinction, impacts to human health, food and water supply, and eco­
nomic growth, and increased global conflict over resources, to name just
a few. The impacts of a changed climate will be felt disproportionately
by the world’s poor and the Global South.
is still necessary, but no longer sufficient to mitigate climate change. The
bulk of “safe” warming is already committed in the Earth’s system,2,3
and the urgency and severity of the problem also call for both deep re­
ductions in existing emissions from large point-sources using carbon
capture and storage (CCS), and also for removing CO2 from the atmo­
sphere (carbon dioxide removal, or CDR). These tasks go beyond
traditional climate mitigation. This Special Issue of the Electricity
Journal focuses on CCS and its overlap with CDR. These technologies
enable CO2 to be captured from large point sources or the atmosphere,
transported by truck, rail, ship or pipeline, and then stored permanently
underground.
In the papers that follow, expert authors take an in-depth look at
various facets of CCS and CDR technology: its utility in the quest for
decarbonization, its maturity and status, the policy needs required to
enable meaningful deployment in the power sector and beyond, the
public’s awareness of the technology, the need to assimilate and address
social and environmental justice sensitivities in its deployment, social
science needs that can inform smoother deployment in the coming
decade, the role CCS can play in maintaining and creating jobs during a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: peridas1@llnl.gov (G. Peridas), schmidt45@llnl.gov (B. Mordick Schmidt).
1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018: “Global Warming of 1.5◦ C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5◦ C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sus­
tainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty” [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia,
C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)].
2
Mauritsen, T., Pincus, R. Committed warming inferred from observations. Nature Clim Change 7, 652–655 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3357
3
Zhou, C., Zelinka, M.D., Dessler, A.E. et al. “Greater committed warming after accounting for the pattern effect”, Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 132–136 (2021). htt
ps://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00955-x

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2021.106996

Available online 30 July 2021

1040-6190/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
G. Peridas and B. Mordick Schmidt
transition away from fossil fuels, and more.
2. The suite of uses for CCS and its value in the decarbonization
portfolio
CCS is perceived by many as a tool for reducing emissions at coal-
fired power plants. This is primarily due to the fact that, when the
idea of decarbonizing the U.S. economy started taking hold in the mid
2000s, the power sector was responsible for the largest share of emis­
sions, and those emissions were dominated by coal facilities. CCS
became associated with “clean coal” – a nebulous term that was never
specifically defined and meant different things in different circles.
However, the potential applications for CCS go well beyond coal-
fired electricity. In fact, the first use of CCS in the U.S. was capturing
CO2 from a natural gas processing facility, and none of the twelve
currently operating commercial CCS projects in the U.S. are on coal-fired
power plants. Specifically, the family of technologies can also be used to:
• Capture and store CO2 from natural gas-fired power plants, whether
single- or combined-cycle, or combined heat and power plants;
• Capture and store the CO2 generated in the process of making a wide
range of important industrial products, such as iron and steel, natural
gas processing, cement, methanol, ethanol, fertilizer, hydrogen and
other chemicals, fuels or feedstocks, and for which few or no other
decarbonization options exist;
• Help reduce emissions from the transportation sector while simul­
taneously removing CO2 from the atmosphere by using waste
biomass that has absorbed carbon during its lifetime as a feedstock
and converting it to fuels (e.g. hydrogen), while capturing the pro­
duced CO2, and storing that CO2 underground (known as Biomass
Carbon Removal and Storage, or BiCRS); and
• Remove CO2 directly from atmosphere using machines, in what is
known as direct air capture (DAC), and either store it permanently
underground or convert it to fuels.
In the past 15 years, the share of electricity generated by coal in the
U.S. has dropped by approximately 27%, replaced largely by increases in
natural gas and renewable generation, while electricity-sector CO2
emissions have decreased by approximately 32%.4 The importance of
CCS for coal-fired electricity remains high in certain parts of the world,
such as Asia, as well as certain U.S. states, as discussed by Nagabhushan
et al. in this Issue. However, despite this reduced need for CCS on coal-
fired power plants in the U.S., and the much broader suite of uses that
has always existed, many still narrowly equate CCS with “clean coal.” As
discussed in Mackler et al. in this Issue, this outdated perception is
delaying the deployment of CCS technologies across the larger range of
possible applications.
The value of this suite of options is substantial. As Greig & Uden
explain in this Issue, CCS adds decarbonization pathways without which
it may be impossible to achieve appropriate mid-century climate goals,
and reduces the risk of missing those goals. CCS also reduces the overall
costs of achieving these goals. In other words, the world cannot afford to
omit this set of tools from its portfolio, both from climate a risk miti­
gation perspective and from an economic one.
3. Where CCS technology stands today
Even though the prospect of capturing and permanently storing
carbon on the scale of billions of tons annually is relatively recent, the
component technologies of CCS are established. Although some of them
are undergoing refinement and innovation today, many have been in use
4
U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Electric power sector CO2 emis­
sions drop as generation mix shifts from coal to natural gas", June 9, 2021. htt
ps://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296
2
The Electricity Journal 34 (2021) 106996
for five decades, and are commercially available with accompanying
performance guarantees, as discussed in this Issue by Loria and Bright,
and by Nagabhushan et al.
First-generation carbon capture systems are mature. Their main
shortcomings are their lower-than-desired efficiency, and the lack of
extensive experience in integrating them as part of a complex facility
that performs other tasks as well. Second and third generation capture
systems are being actively developed that can capture carbon more
efficiently and at a lower cost, and significant improvements are ex­
pected, as is usually the case with technologies that are ready to be
deployed at scale but have not yet achieved that scale.
Pipeline transportation of CO2 is a fully mature technology, and
today more than 5,000 miles of dedicated CO2 pipeline move CO2
around in the U.S. Transportation by truck, rail or vessel relies on
standardized tanks, which are commonly used to transport CO2 for use
in carbonated drinks. The challenge in transporting large amounts of
CO2 is not technological, but one of siting and scaling up infrastructure
fast enough, including navigating the processes of easement negotiation,
permitting, and in some cases, public opposition.
Underground storage of CO2 and other fluids has been practiced for
decades. When sited and operated correctly, it is a secure process that
mimics as closely as possible the way nature has stored water, oil, gas,
and other fluids underground for hundreds of millions of years. The
track record from decades’ worth of engineered CO2 storage is over­
whelmingly positive.5 As would be expected with any industrial process,
occasional issues have occurred in a small minority of projects, but the
consequences to date have been minimal and these experiences have
provided valuable learnings.6,7
As the number of storage projects grows to meet the demands of
stopping climate change, applying those lessons, ensuring diligent
geologic site characterization and selection, monitoring, adequate skill
on the part of the project developer, and regulatory oversight by gov­
ernment, are paramount in reducing any risks involved to very low
levels. In fact, over the past decade, a number of new, purpose-built sets
of regulation have been written and adopted for geologic CO2 storage. In
the U.S., these include a new underground injection control rule by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Class VI wells) and a compre­
hensive CCS Protocol by the California Air Resources Board.8 These
regulations are very extensive, written with precaution and prevention
in mind, and have been based on the learnings and failings from the field
of oil and gas regulation over many decades. The level of scrutiny is also
extremely high, with only a handful or so of permits or approvals ever
having been issued to date (compared to many thousands of wells being
permitted annually in oil and gas producing states).
5
In addition to the paper by Loria and Bright in the current Issue, see: Na­
tional Energy Technologies Laboratory, “Safe Geologic Storage of Captured
Carbon Dioxide: Two Decades of DOE’s Carbon Storage R&D Program in Re­
view”, April 13, 2020. Accessed in June, 2021: https://netl.doe.gov/sites/def
ault/files/Safe%20Geologic%20Storage%20of%20Captured%20Carbon%20
Dioxide_April%2015%202020_FINAL.pdf
6
White, J.A., Chiaramonte, L., Ezzedine, S., Foxall, W., Hao, Y., Ramirez, A.,
McNab, W., “Geomechanical behavior at In Salah”, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences Jun 2014, 111 (24) 8747− 8752; DOI: https://doi.org/1
0.1073/pnas.1316465111
7
Mordick, B., and Peridas, G., “Strengthening the Regulation of Enhanced Oil
Recovery to Align it with the Objectives of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Seques­
tration”. Accessed in June, 2021 at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files
/regulation-eor-carbon-dioxide-sequestration-report.pdf
8
Peridas, G., “Permitting Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in California”,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, February, 2021. Accessed in June,
2021: https://www-gs.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/energy/CA_CCS_Pe
rmittingReport.pdf
G. Peridas and B. Mordick Schmidt
4. The path to broader CCS deployment
From an economic competitiveness standpoint, capturing, trans­
porting and storing CO2 is almost always more expensive than simply
venting it to the atmosphere. Exceptions include applications where the
CO2 has economic value as a product (e.g. for use in carbonated bev­
erages) or is used to support another economic activity (e.g. enhanced
oil recovery). In most cases however, both policy instruments and cost
reductions in CCS will be needed in order to make the technology more
widespread. As such, both governments and those who affect their ac­
tions – corporations and advocates – carry the greatest responsibility for
the technology’s future.
4.1. Policy progress has been notable, but much work remains
The papers by Mackler et al., Ochu & Friedmann, and Nagabhushan
et al. in the current Issue underscore the importance of government
policies in increasing deployment of CCS to the point where it makes a
meaningful contribution to climate mitigation. Various failed and suc­
cessful policies around the world have yielded valuable lessons on which
policies work, which do not, and what the current gaps are.
Decades’ worth of experience from the renewables sector has also
pointed to a recipe that works for commercializing technologies that
have potential but suffer from limited deployment. Simply put, what is
required is an overlay of multiple policy instruments that both push and
pull the technology: economic incentives that are sufficient, predictable
and durable, combined with mandates and binding targets for deploy­
ment of the technology.
CCS is no exception. In North America, which has emerged as the
global leader in CCS deployment in the past decade or so, some of the
necessary incentives have been put in place by governments, and this
has spurred a wave of project development. However, the structure and
funding level of these incentives are still inadequate to spur broad
deployment, and eligibility does not always cover the full extent of
project types that are needed in the climate race. As such, certain ap­
plications – typically on the higher end of the cost curve – still do not
have a pathway for deployment. In addition, few, if any, specific targets
or mandates for capturing or removing carbon exist. This is in sharp
contrast to a multitude of renewable portfolio standards that have been
responsible, along with tax credits, for the sizeable increase in renew­
able generation in recent years.
4.2. Catalyzing policy action: the influence of support and opposition
from special interest and public interest groups
Most, if not all, of the key policies supporting CCS to date have been
achieved by an unusual meeting of the minds and coordinated action
across unlikely allies. For example, recent updates to the 45Q tax credit
in the U.S. and the admission of CCS as an eligible technology in Cal­
ifornia’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard program were supported by large
and broad coalitions of energy companies, labor unions, researchers and
environmental NGOs who came together in pursuit of common ground
and presented a unified, supportive front to Congress, legislatures and
regulators.
However, support for CCS or related policies among these types of
organizations is far from universal. Some oppose climate action broadly,
and some oppose CCS specifically. In many cases, support for CCS by
some actors is seen as a de facto cause for opposition by others. For
example, some fossil fuel companies speak in favor of CCS and CDR, but
the level of commitment among them varies widely. Some simply
deliver statements that tout the benefits of CCS and CDR but with no
accompanying actions to pursue projects at a meaningful scale or sup­
port for policies that would mandate them. Others take tangible actions
and make substantial investments in the technologies, with accompa­
nying corporate commitments to respond to climate change. However,
given long history by some actors in the fossil fuel industry of denying
3
The Electricity Journal 34 (2021) 106996
human-induced climate change and blocking climate action, this sup­
port for CCS and CDR by fossil fuel companies is seen as reason to be
suspicious of, or outright oppose, CCS and CDR by others, such as some
environmental advocacy organizations.
The net effect of these behaviors by both types of interest groups is
that the technology itself is now seen as controversial by government,
and this conflict around its desirability and utility hinders policy prog­
ress that can catalyze its deployment – and, consequently, climate
progress. Sidelining the use of these key technologies on the basis that
some use them to delay or avoid climate action would substantially
hinder our ability to meet climate goals. Instead, policies should be
developed that both require and facilitate the use of CCS and CDR,
alongside continued and redoubled efforts in other climate mitigation
approaches. There is no such thing as too much climate mitigation in our
current situation.
4.3. Public perception of CCS
CCS holds the somewhat unusual distinction of being an established
technology of which the general public is largely unaware. Social sci­
ence research shows that people selected to participate in studies often
had not heard of it prior to being interviewed. As discussed in this
Special Issue by Buck, there is an existing body of social science research
on CCS that to some extent has been underutilized, but that is also
outdated for a number of reasons and also may no longer be relevant to
the way CCS would be deployed today. This parallels findings in Mackler
et al. that public policy is still designed around outdated perceptions of
CCS.
Public support or opposition to CCS could be a significant factor in
whether projects move forward or not, and indeed lack of social
awareness or acceptance have likely played some role in the slow
adoption of CCS to date: either directly in the siting of specific projects,
or indirectly because of the perceived division of public opinion when it
comes to adopting supporting government policies. It is possible that
lessons in building public acceptance can be learned from the deploy­
ment of other clean energy or climate technologies; however CCS is also
distinct from these other climate solutions in that some applications of
the technology are not renewable, which is viewed as grounds for op­
position by some.
To better understand public priorities, concerns and attitudes, Buck
makes a compelling case for a thoughtful path forward for social science
research that meets the needs of the coming decade. Public acceptance,
and more specifically the acceptance of communities in which projects
will be located – communities that may be facing many environmental
and socioeconomic pressures today and during the shift to a low carbon
economy – will be critical to meeting climate goals and securing the role
of CCS in that transition.
4.4. Environmental justice and workforce implications of CCS
Two more forces affect the potential for CCS deployment: environ­
mental justice concerns, and concerns about the future of the workforce
currently employed in the fossil fuel and related industries under deep
decarbonization scenarios.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental
justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations and policies.”9 The EJ movement has its roots in the
unfortunate reality that a subset of people has chronically suffered the ill
effects of industrial activity and pollution, and that these people are
often lower-income and/or people of color. The health effects of living in
9
See U.S.EPA, “Environmental Justice”, accessed in June, 2021: https
://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice
G. Peridas and B. Mordick Schmidt
close proximity with large industrial facilities are well-documented.10
Air pollution is often at the forefront of EJ concerns, and the applicable
federal and state laws and their implementation have failed to protect
these vulnerable communities. The political will to rectify the situation
has been lacking.
The EJ approach to climate action is undoubtedly shaped by this
lived experience. Members of the EJ community regularly express op­
position towards CCS, often on the grounds that it perpetuates polluting
industries. For example, the Climate Justice Alliance has characterized
CCS and CDR as being “geoengineering” techniques promoted by “Big
Oil,” stating that “[c]arbon capture is promoted by the fossil fuel in­
dustry to avoid the necessary transition to clean, renewable,
democratically-controlled energy”.11 The White House Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) listed CCS and Direct Air Capture as
“Examples of The Types of Projects That Will Not Benefit A
Community.”12
As Batres et al. explain in their paper in the current Issue,13 concerns
about pollution in overburdened communities and – to some extent –
fossil fuel industry influence are fair, justified and deeply rooted in stark
realities for the advocates involved. However, the technology merits a
closer look: an understudied but emerging finding is that CCS has the
potential to reduce other, non− CO2, air emissions, either by necessity or
through opportunity – this is explained further by Nagabhushan et al. in
the current Issue. As such, carbon capture could mitigate both climate
and conventional air pollutants and make a real, near-term dent in one
of the root causes of EJ concerns. A more fruitful and meaningful dia­
logue about the benefits and risks of CCS projects would be achieved
through genuine and open communication between CCS project opera­
tors, scientists, regulators, EJ advocates and local community members
where projects may be sited. To facilitate this dialogue, a deeper un­
derstanding of the social science that governs reaction to CCS and CDR
would be useful: this is covered in depth in the paper by Buck in this
Special Issue.
Research indicates resoundingly that capturing CO2 from some large
industrial sources and removing carbon from the atmosphere, on top of
significantly expanding other climate mitigation approaches like
renewable energy, electrification and efficiency improvements will be
necessary to meet climate goals. The longer mitigation is delayed, the
more carbon removal is needed. As such, failure to pursue capture and
removal early on will either leave governments with an even more ur­
gent scramble to meet climate goals, or simply lead to missing those
goals altogether. We view both these eventualities as undesirable for
disadvantaged communities: the former because a more urgent scramble
to deploy technology may lead to the sidelining of local siting and other
concerns, and the latter because the impacts of climate change are
disproportionately felt by those with the least resources locally,
10
See, for example: Johnston J., Cushing, L., “Chemical Exposures, Health,
and Environmental Justice in Communities Living on the Fenceline of In­
dustry”, Curr Environ Health Rep. 2020;7(1):48− 57. doi:https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40572-020-00263-8; Eom S.Y., Choi J., Bae S., et al., “Health
effects of environmental pollution in population living near industrial complex
areas in Korea”, Environ Health Toxicol. 2018;33(1):e2018004, published 2018
Jan 16. doi:https://doi.org/10.5620/eht.e2018004; or Mudu P., Terracini B.,
Martuzzi M., eds (2014), “Human Health in Areas with Industrial Contamina­
tion”, Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
11
Climate Justice Alliance, "Geoengineering 101: Carbon Capture and Storage".
Accessed in June, 2021: https://climatejusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploa
ds/2020/11/Carbon-Capture-v4.pdf
12
White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, "White House Envi­
ronmental Justice Advisory Council Justice40 Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool & Executive Order 12898 Revisions Interim Final Recommen­
dations", May 13, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/202
1-05/documents/whejac_interim_final_recommendations_0.pdf
13
Batres et al. focus more heavily on direct air capture, but many of the same
questions and issues could apply to CCS more broadly.
4
The Electricity Journal 34 (2021) 106996
regionally, nationally and internationally. Climate injustice would thus
be further intensified. There is also a growing sentiment that countries
most responsible for climate pollution also have a moral obligation to
clean up past emissions through carbon removal, in order to reduce the
burden on those least responsible.
Once again, the optimal path forward in our view involves both
genuine steps on the part of CCS project developers to understand and
address EJ concerns (see paper by Batres et al. in the current Issue), and
also the EJ movement (and the environmental movement more broadly)
weighing the specific, on-the-ground value of carbon capture and
removal projects against any perceived or real benefits to fossil fuel
interests.14 For the former, this may involve reducing non− CO2 pollu­
tion levels, either as a result of CCS installation, or independently as a
social license to operate. For the latter, it may involve accepting that the
most expeditious path forward to reducing pollution of concern to
communities and carbon at the same time goes against their established
world views and involves negotiation with “opponents.”
Last but not least, the act of transitioning away from a fossil fuel-
based energy system towards the carbon-free economy of the future
carries significant implications for the workforce that is currently
employed in these industries. This is explained in depth in the paper by
Romig in the current Issue. Carbon intensive industries and facilities
currently employ a large, highly-skilled, and well-paid workforce, and
the simplistic notion of simply doing away with today’s industries and
facilities fails to address the implications that this will have on these
individuals and their families. For them, this transition is something that
affects their livelihoods and everyday life, not just a carbon policy
abstraction.
There are several ideas about redeploying this established worker
base. Some tout the higher value of new, non-fossil jobs in a carbon-free
economy, while others raise and concerns about the feasibility and ease
of seamlessly transitioning such a large worker base. Carbon capture and
removal offer opportunities to ease this transition. The fossil fuel in­
dustry employs people with many of the same skill sets that are needed
for carbon capture and storage – engineering, geology, pipeline workers,
construction workers, etc.
In fact, as Romig explains, growth in carbon capture and carbon
removal offers significant opportunities for not just maintaining, but
expanding high-quality employment in a way that is consistent with
climate goals and community needs. In a world where a “just transition”
is being explored in ever more depth, these merits are hard to ignore.
5. Conclusions
CCS is a family of technologies that enables large CO2 emission re­
ductions in several sectors of the economy, some of which have few
other mitigation options. Its component technologies also enable CO2 to
be removed from the atmosphere. The parameters of today’s climate
mitigation equation unequivocally point to the need to use it in the
mitigation portfolio alongside – not instead of – other mitigation tools.
Its utility and value go beyond carbon management, and include job
preservation, expansion and transition in an economy that shifts away
from fossil fuels. They also include local air quality improvements by
helping reduce non− CO2 pollutant emissions – this is an area that re­
quires immediate and more extensive study and communication.
CCS technologies are mature and available today. They are safe and
extensively regulated under new frameworks that impose substantial
scrutiny, and that have been written from the outset with the regulatory
failings in the oil and gas sector in mind. CCS application does carry a
14
See also Buck, H. J., “The Need for Carbon Removal”, Jacobin, accessed
here in June, 2021: https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/carbon-removal-geoe
ngineering-global-warming; and Buck, H. J., “The Left Case for Carbon
Removal”, KPFA interview, May 06, 2019, accessed in June 2021: https://kpfa.
org/episode/against-the-grain-may-6-2019/
G. Peridas and B. Mordick Schmidt
price tag that depends heavily on the application, but this cost is very
reasonable in the realm of carbon mitigation and is expected to drop
further as the technology enters its second and third generations and
wide deployment is achieved. This deployment hinges on the expansion
of government policies that both incentivize and mandate its deploy­
ment: “carrots and sticks.”
Despite is numerous merits, CCS faces challenging headwinds as a
climate mitigation tool, due to actions, rhetoric and positions that often
have little to do with the technology itself. Some actors use its vague
promise as a shield against meaningful climate action. In reaction, other
actors oppose the technology on visceral or ideological grounds, viewing
it as a continuation of the status quo.
We are, however, cautiously optimistic that a new path forward is
emerging as the need to act on climate becomes increasingly more ur­
gent. This path recognizes the necessity and utility of this technology, is
built on real commitments to deploy it as part of a broader and decisive
suite of climate mitigation actions, is mindful and respectful of work­
force and local community needs and concerns, and evaluates the
technology based on hard facts and not reactionary sentiment or ide­
ology. In summary, we see CCS as a compelling case for cooler heads and
a cooler planet.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
The Electricity Journal 34 (2021) 106996
Acknowledgement
This article was made possible through the support of the Livermore
Lab Foundation and the Clean and Sustainable Energy (CASE) Fund.
George Peridas is the Director of Carbon Management Partnerships at Lawrence Liver­
more National Laboratory. He strives to advance a climate mitigation portfolio that can
achieve carbon neutrality targets by mid-century through research, science communica­
tion and by bringing the diverse actors together needed to advance projects that capture,
remove and permanently store carbon dioxide from large sources and from the atmo­
sphere. Prior to joining the Lab, George spent over a decade in the environmental NGO
world as a climate and energy scientist and advocate in Washington D.C. and California.
He has worked as an energy markets consultant in Europe, and has a background in me­
chanical engineering and environmental policy.
Briana Mordick Schmidt is a Staff Scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Her focus areas include geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide and carbon mineraliza­
tion, as part of the broader goal of the Lab’s Carbon Initiative to understand, develop, and
implement technologies for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Briana
has over a decade of experience working at the intersection of science and public policy,
including work to advance climate solutions while reducing environmental impacts. Bri­
ana’s background is in petroleum geology, where she worked on projects including shale
gas, tight gas sands, and CO2-enhanced oil recovery.