pubs.acs.

org/EF Review

The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage in the Energy Transition

Hon Chung Lau,* Seeram Ramakrishna, Kai Zhang, and Adiyodi Veettil Radhamani

Cite This: Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

ABSTRACT: In this paper, we review and analyze the salient

See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

features of the ongoing energy transition from a high to a low

carbon economy. Our analysis shows that this transition will
require decarbonizing the power, transport, and industry sectors,
and the transition pathway will be country-specific. Carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technologies will play a major role in this
Downloaded via CINVESTAV on May 13, 2021 at 15:46:31 (UTC).

energy transition by decarbonizing existing and new fossil fuel

power plants and the production of low-carbon fossil-fuel-based
blue hydrogen. Blue hydrogen can be used for hydrogen fuel cell
mobility in the transport sector and heat and feedstock in the
industry sector. Current estimates show that there is adequate CO2
storage capacity in the world’s saline aquifers and oil and gas
reservoirs to store 2 centuries of anthropogenic CO2 emission. However, the slow pace of CCS implementation is concerning and is
due, in part, to too low of an oil price to make CO2-enhanced oil recovery profitable, lack of financial incentives for CO2 geological
storage, low public acceptance, lack of consistent government energy policy and CCS regulations, and high capital investment. We
propose several ways to accelerate CCS implementation. Among others, they include establishing regional CCS corridors to make
use of economy of scale, public CCS engagement, carbon pricing, and using public−private partnership for financing, technology
transfer, and linking up different stakeholders.

1. PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is 3-fold. First, we review the
literature on energy transition and analyze its salient features
from the perspectives of energy source, CO2 emission, and
decarbonization. On the basis of this analysis, we point out the
role of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in this transition.
Second, we review the current status of CCS and summarize
key learnings, gaps, and ways to address them. Third, we point
out the reasons for the slow implementation of CCS and
suggest ways to take CCS to the next level of field
implementation.
2. WHAT IS THE ENERGY TRANSITION?
The world is transitioning from a high to a low carbon
economy.1 The main driver of this transition is the global
surface temperature rise, which has been correlated with the
emission of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere. In the last
120 years, global CO2 emission from fossil fuels and cement
production has grown 18-fold from around 2 Gtpa in 1900 to
36 Gtpa in 2020.2 During this time, the Earth’s surface
temperature has increased by 1 °C from the common baseline
of 1951−1980.3 If the current rate is allowed to continue, the
global temperature rise may reach 2 °C by 2065. Many
scientists believe that this temperature rise is the cause of
global warming.4−6 There is, therefore, an urgent need for
nations to reduce their CO2 emission to reverse the trend of
the global climate temperature rise.7,8 Since the signing of the
Paris Agreement in 2015,9 most countries have published their
targets for CO2 abatement. The business as usual scenario is no
longer viable for both nations and companies. To meet the
aspirations of the Paris Agreement, most countries should
achieve peak CO2 emission by 2030 and achieve net-zero by
mid-century.10 The goal of the ongoing energy transition is
therefore to reduce anthropogenic emission of CO2 in all
sectors of energy consumption to meet the 2 °C aspiration.
2.1. Brown Economy. The global economy since the start
of the Industrial Revolution in 1760 has been based on the
consumption of fossil fuels, namely, coal, petroleum, and
natural gas. Such an economy may be called a “brown
economy”. In a brown economy, fossil fuels are used to
generate electricity and provide heat for buildings and industry,
as fuel for transportation, and as feedstock for various
industries. However, the combustion of fossil fuels produces
greenhouse gases (GHG), of which the most important is CO2
as a result of its quantity and impact on global warming.
Received: January 4, 2021
Revised: March 25, 2021
Published: April 7, 2021

© 2021 American Chemical Society https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032

7364 Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF Review

In 2019, about 85.5% of global CO2 emission came from

consumption of fossil fuels; the remaining 14.5% came from
land-use changes, such as deforestation and fires.11,12 In a
brown economy, hydrogen is manufactured from natural gas
by steam methane reforming (SMR) and autothermal
reforming (ATR), from oil by partial oxidation (POX), and
from coal by coal gasification. It is then used as a feedstock for
various industries. The unsustainability of a brown economy
creates the impetus for nations to transition to a more
sustainable and less carbon-intensive economy.
2.2. CO2 Utilization versus CO2 Storage. Industrial CO2
captured from stationary sources can be either used or
sequestered in subsurface reservoirs. CO2 utilization consists of
multiple pathways to turn CO2 into useful end products, such
as concrete, aggregates, fuels, polymers, commodity chemicals,
algae agriculture, and algae fuels.13 Although much progress Figure 2. Global CO2 emission by consumption sectors in 2016.19
has been made in CO2 utilization, these pathways are often
energy-intensive because transforming a thermodynamically transition is to decarbonize the energy consumption sectors of
stable CO2 molecule into more complex molecules requires power, transport, and industry.
overcoming not only the heat of enthalpy but also an 2.4. Decarbonizing the Power Sector. For each energy
substantial activation energy barrier.14−16 The use of a catalyst consumption sector, there are both supply side and demand
is often required to reduce this activation energy barrier. CO2 side options for decarbonization. Supply side options mostly
utilization can complement CO2 storage in mitigating deal with the creation of technologies and their readiness for
anthropogenic CO2. However, large-scale implementation of applications. Demand side options can be both technical and
CO2 utilization still requires substantial research and develop- non-technical. Technical options include those that impact
ment (R&D) because most utilization technologies are still in people’s choice of technologies, such as improvement in
the pilot stage (TRL of 6).17 energy and fuel efficiency. Non-technical options include
2.3. Goal for Decarbonization. Figure 1 compares the energy policies, governmental regulations, cost, public accept-
contribution of renewable and non-renewable energies to the ance, change in human behavior in the use of energy, and
adoption of a circular economy.20
As of 2016 (Figure 1), 26.4% of global final energy
consumption in the power sector came from renewable
energies.18 Only 4% came from nuclear energy.21 The balance
of 70% came from fossil fuels, which is the target for
decarbonization.
2.4.1. Supply Side Options To Decarbonize the Power
Sector. Figure 3 gives the supply side options to decarbonize

Figure 1. Contribution of renewables and non-renewables to final

energy consumption by sector in 2016.18

world’s final energy consumption in 2016.18 Energy con-

sumption can be divided into three major sectors: power,
transport, and industry. In Figure 1, the thermal sector is
defined as anything outside of the power and transport sectors.
It includes industry, agriculture, and buildings. The energy in
this sector is used for heating or cooling. Figure 1 shows that
renewable energy is contributing to 26, 9.8, and 3.3% of final
energy consumption in the power, thermal, and transport
sectors, respectively.
Figure 2 breaks down the global CO2 emission by
consumption sectors.19 It can be seen that 41% of CO2
emission comes from electricity and heat, 21% from transport,
and 21% from industry. Consequently, the key to global energy
7365
Figure 3. Supply side options to decarbonize the power sector.
the power sector. They are nuclear power, renewable energies
(excluding biomass), biomass with CCS, and fossil fuels with
CCS. The first two options have very low or no CO2 emission,
whereas the last two options emit moderate to large amounts
of CO2, and CCS is used for CO2 mitigation.
2.4.1.1. Nuclear Power. Public acceptance of nuclear energy
is country-specific.22,23 Currently, there are 31 countries with
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels
Figure 4. Carbon capture technologies.39
nuclear power, of which the U.S.A., France, China, Russia,
Korea, Canada, Ukraine, Germany, Japan, and Sweden have
the largest installed capacity. Countries with very strong public
acceptance of nuclear power include China, Korea, and the
U.S.A.24 On the other hand, Italy has closed all of its nuclear
power plants, and Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland
will phase out their nuclear power plants. There is a big
difference in public acceptance of nuclear power between
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) and non-OECD countries. OECD countries have the
largest installed nuclear power capacity. However, most are
approaching the end of their operational life. At the same time,
governments of OECD countries are against further nuclear
development. On the other hand, non-OECD countries,
especially China, India, and Russia, show a higher willingness
to expand their nuclear power capacity.25 In 2018, nuclear
power contributed to 10% of global total power production
and was growing at a rate of 2.4%, while global power
production grew by 3.9%.21 It seems unlikely that the
contribution of nuclear power to overall global power
generation will grow.
2.4.1.2. Renewable Energy. From a life cycle CO2 emission
analysis of power generation, it can be shown that if 1 kWh of
electricity generated by renewable energy (except for biomass)
is used to replace 1 kWh of electricity generated by fossil fuel,
the net CO2 savings will amount to 0.8, 0.6, and 0.4 kg,
respectively, for replacing coal, oil, and natural gas.26 This is a
much higher CO2 savings than using renewable electricity to
generate hydrogen for heating purposes in industry (about
0.18 kg of CO2 per kWh of renewable electricity).27
Consequently, for CO2 mitigation purposes, the best use of
pubs.acs.org/EF Review
renewable electricity is to replace fossil fuels for power
generation.
Overall, renewable energies contributed to about 30% of
total electricity generation in 201818,21 and grew at a rate of
8%.18 The highest growth rate is in wind and solar photovoltaic
(PV), although hydropower has the biggest installed capacity.
It is expected that wind and solar PV will continue to dominate
the growth in renewable power in the foreseeable future
because the cost of new power plant by wind and solar PV is
approaching parity with that by fossil fuels. As a result of the
variability of wind and solar PV, energy storage is an important
enabling technology.28,29 However, research has shown that, if
a mix of diverse low-carbon power sources is used, including
nuclear and fossil fuel with CCS, then energy storage may not
be required.28,29 An emerging technology is gas switching
reforming (GSR), which can alternate between electricity and
hydrogen production from natural gas. This enables a high
utilization rate for the capital-intensive natural gas plant.30
2.4.1.3. Bioenergy with CCS. An important feature of
bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) is that it gives negative CO2
emission.31 In BECSS, biocrops are grown to capture CO2
from the atmosphere. These crops are then converted through
a series of processes (physical, chemical, thermal, or
biochemical) into biofuels. The biofuels can be used to
generate electricity, as fuel for mobility and heating and as
feedstock for industry. CCS can be used in conversion of
biomass into biofuels and in their combustion to remove
emitted CO2, thus contributing to negative CO2 emission.
Currently, direct air capture and BECCS are the two
technologies capable of capturing CO2 directly from the
atmosphere and storing it permanently. Several studies have
shown that, when used together with wind and solar PV,
7366 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF
BECCS can compensate for the variability of these renewable
energies in power generation.32,33 Studies using sugar cane for
BECCS in Brazil34 and palm oil in Malaysia35 have also be
carried out. Research using BECCS to decarbonize the power
sector in the European Union (EU)36 and China37 have also
been carried out. BECCS, however, suffers from two concerns:
energy-intensive biomass supply chain and low power
generation efficiency. A recent study shows that BECCS can
be either carbon-positive or -negative and energy-positive or
-negative depending upon case-specific assumptions and the
type of biomass used.38 Future deployment of BECCS will
therefore require using high-energy-return biocrops and
reduction in the energy penalty of biomass conversion to
power with CCS.
2.4.1.4. Fossil Fuels with CCS. Four types of carbon capture
technologies can be used to decarbonize power plants. They
are post-combustion, pre-combustion, oxy-combustion, and
chemical looping (Figure 4).
Post-combustion capture separates CO2 from the flue gas
after combustion has occurred. It is a relatively mature
technology and can be used to retrofit existing coal- and gas-
fired power plants. However, as a result of the low
CO2concentration in the flue gas (7−14% in coal-fired
power plants and 4% in gas-fired power plants), the energy
penalty incurred is high39 and results in a 32 and 65% increase
in electricity cost by gas- and coal-fired power plants,
respectively.40,41
Pre-combustion CO2 capture is a less mature technology,
which can be applied to coal- or natural-gas-fired power plants.
In a coal-fired power plant, the coal is pretreated by gasification
under a low oxygen environment to form a syngas consisting
mainly of CO and H2. The syngas then undergoes a water−gas
shift reaction with steam to form additional hydrogen, while
CO is reacted to CO2. The high CO2 concentration (>20%)
facilitates CO2 separation. Thereafter, H2 is combusted in air in
an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant
with a typical energy penalty of 7−8% as a result of the use of
steam in the water−gas shift reaction, which limits the recovery
of heat.42 In a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power
plant, the natural gas is reformed to syngas. The hydrogen
concentration is further increased by the water−gas shift
reaction. Other aspects of the process are similar to those for
coal. Although the CO2 capture efficiency can reach 80%, pre-
combustion carbon capture suffers from high capital and
operating costs. When applied to NGCC, pre-combustion CO2
capture requires high capital expenditure for syngas generation,
which reduces its economic attractiveness.
Oxy-fuel combustion uses oxygen for combustion to reduce
nitrogen and NOx in the flue gas. Major components of the
flue gas consist of CO2, water, SO2, and particulates. After SO2
and particulates are removed, the flue gas has a CO2 content as
high as 80−98%, which can be compressed, transported, and
stored. The process, however, suffers from consumption of
large quantities of oxygen as a result of an energy-intensive air
separation unit, thus resulting in high operating cost and an
energy penalty in excess of 7% compared to a plant without
CCS.
In chemical looping, a metal oxide, e.g., calcium oxide
(CaO), and CO2 are reversibly reacted to form a carbonate
(e.g., CaCO3), which is passed on to a second vessel to be
regenerated, thus producing pure CO2. This process leads to a
lower energy penalty in a power plant and can also be used in a
cement factory.43
7367
Review
A comparison of the aforementioned CO 2 capture
technologies is given in Table 1. Current research in post-
combustion carbon capture focuses on enhancing CO2
absorption in liquid solvents or adsorption on solid
surfaces.44,45 Research on pre-combustion CO2 capture focuses
on reducing the energy penalty by optimizing the water−gas
shift reaction.42 For both oxy-fuel combustion and chemical
looping, an emerging technology is using pressurized fluidized
beds to enhance efficiency.46,47
It can be seen from the aforementioned discussion that, of
the four supply side options to decarbonize the power sector,
CCS plays an important role in two (fossil fuels with CCS and
BECCS). However, decarbonization is more than building new
low-carbon power plants. There are many existing power
plants with remaining service life of several decades.
Decarbonizing must start before these power plants are retired.
Therefore, retrofitting them with CCS technology will play a
key role in decarbonizing the power sector.
2.4.2. Demand Side Options To Decarbonize the Power
Sector. Demand side options to decarbonize the power sector
include improvement in energy efficiency of electrical equip-
ment and appliances as well as energy conservation, thus
leading to less power consumption. While the energy intensity
in prosperous nations will tend to drop, power consumption by
developing economies will likely increase as a result of
population growth and increase in prosperity. Other demand
side options will include energy policy and regulations of
governments. The introduction of a carbon tax, credit, or
carbon trading system will have a powerful effect on
decarbonizing the power sector. Numerous studies have
shown that high carbon pricing will favor the use of renewable
power.48−50 However, the right carbon pricing is highly
sensitive to fuel price, the cost of capital, and level of capital
expenditure.51,52 The uncertainty in fuel price makes the
setting of carbon pricing difficult. Furthermore, the cost of
capital is country-dependent. Prosperous nations with easy
access to capital usually have a lower cost of capital than
poorer countries with limited access to capital. This means a
higher carbon tax is needed for the latter. Studies have also
found that attaining 100% renewable electricity by wind and
solar PV is cost-prohibitive as a result of their variability and
need for energy storage.53 The lowest cost option will likely
involve a mixture of energy systems, including renewable,
nuclear, and fossil fuels with CCS.54
2.5. Decarbonizing the Transport Sector. In 2016, 27%
of final energy consumption was from the transport sector, and
renewables contributed to only 3.3% of the energy consumed
in the sector (Figure 1). Transport, however, contributed to
21% of total CO2 emission (Figure 2) and is dominated by
gasoline (including ethanol blends) and diesel (including
biodiesel blends). They accounted for 84% of total trans-
portation energy consumption in 2020.55 Gasoline is used
mostly in passenger vehicles, while diesel is used for heavy-
duty trucks.
2.5.1. Supply Side Options To Decarbonize the Transport
Sector. Figure 5 shows the demand side options to
decarbonize the transport sector. They can be classified into
three broad categories: low-carbon electricity, low-carbon
hydrogen, and biofuels.
There are three types of low-carbon mobility. They are low-
carbon electric mobility, low-carbon hydrogen fuel cell
mobility, and internal combustion engine mobility using
biofuels.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF Review

transfer, fast reaction and large throughput; potential for lower capital
uniform temperature, efficient gas−solid mixing, good heat and mass
oxy-fuel pressurized fluidized bed combustion (oxy-PFBC) gives fuel
optimization of water−gas shift reaction to reduce energy penalty42

can be used for solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels; fluidized beds give
flexibility and moderate operating temperature46
increased absorption, heat pumps for solvents44
emerging technology

cost and reduced energy penalties47

use solid sorbents for CO2 capture45

Figure 5. Supply side options to decarbonize the transport sector.

2.5.1.1. Electric Mobility. Electric mobility consists of

air separation unit incurs high energy and cost penalty
handles large gas volume because of low CO2 partial

electric cars, buses, and rails. Although the current penetration

high cost of syngas generation unit in NGCC; high

non-commercial but potentially more efficient than

energy-intensive regeneration; CO2 solvents con-

of electric vehicles (EVs) into the passenger road transport

energy penalty in IGCC because of steam in

market is insignificant, it is expected to grow rapidly in the

taminated by nitrogen and sulfur oxides

coming decade because some countries have established goals

pressure; large and costly equipment;

to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles in the next 2

decades.56 For decarbonizing, the electricity used to power
other CO2 capture technologies
disadvantages

EVs must come from low-carbon sources. The two main

water−gas shift reaction

sources are renewable electricity and fossil fuel electricity

equipped with CCS. The use of CCS to decarbonize the power
sector has already been discussed.
2.5.1.2. Hydrogen Mobility. Use of hydrogen fuel cell
mobility is another way to decarbonize the transport sector.57
Table 2 compares the technology readiness level (TRL) of

Table 2. TRL of Various Types of Hydrogen Mobility58

widely used and can be retrofitted to existing

reduced gas flow rate; can be retrofitted to

existing boilers or used in new compact

avoid mixing of air and fuel gas; efficient

power and heat generation; minimizes
higher CO2 partial pressure; less energy

hydrogen mobility technology readiness

NOx; can be used for H2 production
boilers; promising if inexpensive air

technology level (TRL) description

spacecraft 9 commercial
separation unit is available

forklift 8−9
advantages

passenger car 8 refinement

used in regeneration

bus 7−8
light rail 7 demonstration
shunting locomotive; 6−7
motorcycle; lorry
Table 1. Comparison of CO2 Capture Technologies

plants

aviation, ferry 5−6 between lab (5) and

field pilot (6)

using hydrogen in various modes of transportation.58 It can be

solvents, pressure swing adsorption
NaOH and KOH solutions, mem-

CO2 recycling to adjust flame tem-

amine-based solvents, ammonia,

brane, and cryogenic separation

seen that TRL is relatively high for hydrogen fuel cell

two-step combustion using metal
H2 and CO2 separation; physical

passenger cars and light buses (TRL of 7 and 8) but lower for
4−14 vol % CO2 in flue gas;

other means of transportation. Continued R&D and govern-

description

(PSA), and cryogenics

ment incentives will raise the TRL and reduce the cost of
various hydrogen mobility.
For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) to be widely
adopted, a hydrogen shipment and filling stations are needed.
perature

oxide

Other barriers to market penetration include the high cost of

HFCVs, limited supply of automakers, competition from EVs,
low public acceptance, and lack of clear national policy.59−61
CO2 capture tech-

oxy-fuel combus-

chemical looping

Nonetheless, interest in hydrogen mobility is increasing, with

post-combustion

pre-combustion

the U.S.A., Germany, and Japan as main investors in R&D on

nology

hydrogen-based mobility.62,63
tion

2.5.1.3. Hydrogen Production. Globally, about 70 million

tons of hydrogen is produced annually.64 About 76% is
7368 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels
Figure 6. Supply side options to decarbonize the industry sector.
produced from natural gas by steam methane reforming
(SMR) and 22% from coal gasification (brown hydrogen),
mostly in China, and only 2% from water electrolysis. Of
hydrogen produced by water electrolysis, less than 16% is
produced from renewable electricity. Thus, global production
of hydrogen by renewable energies is less than 1%. Low-carbon
hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuel with CCS (blue
hydrogen) or electrolysis with renewable electricity (green
hydrogen).65−67 Hydrogen production is expected to grow to
168−300 Mtpa by 2030.60,68 Countries that have expressed
interest in exporting either green or blue hydrogen include
Australia,69 New Zealand,70 Brunei,71 United Arab Emirates
(UAE),72 and Saudi Arabia.73
2.5.1.4. Blue Hydrogen. In hydrogen production from
natural gas by SMR, post-combustion strategies can be used to
capture CO2 from the furnace off-gas with a capture efficiency
of 85−90%.74 This, however, requires a large amount of steam
as a result of the low CO2 partial pressure. However, chemical
looping using metal oxide may be used to increase the CO2
capture efficiency.75 Alternatively, autothermal reforming
(ATR) can give a higher CO2 recovery efficiency of 90−
95%.74 When hydrogen is produced by coal gasification, post-
combustion CO2 capture technologies can achieve a CO2
capture efficiency of 90−100%. Overall, CO2 capture at a
hydrogen plant incurs a relatively small increase in production
costs compared to power plants, which makes hydrogen
production more attractive for CO2 capture.74 From a life cycle
CO2 emission perspective, ATR and coal gasification are the
best options.76 Overall, the integration of CCS in hydrogen
plants is in the early stage of commercialization because only
two plants are in operation as of 2020, one in Port Arthur in
Texas, U.S.A., and the other in the Quest Project in
Canada.77,78
2.5.1.5. Green Hydrogen. Hydrogen generation by water
electrolysis using renewable electricity gives very little CO2
emission. However, hydrogen generation by solar PV has
pubs.acs.org/EF Review
significant acidization potential as a result of generation of
SO2.79 At present, green hydrogen is at least twice as expensive
as blue hydrogen. Reduction in the cost of green hydrogen
requires integration of the renewable electricity production
system with the water electrolysis system, which will require
substantial R&D efforts.80
2.5.1.6. Blue versus Green Hydrogen. The current cost of
green hydrogen is $3−7/kg compared to $1.4−2.4/kg for blue
hydrogen,81 although the cost of the former is expected to fall
significantly with time. A recent study by Noussan et al. shows
that the cost of green hydrogen will be equal to and below that
of blue hydrogen by 2030 and 2050,82 respectively. Ultimately,
the cost of green hydrogen is dependent upon the efficiency
and cost of renewable electricity.
2.5.1.7. Biofuels for Internal Combustion Mobility. Liquid
biofuels, such as bioethanol and biodiesel, by themselves or
blended with gasoline and diesel, can be used as low-carbon
fuels for internal combustion engines.83 First-generation
biofuels are manufactured from plant carbohydrates, vegetable
oils, and animal fats. However, they are not preferred as a
result of competition with a food source. Second-generation
biofuels come from non-edible lignocellulosic biomass that can
be converted to biofuels through biochemical or thermochem-
ical processes, such as fermentation, transesterification,
pyrolysis, and gasification. They can be used to generate
bioethanol, biodiesel, transport fuels, synthetic transport fuels,
and hydrogen. When combusted, they generate heat and can
provide heat for industry. Third-generation biofuels are
produced from algae and do not require agricultural lands
for cultivation. The cultivation of algae can occur in open
water, lagoons, or man-made ponds in wastewater.84 Thus,
there is no competition with freshwater. Fourth-generation
biofuels come from genetically modified algae and wastes.85
However, third- and fourth-generation biofuels are only in the
early research stage.86 Overall, use of second-generation
biofuels suffers from sustainability issues,87 including clearing
7369 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF Review

of forests for its growth, competition of land for agriculture, CCS is currently the chief option to decarbonize the cement
high production cost, lack of infrastructure,88 and low public and steel industries.106−109 As of 2020, 26 industrial CCS
acceptance in some countries.89 plants are in operation and 38 are being planned (Table 3).78
Currently, Brazil and the U.S.A. are the main producers of
ethanol by fermentation of sugar cane and corn, respec- Table 3. CCS Plants in Operation and Being Planned as of
tively.90,91 In Southeast Asia, biodiesel is manufactured by 202078
transesterification of palm oil in Thailand, Indonesia, and
number of existing CO2 number of planned
Malaysia.92 However, the clearing of rain forests for growing existing capture CCS plants CCS capture
biocrops is a sustainability issue.93 CCS capacity being capacity
2.5.2. Demand Side Options To Decarbonize the Trans- industry plants (Mtpa) planned (Mtpa)
port Sector. Demand side options to decarbonize the transport natural gas 12 27.45 2 4.0
sector include vehicle fuel efficiency improvement, vehicle processing
sharing, autonomous vehicles, public transport, mode switch- fertilizer 4 1.8 1 1.75
ing, government subsidy for low-carbon vehicles, setting targets ethanol 3 1.39 3 0.81
production
to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles, etc.94−98 power generation 2 2.4 16 46.92
2.6. Decarbonizing the Industry Sector. The biggest hydrogen 2 2.2 4 5.4
and perhaps most difficult sector to decarbonize is the industry production
sector. This includes subsectors, like iron and steel, cement, chemical 2 0.22 5 8.01
fertilizers, refining, and chemicals, where thermal energy for production
heating is required. Traditionally, this thermal energy is oil refining 1 1.4 1 4.0
provided by fossil fuels.99 Only a small fraction of energy iron and steel 1 0.8 0 0
used in this sector comes from electricity. In addition, fossil synthetic natural 1 3.0 0 0
gas
fuels are required as feedstock.
cement 0 0 2 1.12
Figure 6 shows the demand side options to decarbonize the
air 0 0 1 1.0
industry sector.100 They can be classified into four options: (1)
waste-to-energy 0 0 2 1.9
electrification of heat, (2) green or blue hydrogen, (3) fossil total 28 40.66 37 74.91
fuels with CCS, and (4) biomass. The biomass option can be
performed without or with CCS. However, biomass with CCS
may be used to give negative CO2 emission, as discussed Existing CCS plants are mostly in the natural gas processing
previously. industry, whereas those being planned are mostly in the power
2.6.1. Direct Electrification of Heat. The most CO2- generation. A comparison of CO2 capture technologies in
intensive industries of chemicals, iron/steel, and. cement are various industries is given in Table 4.
also the most challenging to electrify.101 In these industries, 2.6.4. Biomass for Industry Heat and Feedstock. Biomass
roughly 45% of the CO2 emission comes from feedstocks, can be used for both industrial heating and feedstock. In
which are raw materials for the manufacturing process. About Europe, industrial biomass used is mostly solid biomass
35% of emitted CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels to (94%).110 Biogas, liquid biofuels, and municipal waste
generate high-temperature heat. The remaining 20% of CO2 contribute to the balance. Studies have shown that biomass
emission comes from burning fossil fuels for low- and medium- can be used to supply high-temperature heat in the cement and
temperature heat (13%) or machine drives (7%).102 Con- clinker industry,110 and torrefied biomass can be used to
sequently, electrification of heat can only reduce CO2 emission replace coal in industry heating.111 Possible applications
as a result of fuel burning. CO2 emission from feedstock, which include the steel, cement, glass, and ceramics industries.
constitutes the majority of emission, can only be removed by However, large-scale use of biomass for industry heat has yet to
CCS or the use of new raw materials. Barriers to complete begin. Barriers include higher cost compared to fossil fuels and
electrification of industry include significant process change, more complex processes to handle biomass in industry.110
long remaining life of existing plants, large increase in 2.6.5. Demand Side Options To Decarbonize Industry.
electricity consumption, high price of electricity compared to Demand side options to decarbonize industry include fuel
coal or natural gas, and price competitiveness of commodity efficiency, reduction in material waste (e.g., using additive
products, among others.102,103 manufacturing), using low-carbon materials, and adoption of a
2.6.2. Hydrogen for Heat and Feedstock. Both blue and circular economy (e.g., improving product service life,
green hydrogen have great potential to decarbonize the reusability, repairability, and recyclability). Other measures
industry sector because hydrogen can be used to produce include policies, such as carbon pricing, setting energy
heat and as a feedstock, thus mitigating the two main sources efficiency or emission standards for products or processes,
of CO2 emission.104,105 Use of green hydrogen can also be labeling, and government procurement of low-carbon products,
considered as an indirect way of electrification because among others.99
renewable electricity is used to produce it.103 However, the 2.7. Pathways for the Energy Transition. There is no
current price of blue hydrogen is half the price of green one energy transition pathway that can be used for all
hydrogen. The use of hydrogen for heat and feedstock is being countries. Each country will choose a pathway based on their
field piloted in the iron and steel and ammonia sectors (TRL energy mix and their need for energy security, affordability, and
of 6) and is in the applied research stage in the cement and sustainability.112−114 Countries rich in renewable energy
ethylene sectors (TRL of 4)102 resources will likely rely on these resources more, while
2.6.3. CCS. Various carbon capture technologies can be used countries rich in fossil fuel resources will rely more on
in industries where CO2 is emitted by fossil fuel burning or pathways that use CCS technologies. Countries lacking in
feedstock processing. As a result of the lack of other options, either renewable or fossil fuel resources may choose to import
7370 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF Review

blue or green hydrogen. In addition, the time that it takes for

high-concentration CO2 capture and H2 production; 2 plants with pressure swing adsorption (PSA) is inefficient to separate CO2 and H2
high CO2 concentration for CO2 capture; 2 plants with CCS being absence of low-grade heat for regeneration; combined heat and power
different countries to go through the energy transition will be
different. Richer nations, such as EU-15, will likely go through
can be retrofitted with post-combustion CCS; 2 plants with CCS in post-combustion has high energy penalty as a result of low CO2
concentration in flue gas; large equipment size and cost and this transition faster because they aspire to become net-zero
around 2050. Poorer nations, such as EU-13, which tradition-
ally rely on coal for energy production will likely take a longer

CO2 concentration adequate for CO2 capture in some cases; oxy-fuel CO2 concentration too low for capture in some cases
disadvantages for CO2 capture

plant and oxy-fuel combustion are good options time as a result of the partial lack of public acceptance and high
capital cost for renewable energies.112 Each country will choose

meets natural gas pipeline purity; 12 plants with CCS in operation only 2 more planned with CCS being planned
a different mix of supply and demand side options to
decarbonizing their energy consumption sectors (Figures
no new plant being planned with CCS

7−9). However, given the urgency of decarbonization, serious

efforts must begin sooner rather than later. As a result of its
energy-intensive regeneration

importance in decarbonizing all three major sectors of energy

consumption, CCS will likely be an important enabler for the
energy transition in many countries.

3. GLOBAL CO2 STORAGE CAPACITY BY CCS

Subsurface reservoirs considered for permanent CO2 storage
include saline aquifers, oil and gas reservoirs, coalbed methane,
geothermal reservoirs, organic-rich shale, and basalt reser-
voirs.115 However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates
combustion feasible; 1 plant with CCS in operation; 1 more being

that 96.7% of the CO2 storage capacity in North America

operation in 2020 and 16 more plants being planned worldwide

resides in saline aquifers, 2.4% in oil and gas reservoirs, and

high enough CO2 concentration for CO2 capture; 1 plant in

0.93% in coalbed methane (Table 5). Table 6 gives the global

CO2 storage capacity by reservoir type obtained from different
sources. Again, the majority (99%) of global storage capacity
resides in saline aquifers. Oil reservoirs, gas reservoirs, and
operation at UAE sequestering 0.8 Mtpa CO2
advantages for CO2 capture

coalbed methane constitute only 1% of total storage capacity.

CCS in operation; 5 more being planned

It is worthwhile to mention that, currently, there are several

ways to classify CO2 storage capacity in reservoirs.117−119
Similar to the petroleum resource classification, CO2 storage
sequestering 27.45 Mtpa CO2

capacity should be based on the degree of certainty for

commercial application. Only volumes that can be technically
and economically used should be classified as proven storage
capacity. Furthermore, a probabilistic-based classification using
P90 (low), P50 (medium), and P10 (high) uncertainties will be
more meaningful than a deterministic classification. It appears
that a classification closely aligned with the Society of
planned

planned

Petroleum Engineer Petroleum Resource Management System

(PRMS)120 will be most meaningful.121
3.1. Saline Aquifers. When CO2 is injected into a saline
Table 4. Comparison of CO2 Capture in Various Industries

∼26 vol % CO2; amine-based solvents, membrane separation,

aquifer, it initially exists as a separate phase, which displaces

4 vol % CO2 in gas-fired power plants; 7−14 vol % CO2 in

different CO2 concentration; amine-based solvents for CO2

catalytic cracking regenerator, etc.; chemical solvents or

14−33 vol % CO2 in flue gas from calciner; amine-based

the formation brine. In a typical confined aquifer, the amount

CO2 emitted from heaters; electricity generation, utility,
coal-fired power plants; post-combustion technologies

of CO2 that can be injected is between 1 and 6% of the

reservoir pore volume.122−125 Furthermore, the CO2 injection
is limited by injection pressure, reservoir volume, or both. If
solvents, membrane separation, cryogenics
CO2 capture technology

the injection pressure exceeds the fracture pressure of the

water−gas shift reaction and CO2 capture

reservoir, a fracture can develop. However, if the fracture

extends into the overburden or underburden, then out of zone
injection will occur. Consequently, the injection pressure is
usually kept at a safe distance below the fracture pressure of
the overburden and underburden. If the reservoir permeability
oxy-fuel combustion

or the difference between the reservoir pressure and the

fracture pressure is low, then CO2 injection will be pressure-
limited.126 In a confined aquifer, CO2 injection is mainly due
mostly used

cryogenics

to compressibility of the reservoir rock and the brine and is

capture

also limited by the fracture margin. Buscheck et al. have

proposed using active reservoir management by combining
brine production with CO2 injection to reduce pressure
production

buildup, increase injectivity, control CO2 migration, and

processing
oil refining
natural gas
industry

minimize brine leakage.127

hydrogen
iron and
cement

steel
power

In an unconfined aquifer, the formation brine can leak

through the overburden or underburden into other layers, and
7371 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF
Figure 7. Country-specific pathways to decarbonize the power sector.
Figure 8. Country-specific pathways to decarbonize the transport sector.
Figure 9. Country-specific pathways to decarbonize the industry sector.
therefore, more volume of the aquifer may be available for CO2
storage. However, leakage of a large amount of brine to a
shallower aquifer, especially a protected groundwater aquifer,
presents a safety and environmental problem. Hitherto, over 20
years of monitoring in the CCS at the offshore Sleipner project
in Norway by seismic and gravimetric methods has shown that
7372
Review
injected CO2 stays safely in the intended storage unit.128,129 In
the onshore Salah CCS project in Algeria, satellite imaging of
surface deformation, wireline logging, tracer studies, and
geochemical and core analyses were used in CO2 monitor-
ing.130 Routine well inspection identified a small CO2 leak and
breakthrough in observation wells, which was quickly fixed.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF Review

Table 5. CO2 Storage Capacity by Reservoir Type in the stationary CO2 emission sources, such as power plants, oil
U.S.A. and Canada115,a refineries, and heavy industries.
Our review identifies an often neglected aspect of offshore
low (Gt) medium (Gt) high (Gt)
CO2 storage in saline aquifers. At sufficiently large water
oil and gas reservoirs 186 205 232 depths, the seafloor temperature is low enough (a few degrees
coalbed methane 54 80 113 Celsius) and the sediment pressure is high enough for a CO2
saline aquifers 2379 8328 21633 hydrate stability zone (HSZ) to be formed below the
total 2618 8613 21978 seafloor.139 Within this HSZ, the sediment temperature and
a
The low, medium, and high values are based on P90, P50, and P10 pressure are conducive for the formation of a solid CO2
estimates of the CO2 storage efficiency factor. hydrate, which can act as a secondary barrier toward post-
injection of upward CO2 migration.140,141 The confining
Table 6. Global CO2 Storage Capacity by Reservoir Type overburden remains as the primary barrier. Consequently,
low medium high
injection of CO2 into an aquifer below this HSZ is
(Gt) (Gt) (Gt) reference advantageous. This is because any CO2 that leaks through
oil and gas 249 311 373 Global CCS the overburden and enters the HSZ will solidify into the CO2
reservoirs Institute78,a hydrate, thus stopping any further upward migration of CO2.
coalbed methane 80 100 120 NETL115,b The water depth at which a HSZ exists depends upon the
onshore saline 10000 56000 200000 Bruan et al.116,c ocean temperature. Our calculations show that, at higher
aquifers latitudes near the polar regions, this water depth can be as
total 10329 56411 200493 shallow as 200 m because of a colder sea level temperature and
a
The medium value is taken from the Global CCS Institute.78 Low the non-existence of a thermocline. This critical water depth
and high values are ±20% from the medium value. bThe medium changes from 200 m in polar oceans to 600 m in tropical
value is estimated from 80 Gt in the U.S.A., with a 20 Gt increase to oceans. This extra barrier to upward CO2 migration can be
account for the rest of the world (Global CCS Institute78). Low and brought to bear if saline aquifers at sufficiently large water
high values are ±20% from the medium value. cThe value is estimated
depth are chosen.
from the dissolution of CO2 in the aquifer brine, excluding offshore
saline aquifers. 3.1.1. Industrial Experience in CO2 Storage in Offshore
Saline Aquifers. Hitherto, there are two large-scale offshore
CCS projects in Norway (Snohvit and Sleipner), and a third
Results indicate that there is no out-of-zone CO2 leakage.123 In (Longship, previously called Northern Lights) is being
the onshore Quest CCS project in Canada, pressure data from planned.128 Table 7 summarizes the key information on
observation wells were used to monitor the CO2 and brine
movement. Pressure buildup data showed no CO2 or brine Table 7. Offshore CCS Projects in Norway
leakage.131 These results suggest that properly designed and Longship (previously
monitored CO2 injection into aquifers can be safely executed called Northern
with minimum risk of out-of-zone CO2 leakage. Vertical and project Snohvit Sleipner Lights)
lateral brine migration does not pose a serious threat if the seal water depth 300 82 300
is competent. However, leakage through poorly cemented (m)
wellbores, faults, and incompetent seals needs to be total depth 2600 882 3000
(mss)
assessed.226 Continuous monitoring and active reservoir buried depth 2300 800 2700
pressure management, e.g., by brine production, are good (mbsf)
practices.123 reservoir 27.3 9 31.6
To be used for CO2 storage, an aquifer must have a large pressure
(MPa)
enough volume. During the injection phase, injected CO2
CO2 density 0.670 0.715 0.672
exists as a separate phase and a CO2 plume extends from the (g cm−3)
injector outward. After cessation of injection, the CO2 plume CO2 state supercritical supercritical supercritical
continues to migrate laterally as a result of buoyancy forces. In source of CO2 LNG facility for Sleipner gas industry
time, CO2 dissolves in the brine and may undergo further Snohvit gas field
chemical reactions with the rock minerals. Eventually, CO2 field
may be mineralized.132−134 CO2 storage Tubaen Utsira Johansen formation
aquifer formation formation
As a result of the large volume of subsurface sediments, there
first operation 2008 1996 2024
is enough CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers around the date
world to sequester anthropogenic CO2 for several centuries. CO2 injection 0.70 1.00 1.5−5.0
For example, the medium saline aquifer CO2 storage capacity rate (Mtpa)
of 8327 Gt in the U.S.A. (Table 2) is enough to store 1500
years of CO2 emission in the U.S.A. at the current rate of 5.3 these projects. The Sleipner project has been operating for 24
Gtpa. years. CO2 separated from the produced gas from the Sleipner
The world’s sedimentary basins with saline aquifers are gas field is injected into an aquifer in the Utsira formation at a
geographically distributed widely, both on land and in the rate of about 1 Mtpa.129,130,142,143 The more recent Snohvit
continental margins.135,136 They are concentrated at the coastal project has been injecting CO2 at a rate of 0.7 Mtpa into a
continental margins in all five continents.137 This is especially much deeper aquifer in the Tubaen formation at 2300 m below
important because 2.4 billion people or 40% of the world’s the seafloor.144 The Longship project, formerly known as
population live within 100 km (60 miles) of the coast.138 This Northern Lights, has been recently approved by the Norwegian
also means that coastal cities have the biggest concentration of government and will be in operation by 2040.145 In this
7373 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF
project, industrial sourced CO2 shipped from the southern part
of Norway will be injected into an aquifer in the Johansen
formation at 2700 m below the seafloor in the middle part of
Norway at a rate of 1.5−5.0 Mtpa. This will be the largest
offshore CCS project in the world.
The aforementioned projects show that the oil and gas
industry has substantial experience in offshore storage of CO2
in saline aquifers in the last 2.5 decades.146 It should be noted
that the successful implementation of CCS projects in Norway
has been due in part to Norway’s high carbon tax, which is
$60/ton of CO2 in 2020.
3.2. Oil Reservoirs. CO2 flooding in oil reservoirs for
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) purpose has been conducted in
the U.S.A. for over 4 decades.147 Of all of the CCS methods,
CO2-EOR is the only method that has substantial economic
value of its own right as a result of incremental oil production.
The physics of CO2-EOR is well-understood.148 At pressures
above the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of the crude
oil, CO2 becomes miscible with the oil, thus resulting in
miscible displacement that can lead to low residual oil
saturation and significant incremental oil production. Hitherto,
most CO2-EOR floods have been conducted in the U.S.A.,
with naturally sourced CO2 shipped via dedicated pipelines to
the oilfields. Unfortunately, there is very little CO2-EOR
projects conducted outside of the U.S.A. as a result of several
reasons. First is the paucity of natural CO2 sources. Second is
the distance between industrial CO2 sources and oilfields,
which increases the CO2 transportation cost. Third, only
oilfields with crude miscible or near miscible with CO2 at the
prevailing reservoir pressure are suitable for CO2-EOR. This
rules out heavy oil reservoirs and light oil reservoirs, where
reservoir pressure is below the MMP.
Conventional CO2-EOR can be conducted in a number of
ways, such as continuous CO2 injection, CO2 foam, water
alternating gas (WAG),149,150 or immiscible CO2-cyclic
stimulations in heavy oil reservoirs.151 These processes have
been well-studied experimentally and numerically by reservoir
simulations. Besides, there have been many field applica-
tions.152
Conventional CO2-EOR has been designed to minimize the
use of CO2 and maximize the recovery of oil because CO2 is
expensive. CO2-EOR, however, can also be used for the dual
purpose of EOR and CO2 storage. A study by the International
Energy Agency (IEA)153 has shown that the profitability of
conventional and dual purpose CO2-EOR is highly sensitive to
both CO2 and oil price.154 Neither one is profitable unless the
oil price exceeds $50 (2010)/bbl, regardless of the price of
CO2. Therefore, in a low oil price environment, it is unlikely
that CO2-EOR will be implemented. A carbon tax will make
dual-purpose CO2-EOR profitable at a lower oil price.
3.3. Depleted Gas Reservoirs. CO2 storage in depleted
gas reservoirs is basically a voidage replacement process,
whereas that in an oil reservoir depends upon the oil
displacement efficiency by CO2. In addition, for the same
reservoir volume, there is usually more CO2 storage capacity in
a depleted gas reservoir than a depleted oil reservoir because
much of the pore space in an oil reservoir is usually taken up
by water. Consequently, for the same reservoir pore volume, a
depleted gas reservoir can have a higher CO2 storage capacity
than an oil reservoir, a fact often ignored in the discussion of
CO2-EOR.
In addition, there is a key difference in CO2 storage between
depleted offshore and onshore gas reservoirs. Assuming a
7374
Review
ground temperature of 25 °C, a geothermal gradient of 30 °C/
km, and a hydrostatic gradient of 10.5 kPa/m, it can be
estimated that, beyond 700 m below ground level, CO2 is in a
supercritical state. At a buried depth of around 2000 m, the
CO2 density can exceed 600 kg/m3, indicating that 600 kg of
CO2 can be stored in 1 m3 of pore space. In a tropical region,
the CO2 density is higher in an offshore sediment than in an
onshore sediment at the same buried depth because the
seafloor temperature is significantly cooler than the ground
temperature. Consequently, at the same buried depth from the
mudline, more CO2 per unit pore space can be stored in a
depleted offshore gas reservoir than in one onshore. There has
been at least two field pilots of CO2 storage in gas reservoirs,
namely, in the offshore K12-B field in the Netherlands and the
onshore Naylor field in Australia.155,156
A recent study by Agartan et al. estimated that the total CO2
storage capacity in 3514 depleted gas and oil reservoirs (91%
are gas reservoirs) in the Gulf of Mexico is 4.748 Gt.157 More
recently, Li et al. estimated the CO2 storage capacity in
depleted gas reservoirs in the northern South China Sea to
have a mid-value of 0.91 Gt.158
Li et al. have studied the sealing capacity of depleted oil and
gas reservoirs.159 They found that the caprock sealing capacity
of a depleted oil or gas reservoir is reduced because of the
lower CO2−water interfacial tension compared that of
hydrocarbon−water. Therefore, the sealing pressure of the
caprock, which can be lower than the fracture pressure, should
be determined prior to CO2 injection and should not be
exceeded during injection. Furthermore, both the thickness
and the sealing pressure of the caprock should be measured.160
In addition, possible reactions between free CO2 with
carbonate minerals in the caprock also need to be
assessed.161,162
3.4. Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs. Retrograde
condensate reservoirs differ from dry gas reservoirs in the
phase behavior of the gas.163 At initial reservoir pressure, a
retrograde reservoir usually contains only gas. However, as the
reservoir pressure drops, condensate separates from the gas
phase and becomes a separate condensate (oil) phase. During
depletion, some condensate is produced. However, at
abandonment, a significant volume of condensate may be left
behind in the reservoir as a result of relative permeability
effects. Research shows that, if CO2 is injected into such a
reservoir, not only can it be stored, but it can also displace
some of the residual condensate out of the reservoir, thus
making the economics of CO2 storage more attractive.164−167
3.5. Coalbed Methane (CBM). CBM consists of coal
seams, which are too deep to be mined. However, there is a
large amount of methane adsorbed on the surface of coal that
can be produced by conventional petroleum engineering
methods, such as depressurization using vertical or horizontal
wells.168,169 Usually, coal seams are undersaturated with
respect to natural gas and require depressurization by means
of water production before gas production will begin.
Consequently, CBM production is usually preceded and
accompanied by water production. CO2 can be injected into
a depleted CBM reservoir to take up the surface adsorption
sites left behind by the produced methane. This is called
enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) recovery. Therefore,
depleted CBM reservoirs can also be used for storage of CO2.
However, research has shown that adsorption of CO2 on coal
may cause swelling of the coal matrix, which will reduce the
coal permeability.170−172 The degree of swelling, however, has
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels
an inverse relationship with the coal rank,173,174 and more
research is needed to mitigate this problem. Thus far, there has
been a couple of small-scale CO2 injection pilot in CBM
reservoirs in China.175 Large-scale CO2 storage in CBM
reservoirs has not been implemented.
As a result of the large global reserve of CBM, a considerate
amount of CO2 may be stored in depleted CBM reservoirs
(Tables 5 and 6). Countries with significant CBM reserves,
such as the U.S.A., Australia, Indonesia, and China, may
consider CO2 storage in CBM as an option, especially if these
CBM reservoirs are located near industrial CO2 sources.176,177
3.6. Other Types of Reservoirs. Other reservoirs that
may hold promise for CO2 storage include geothermal
reservoirs, organic-rich shale, methane hydrate reservoirs, and
basalt formations. However, CO2 storage in these reservoirs
has a lower TRL, and considerable amount of R&D will be
needed before commercialization. We will only discuss them
briefly.
3.6.1. Geothermal Reservoirs. In locations where magma
activities are active, e.g., the Ring of Fire in the Pacific region,
Earth’s geothermal gradient can be much higher than normal
and can reach 50 °C/km or higher.178 In such places, the brine
in a subsurface aquifer may have a temperature exceeding the
boiling point of water. Such aquifers may contain hot water or
steam, which possesses a considerable amount of thermal
energy. Geothermal water or steam produced through a well
can be used to generate electricity through a steam turbine.
Geothermal energy thus produced is a renewable energy.83
Randolph and Saar proposed a CO2-plume geothermal
(CPG) process by combining geothermal energy capture with
CO2 sequestration.179 In CPG, anthropogenic CO2 is injected
into a geothermal reservoir containing hot brine for geologic
storage. However, some injected CO2 is produced to the
surface for heat extraction and power generation. Their
stimulations show that, despite having a lower heat capacity
than water, CO2 is more efficient, extracting heat from the
geothermal reservoir than water because it has a higher mass
flow rate through the reservoir than water. Buscheck et al.
extended CPG to a CO2 Earth battery system by proposing to
inject supercritical CO2 from a fossil fuel power plant into a
subsurface aquifer.181,182 Pressurized CO2 and brine are used
for storage of thermal energy, which can be produced back to
the surface for power generation using a Brayton cycle turbine.
This concept is still in early R&D stage.
Another type of geothermal reservoir is a hot, geopressured
aquifer containing dissolved methane. Ganjdanesh et al. have
proposed producing the geothermal water for the dual purpose
of producing methane and heat generation. In addition, CO2
can be dissolved in the produced water and be re-injected for
CO2 storage.180
However, another option is to use CO2 to harness the heat
in “hot dry rock”, which is igneous rock heated to a very high
temperature by Earth’s magma.183 These rock formations are
usually located a depths exceeding 4000 m. They often contain
natural fractures. The conventional idea is to inject water
through an injection well into the hot dry rock through the
natural fracture network and then produce the water through a
producer. The hot water can then be used for electricity
generation on the surface. A variation of this idea is to use
supercritical CO2 as the fracturing and heat transfer fluid for
power generation.184,185 Produced CO2 is re-injected to the
reservoir for heat mining.
pubs.acs.org/EF Review
Injecting anthropogenic CO2 to harness the heat energy in a
geothermal reservoir for power generation or space heating is
one of the few ways to achieve negative emission renewable
energy. This, coupled with the fact that geothermal energy is
the least harnessed renewable energy to date, suggests that
more focused R&D is warranted in combining CCS with
geothermal energy production.
3.6.2. Organic-Rich Shale. Organic-rich shale has revolu-
tionized the world of fossil fuels in the past decade. Production
from organic-rich shale reservoirs has enabled the U.S.A. to
become the number one oil producer in the world.186 Organic-
rich shale contains natural gas or oil, which resides within the
source rock originally thought too impermeable to be
produced. However, with the use of horizontal well and
multi-stage hydraulic fracturing technologies, operators in
North America have been able to produce a large amount of
natural gas and light oil from shale reservoirs.187
Natural gas resides within the organic shale as free gas,
adsorbed gas, and to a small extent dissolved gas in the organic
kerogen. Some researchers have proposed injecting CO2 into
organic-rich shale and making use of competitive adsorption to
displace methane from the shale surface, a mechanism similar
to that of enhanced CBM.188−191 Another idea is to use
supercritical CO2 as the hydraulic fracturing fluid to reduce
water consumption and water blockage near the pro-
ducer. 192−194 If successful, such attempts can use a
considerable amount of CO2 for shale oil and gas production.
However, these ideas are still in the early stage of research. A
major challenge is to have a high enough CO2 injectivity in
shale reservoirs.
3.6.3. Gas Hydrate Reservoirs. Gas hydrates are natural gas
molecules enclosed in microscopic cages composed of water
molecules.195 They are ice-like solid structures and are stable at
above atmospheric pressure and low temperatures. Con-
sequently, they are typically found in permafrost regions and
continental margins.196 One common feature of a gas hydrate
deposit is its shallow buried depth. In permafrost regions, a gas
hydrate stability zone (GHSZ), wherein the temperature and
pressure are conducive for the formation of gas hydrate,
extends from within the permafrost to hundreds and
sometimes over a thousand meters below the perma-
frost.197−200 The top of the GHSZ can be as shallow as a
hundred meters below the frozen Earth’s surface. In the ocean,
gas hydrate exists in the continental margins at a water depth
of 350 m or deeper, where the seafloor temperature is between
0 and 4 °C. The GHSZ can extend from the seafloor to
hundreds of meters below the seafloor. 201−204 Some
researchers have proposed injecting CO2 into a gas hydrate
reservoir to displace methane.205 The advantage of this process
is that it does not require melting of the gas hydrate, thus
preventing sand production during the gas production. There
has been one field test in Alaska where a flue gas containing
CO2 was injected into a gas hydrate formation.206,207 Results
proved the success of CO2−CH4 exchange, but the CH4
production rate was too slow for commercialization at the
prevailing gas price.
3.6.4. Basalt Formations. Basalt is a geological formation
consisting of solidified lava, which is porous and consists of 25
wt % calcium, magnesium, and iron oxide. About 10% of land
mass and much of the ocean floor is composed of basalt. CO2
injected into a basaltic formation can react with the metals to
form carbonate minerals.208 There are two ongoing field tests
to assess the feasibility of CO2 storage in basalt, namely, the
7375 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF
CarbFix project in Iceland209 and the Big Sky Carbon
Sequestration Partnership in Washington State, U.S.A.210
3.6.5. Key Learnings, Gaps, and Ways Forward for
Various CO2 Storage Technologies. Table 8 summarizes the
TRL, key learnings, gaps, and ways to address gaps of different
CO2 storage technologies. CO2 storage in a saline aquifer and
oil reservoirs is ready for commercialization because it has a
TRL of 9. CO2 storage in gas and retrograde condensate
reservoirs is ready for field piloting or field demonstration.
Other technologies require more R&D before commercializa-
tion.
4. CURRENT STATUS OF CCS
As of 2020, there are 28 large-scale CCS projects in operation
worldwide,78 with a total storage capacity of 41 Mtpa (Table
9), although 38 more are in the planning stage, with a capacity
of 76.41 Mtpa (Table 3). About 81% (32.8 Mtpa) of the CCS
projects in operation is conducted for EOR purposes, and 19%
(7.9 Mtpa) is conducted solely for CO2 geological storage.
Also, the majority of the CCS projects are located onshore.
Even countries that implement CCS in 2020 only stored less
than 1% of CO2 that they emitted (Table 6). There is,
therefore, an urgent need for the countries of the world to
double their CCS efforts to meet the urgent need for
decarbonization.17
4.1. Reasons for Slow Implementation of Large-Scale
CCS Projects. The slow implementation of CCS projects is
not due to technical but non-technical barriers.
4.1.1. Carbon Pricing. Outside of northern Europe and the
U.S.A., most countries have low or non-existing carbon tax or
credit.1 Consequently, there is little incentive for companies to
conduct CO2 geological storage projects. A high enough
carbon pricing will create a strong incentive for CCS. An
example is the U.S.A. 45Q carbon tax credit of $35/ton of CO2
sequestered in EOR projects and $60/ton of CO2 sequestered
by geological storage.212 However, the level of carbon pricing
is sensitive to energy price and cost of capital, which varies
from country to country.52 Each country needs to determine
its carbon price depending upon the local context.
4.1.2. Predictable Energy Policy. In addition to carbon
pricing, a consistent and predictable national energy policy will
go a long way toward encouraging companies to invest in
CCS.51,53,213 Policies, such as targets for renewables in
different energy consumption sectors and subsidy for low-
carbon technologies, such as electric or hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles, are needed to increase investments in these
technologies.
4.1.3. CCS Regulations. If CCS projects are to be
implemented in Europe or Southeast Asia, it is likely that
these projects will include CO2 sources and sinks in multiple
countries. CO2 movement across national boundaries is
controlled by the London Protocol and Basel Conven-
tion.214,215 However, many nations are not signatories to
them. Therefore, both national and international laws need to
be passed to govern the movement of CO2 across national
boundaries and its disposal and monitoring in subsurface
reservoirs.216 Long-term liability of CO2 disposal and whether
it can be transferred from the operator to the state after a
certain period of time also needs to be addressed. Permitting of
CO2 disposal also needs to be streamlined to avoid long delays.
4.1.4. Public Acceptance. Currently, public acceptance of
CCS in some countries, including Germany, Australia, and
China, is low,217,218 making it difficult for their governments to
7376
Review
promulgate policies that favor CCS. Ashworth et al. found that
people who believe in human-induced climate change are likely
to be unsupportive of CCS.218 A recent study suggests that the
majority of the general public in Japan has little awareness of
CCS and their opinion may be altered by public engage-
ment.219 Another study shows that awareness of carbon-based
technologies in Germany is low by the general public.
However, Germans have a have a more positive attitude
toward CCU than CCS.220 It appears that much more work
needs to be done across the board to increase public
acceptance of CCS. In general, a lack of trust in perceived
self-serving industrial stakeholders and politicians needs to be
overcome.221 Public acceptance, however, can be changed by
increased awareness and engagement by trustworthy stake-
holders, such as teachers, government scientists, and
academics.222 Furthermore, support for CCS can be increased
if economic benefits, such as continued economic growth,
creation of new industries, and new employment opportunities,
are clearly articulated. It should be pointed out that CCS can
be the springboard for a new hydrogen economy with
associated value creation in employment and economic
opportunities. A grassroot public engagement campaign will
be needed. In addition, a lack of local expertise in CCS
technologies can also influence public acceptance. Transfer of
CCS expertise through international cooperation is therefore
important.
4.1.5. High Capital Expenditure and Cost of Capital. The
high capital expenditure and cost of capital of CCS projects is
also a key barrier.48,52 Retrofitting carbon capture technologies
to existing power and industrial plants is expensive. High
capital expenditure, high interest rates, and the uncertainty of
the regulatory and policy environment constitute a very high
barrier to large-scale CCS projects.
5. WAY FORWARD
Just as the energy transition will take different pathways in
different countries, the way forward to implement a large-scale
CCS project will be different in different countries. However,
the following are key enablers, which will facilitate jump
starting CCS projects.
5.1. Regional CCS Corridor. An enabler to reduce the
high capital cost of CCS is to establish a regional CCS corridor
where a number of industrial CO2 sources are connected by a
common shipment network to a collection hub. This hub is
then connected to one or several CO2 storage sites by pipelines
or sea shipment. A proper CO2 source−sink matching exercise
for the region is needed to select such a CCS corridor. The
sharing of the shipment network, pipeline, and injection sites
will reduce the total capital cost as a result of economy of scale.
An anchor industrial CO2 source (e.g., power plant) close to a
large storage site will be a desirable feature of this CCS
corridor. The Norwegian Longship project, which can be
expanded to include CO2 sources from neighboring countries,
is a good example of a CCS regional corridor.145 Another
example is the CarbonNet project in Victoria, Australia.223
5.2. Public CCS Engagement. Public engagement by
trusted experts is needed to raise public awareness on the
benefits of low-carbon technologies, including CCS.222,224
Trusted experts should include those from institutes of higher
learning, technology practitioners, and government officials.
Besides technical risk and technology readiness, potential
economic and job creation benefits of new CCS and hydrogen
industries should be highlighted in these engagements.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
 Table 8. Key Learnings, Gaps, and Ways Forward for Various CO2 Storage Technologies
CO2 storage
technology TRL key learnings gaps how gaps can be addressed
saline aquifer 9 CO2 storage in an onshore and offshore saline lack of geological characterization of saline create national and international atlas of aquifers for CO2 storage
aquifer is feasible and field-proven aquifers for CO2 storage
Energy & Fuels

there is adequate capacity to store global CO2 lack of financial incentives to implement CO2 impose carbon pricing to incentivize companies to invest in geological storage
emission geological storage
make use of a CO2 hydrate stability zone to
form a secondary CO2 migration barrier
in confined aquifers, active reservoir
management by brine production is beneficial
oil reservoir 9 CO2-EOR has a well understood mechanism lack of stable CO2 source and pipeline create CCS corridors linking sources to storage sites to make use of economy of scale to
and is field-proven over 4 decades reduce infrastructure and shipment cost; applies also to other reservoirs; see section 5.1
reservoir pressure near or above MMP needed difficult to implement offshore as a result of the
need a high oil price [>$50 (2010)/bbl] to be lack of CO2 source and transport
profitable
depleted gas 6 proven technology by field pilots large-scale CO2 storage in depleted gas identify nearly depleted gas fields before decommissioning
reservoir larger CO2 storage capacity per unit pore reservoirs yet to be done create financial incentive through carbon pricing
volume than aquifers and oil reservoirs
caprock seal integrity is crucial
depleted retrograde 5 added benefit from producing condensate by field pilot needed identify suitable pilot sites
condensate CO2 injection
reservoir potential larger unit CO2 storage capacity than
oil reservoirs and aquifers
CBM 6 potential for ECBM recovery by CO2 injection how to avoid coal swelling as a result of CO2 research on selection of coal rank, buried depth, reservoir pressure, and temperature to

7377
coal swelling by CO2 adsorption varies with adsorption minimize coal swelling by CO2 adsorption
coal rank
field pilots conducted in China
pubs.acs.org/EF

geothermal reservoir 3−4
organic-rich shale 3−4
gas hydrate reservoir 6 Ignik Sikumi flue gas injection pilot in Alaska
basalt formations 6 two field pilots performed
potential for producing negative CO2 emission site-specific feasibility studies to identify suitable optimizing CPG to maximize CO2 storage and geothermal heat mining
geothermal energy by CO2 injection field pilot candidates
high cost and low energy conversion efficiency
of geothermal power plants
low CO2 injection rates as a result of low shale how to increase CO2 injectivity research on speeding up CO2 exchange with CH4 in shale
permeability research on using supercritical CO2 as fracturing fluid
how to speed up solid exchange between CO2 modeling of solid CO2−CH4 exchange technology through multiple well applications
and CH4 in the gas hydrate
CO2 is successfully sequestered through modeling of complex chemical reactions of CO2
exchange with CH4 and CH4 hydrate formation and dissociation
sand production issues manageable
uneconomic CH4 production rate as a result of
the low gas price
depressurization is the preferred CH4
production method
reduce water usage in CarbFix research to reduce water usage, speeding up CO2 mineralization, and increasing CO2
80% of CO2 was carbonized within a year in storage capacity
CarbFix pilot
large volume of water needed in CarbFix
storage capacity of 70 kg of CO2/m3 basalt,
much lower than that in depleted gas
Review

reservoirs

Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF Review

Table 9. Global CCS Projects in Operation in 2020 warming. Indonesia and Philippines have announced that they
will move their capitals, in part, because of climate change.
current CO2 current CO2 percent of CO2
country storage (Mtpa)a emission (Gtpa)b emission stored Achieving the aspirations of the Paris Agreement will mean
that nations will peak their CO2 emission by 2030 and achieve
U.S.A. 21.94 5.285 0.42
net zero by 2050. This will be a monumental tasks for all
Australia 4.00 0.411 0.97
Norway 1.70 0.042 4.05
countries. Each year of delay in implementing decarbonization
China 0.82 10.175 0.01
will only make the process more costly later.
Qatar 2.1 0.109 1.93
6.3. Energy Transition Will Utilize All Technology
UAE 0.80 0.191 0.42
Options. Energy transition will be costly. All supply side
Saudi 0.80 0.582 0.14
options, such as renewable energies, nuclear power, BECCS,
Arabia hydrogen, and CCS, are capital-intensive. However, instead of
Brazil 4.60 0.466 0.99 considering them as competing options, one should consider
Canada 3.90 0.577 0.68 them as complementary. Different countries will require
total 40.66 26.384 0.15 different transition pathways, and having a portfolio of options
a
Data from the Global CCS Institute.78 bFossil-fuel-related CO2 is advantageous. It is unfortunate in the current climate debate
emission in 2019; data from the Global Carbon Atlas.211 that some view others holding a different view as opponents.
Instead, one should have a balanced view of the advantages and
disadvantages of all low-carbon options.
5.3. National Energy Policy. A predictable long-term 6.4. Chosen Energy Transition Pathways Will Be
national energy policy that defines the role of CCS is a key Based on Cost and Technology Readiness. The job of the
demand side enabler for companies to invest in CCS. Such a engineer in the energy transition is to choose the best
policy should include a carbon price and clear targets for technology option based on TRL and cost effectiveness. This is
decarbonization for all energy consumption sectors.52 It will not that different from choosing the best field development
steer the energy transition pathway of the country and will be option for an oil or gas field. However, the TRL and cost
the result of balancing the country’s need for energy security, effectiveness can be location- or country-specific. What is
affordability, and sustainability. doable in the Gulf of Mexico for field development may not be
5.4. Public−Private CCS Partnership. Implementation of practical in the Gulf of Guinea. Likewise, whether one chooses
a large-scale CCS project can be facilitated using a public− to build a renewable power plant versus retrofitting an existing
private partnership (PPP) to bring multiple industries, coal-fired power plant with CCS will depend upon the local
government agencies, and investors together. A stable, context. As technologies mature and their cost decreases, the
cooperative framework that lasts for 2 decades or longer will choice of technology option for decarbonization will also
be needed for a large-scale CCS project. This framework change.
should encourage sharing of risks and rewards, socialization of 6.5. Winning of Hearts and Minds Is Key to Energy
costs, and protection from political risks of governments Transition. The success of any technology option for
changing their minds. A PPP may be a better vehicle to achieve decarbonization will depend upon public acceptance of the
this than a purely commercial partnership.225 technology. Therefore, winning the hearts and minds of the
5.5. CCS Knowledge Transfer. A lack of local expertise public is key to success of any technology option.
can be an impediment to a large-scale CCS project. Therefore, Unfortunately, engineers are usually not very good public
transfer of knowledge from foreign technology providers to proponents of technologies. Large-scale implementation of
local companies should be an important element of a CCS CCS will depend upon public acceptance of the technology.
project. In addition, R&D collaboration between institutes of Currently, public awareness of CCS is rather low, and many
higher learning and local and foreign technology providers will people are skeptical of CCS as a means to prolong the use of
also facilitate technology transfer and creation of local fossil fuels. Engineers must do a better job in explaining the
expertise. risks and benefits of CCS to win the hearts and minds of the
public. A lack of public acceptance may well be the biggest
6. CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES non-technical risk facing the implementation of CCS.
The challenges of the ongoing energy transition are daunting, 6.6. Energy Transition Creates New Opportunities. A
and the stakes are high because climate change affects almost successful energy transition will create new employment and
every sphere of life on Earth. Very seldom in human history economic opportunities for nations and their citizens. This is
have engineers been confronted with such a monumental especially relevant as nations come out of the current COVID-
challenge. To rise up to such a challenge, we need perspective 19 pandemic. New industries, such as carbon capture, carbon
to put the challenges in the right context. In the section, we utilization, carbon shipment, carbon storage, hydrogen
attempt to provide such a perspective. production, hydrogen shipment, and hydrogen infrastructure,
6.1. Energy Transition Is an Enormous Task. Energy will create plenty of new jobs and economic opportunities.
transition is one of the biggest social and engineering tasks of Therefore, the energy transition can be an engine of growth for
our century. There are few other tasks more consequential nations.
than the ongoing energy transition because the future of 6.7. Energy Transition Requires Political Will. Part and
humanity depends upon it. It is a task relevant for every nation parcel of the energy transition is choosing the right energy
and requires the brightest minds to solve, including engineers transition pathways. This choice will require political will on
and scientists. the part of governments because the demand side options are
6.2. Energy Transition Is an Urgent Task. In addition, highly dependent upon government policies and regulations.
energy transition is an urgent task that cannot wait. Many parts Governments must have the political will to make the right
of the world are experiencing the consequence of global choices for the energy transition. Because these choices have a
7378 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF
long-lasting impact, they should be made after careful
consultation with all stakeholders in a transparent and
responsible manner. Government indecision on the choice of
the energy transition pathway will increase the cost of
implementation.
7. CONCLUSION
The following conclusions can be made from this study: (1)
The transition from a high to low carbon economy will involve
the decarbonization of three major sectors of energy
consumption: power, transport, and industry. (2) Renewable
energies in the form of solar thermal, solar PV, wind, biomass,
hydroelectricity, and geothermal are making the most CO2
abatement impact by replacing fossil fuels in the power sector.
As the LCOE of renewable electricity continues to drop, more
and more new power plants will be fueled by renewable
energies. (3) After renewables, CCS for newly built fossil fuel
power plants or retrofitted into existing fossil fuel power plants
will be a key technology to decarbonize the power industry.
(4) The key options to decarbonize the transport sector are
electric mobility, hydrogen fuel cell mobility, and internal
combustion engine mobility fueled by renewable biofuels. (5)
Major options to decarbonize the industry sector include
electrification of heat and using hydrogen or biomass for heat
and feedstock. (6) Blue hydrogen can be produced by fossil
fuels with CCS, whereas green hydrogen can be produced by
electrolysis with renewable power. Because blue hydrogen
costs significantly less than green hydrogen, it will play a key
part in the decarbonizing of the transport and industry sectors.
(7) Besides the aforementioned supply side options for
decarbonation, demand side options include improvement in
fuel efficiency and system-wide efficiency, mode switching,
adoption of a circular economy, and government policies that
encourage low-carbon consumption behavior. (8) The path-
way for the energy transition will be country-specific and will
depend upon each country’s energy mix and need for energy
security, affordability, and sustainability. (9) Current estimates
show that there is adequate CO2 storage capacity in subsurface
reservoirs around the world to store over 2 centuries of
anthropogenic CO2 emission. Over 90% of this capacity resides
in saline aquifers, with the rest in oil and gas reservoirs. (10)
Other subsurface reservoirs for CO2 storage include CBM,
geothermal, organic-rich shale, gas hydrate, and basalt
formations. However, technologies to deploy CCS in these
reservoirs are at various levels of TRL. (11) Despite the
importance of CCS in decarbonizing all three major sectors of
energy consumption, the slow pace of CCS implementation is
concerning. Major reasons for the slow implementation
include too low of an oil price to make CO2-EOR profitable,
a lack of carbon pricing and CCS regulations, high capital
expenditure, high cost of capital, inadequate public support,
and a lack of local expertise. (12) Rapid decarbonization will
require large-scale CCS implementation. Enablers include
establishing regional CCS corridors, increased public CCS
engagement, promulgation of consistent national energy
policies and CCS regulations, use of public−private partner-
ship for financing and implementation, and increase in local
CCS knowledge through technology transfer.
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Hon Chung Lau − Department of Civil and Environment
Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
7379
Review
117576, Singapore; orcid.org/0000-0001-7749-1256;
Email: honchung.lau@gmail.com
Authors
Seeram Ramakrishna − Department of Mechanical
Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
117576, Singapore; orcid.org/0000-0001-8479-8686
Kai Zhang − Department of Civil and Environment
Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
117576, Singapore
Adiyodi Veettil Radhamani − Department of Civil and
Environment Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 117576, Singapore
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Biographies
Hon Chung Lau is a professor in the Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering at the National University of Singapore
(NUS) with research interests in energy transition, intersection of
fossil fuels and renewable energies, unconventional energy resources,
and nanotechnology. Prior to joining NUS, Professor Lau worked for
Shell and has held various positions in technology delivery, technical
assurance, training, project management, and technical leadership. He
holds B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering from Caltech
and Princeton, respectively.
Seeram Ramakrishna, FREng, is the director of the Center for
Nanotechnology & Sustainability at the National University of
Singapore. He is a member of UNESCO’s Global Expert Group on
Universities and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Google Scholar shows ∼120 000 citations, ∼159 h index, and ∼1000
i10 index for his publications. He is named among the world’s most
influential minds and world’s highly cited researchers. He received his
Ph.D. degree from the University of Cambridge, U.K., and the Good
Manufacturing Practice (GMP) training from Harvard University,
U.S.A.
Kai Zhang received his Ph.D. degree from the Department of
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada,
in 2017. He is a research fellow in the Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering at the National University of Singapore.
He has both research and industry experiences in CO2 enhanced oil
recovery and reservoir simulation. His research interests include
carbon capture and storage, energy transition, and reservoir
simulation.
Adiyodi Veettil Radhamani received her Ph.D. degree in physics from
the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras in 2017. She is
currently a research fellow in the Department of Civil & Environ-
mental Engineering at the National University of Singapore. Her
research interests include structure−property correlations of metal
nanocomposites, energy storage materials, fabrication of energy
storage devices, and carbon capture, utilization, and storage.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the financial support from the Petroleum
Professorship Grant from the Singapore Economic Develop-
ment Board and also a grant from the Agency for Science,
Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore (IAF-PP
Scheme, Project A18B4a0094, Advanced Functional Polymer
Particle Technologies for the Oil and Gas Industry).
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels

■
pubs.acs.org/EF Review

NOMENCLATURE (5) Houghton, J. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing., 4th ed.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2015.
ASEAN = Association of South East Asian Nations (6) Lee, Z. H.; Sethupathi, S.; Lee, K. T.; Bhatia, S.; Mohamed, A. R.
ATR = autothermal reforming An Overview on Global Warming in Southeast Asia: CO2 Emission
BECCS = bioenergy carbon capture and storage Status, Efforts Done, and Barriers. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
CBM = coalbed methane 2013, 28, 71−81.
CCS = carbon capture and storage (7) Abeydeera, L. H. U. W.; Mesthrige, J. W.; Samarasinghalage, T. I.
CCUS = carbon capture, utilization, and storage Global Research on Carbon Emissions: A Scientometric Review.
CH4 = methane Sustainability 2019, 11 (14), 3972.
CO2 = carbon dioxide (8) Balat, M.; Balat, H.; Acici, N. Environmental Issues Relating to
CO2-EOR = CO2 enhanced oil recovery Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the World. Energy Explor.
ECBM = enhanced coalbed methane Exploit. 2003, 21 (5), 457−473.
(9) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
EOR = enhanced oil recovery
(UNFCC). The Paris Agreement; UNFCC: New York, 2015; https://
EU-13 = Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, agreement (accessed Feb 20, 2021).
Slovakia, and Slovenia. (10) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
EU-15 = Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, (UNFCC). The Paris Agreement; UNFCC: New York, 2021; https://
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom agreement (accessed Jan 10, 2021).
GHSZ = gas hydrate stability zone (11) BP. BP Statistical Review of World Energy; BP: London, U.K.,
GSR = gas switching reforming 2019.
Gt = giga (109) metric tons (12) Carbon Brief. Analysis: Global Fossil-Fuel Emissions up 0.6% in
Gtpa = giga (109) metric tons per annum 2019 Due to China; Carbon Brief: London, U.K., 2020; https://www.
carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emissions-up-zero-point-six-
H2 = hydrogen
per-cent-in-2019-due-to-china (accessed Dec 27, 2020).
HSZ = CO2 hydrate stability zone (13) Bobeck, J.; Peace, J.; Ahmad, F. M.; Munson, R. Carbon
IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle UtilizationA Vital and Effective Pathway for Decarbonization; Center
KOH = potassium hydroxide for Climate and Energy Solutions: Arlington, VA, 2019.
LCOE = levelized cost of electricity (14) Baena-Moreno, F. M.; Rodriguez-Galan, M.; Vega, F.; Alonso-
Me = metal Farinas, B.; Vilches Arenas, L. F.; Navarrete, B. Carbon Capture and
MeO = metal oxide Utilization Technologies: A Literature Review and Recent Advances.
MMP = minimum miscibility pressure Energy Sources, Part A 2019, 41 (12), 1403−1433.
Mt = million (106) metric tons (15) Kumaravel, V.; Bartlett, J.; Pillai, S. C. Photoelectrochemical
Mtpa = million (106) metric tons per annum Conversion of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into Fuels and Value-Added
NaOH = sodium hydroxide Products. ACS Energy Letters 2020, 5, 486−519.
(16) Edwards, J. H. Potential Sources of CO2 and the Options for Its
NBZ = negative CO2 buoyancy zone
Large-Scale Utilization Now and in the Future. Catal. Today 1995, 23,
NGCC = natural gas combined cycle 59−66.
OECD = Organization for Economic Co-operation and (17) Bui, M.; Adjiman, C. S.; Bardow, A.; Anthony, E. J.; Boston, A.;
development Brown, S.; Fennell, P. S.; Fuss, S.; Galindo, A.; Hackett, L. A.; Hallett,
oxy-PFBC = oxy-fuel pressurized fluidized bed combustion J. P.; Herzog, H. J.; Jackson, G.; Kemper, J.; Krevor, S.; Maitland, G.
POX = partial oxidation C.; Matuszewski, M.; Metcalfe, I. S.; Petit, C.; Puxty, G.; Reimer, J.;
PPP = public−private partnership Reiner, D. M.; Rubin, E. S.; Scott, S. A.; Shah, N.; Smit, B.; Trusler, J.
PSA = pressure swing adsorption P. M.; Webley, P.; Wilcox, J.; Mac Dowell, N. Carbon Capture and
PV = photovoltaic Storage (CCS): The Way Forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11,
R&D = research and development 1062−1176.
SMR = steam methane reforming (18) REN21. Renewable 2019 Global Status Report; REN21
Secretariat: Paris, France, 2019.
TRL = technology readiness level on a scale from 1 (lowest)
(19) World Resources Institute. CAIT Climate Data Explorer; World
to 9 (highest) Resources Institute: Washington, D.C., 2020; https://www.wri.org/
UAE = United Arab Emirates

■
REFERENCES
(1) Lau, H. C. The Color of Energy: The Competition To Be the
Energy of the Future. Proceedings of the 13th International Petroleum
Technology Conference; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 23−25, 2021;
Paper IPTC-21348-MS.
(2) Our World in Data. CO2 Emissions; Our World in Data: Oxford,
U.K., 2021; https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions (accessed Feb
23, 2021).
(3) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
United States Department of Commerce. Climate Change: Global
Temperature; NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce: Silver Spring,
MD, 2020; https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-
climate/climate-change-global-temperature (accessed Dec 27, 2020).
(4) Archer, D.; Rahmstorf, S. The Climate Crisis: An Introductory
Guide to Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
U.K., 2012.
our-work/project/cait-climate-data-explorer (accessed Dec 28, 2020).
(20) Circular Economy: Global Perspective; Ghosh, S. K., Ed.;
Springer: Singapore, 2020.
(21) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Energy, Electricity
and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period Up to 2050; IAEA: Vienna,
Austria, 2019.
(22) Kim, Y.; Kim, M.; Kim, W. Effect of the Fukushima Nuclear
Disaster on Global Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy. Energy
Policy 2013, 61, 822−828.
(23) Wang, F.; Gu, J.; Wu, J. Perspective Taking, Energy Policy
Involvement, and Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: Evidence
from China. Energy Policy 2020, 145, 111716.
(24) Kim, Y.; Kim, W.; Kim, M. An International Comparative
Analysis of Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy. Energy Policy 2014,
66, 475−483.
(25) Carrara, S. Reactor Ageing and Phase-out Polices: Global and
Regional Prospect for Nuclear Power Generation. Energy Policy 2020,
147, 111834.

7380 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels
(26) International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC Working
Group IIIMitigation of Climate Change, Annex III Technology-Specific
Cost and Performance ParametersTable A.III.2; Cambridge Uni-
versity Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2014.
(27) Dickel, R. Blue Hydrogen as an Enabler of Green Hydrogen: The
Case of Germany; University of Oxford: Oxford, U.K., 2020.
(28) Arbabzadeh, M.; Sioshansi, R.; Johnson, J. X.; Keoleian, G. A.
The Role of Energy Storage in Deep Decarbonization of Electricity
Production. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3413.
(29) de Sisternes, F. J.; Jenkins, J. D.; Botterud, A. The Value of
Energy Storage in Decarbonizing the Electricity Sector. Appl. Energy
2016, 175, 368−379.
(30) Cloete, S.; Hirth, L. Flexible Power and Hydrogen Production:
Finding Synergy Between CCS and Variable Renewables. Energy
2020, 192, 116671.
(31) Consoli, C. Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage; Global
CCS Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2019; https://www.
globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/BIOENERGY-
AND-CARBON-CAPTURE-AND-STORAGE_Perspective_New-
Template.pdf.
(32) Bhave, A.; Taylor, R. H. S.; Fennell, P.; Livingston, W. R.; Shah,
N.; Dowell, N. M.; Dennis, J.; Kraft, M.; Pourkashanian, M.; Insa, M.;
Jones, J.; Burdett, N.; Bauen, A.; Beal, C.; Smallbone, A.; Akroyd, J.
Screening and Techno-economic Assessment of Biomass-Based
Power Generation with CCS Technologies to Meet 2050 CO2
Targets. Appl. Energy 2017, 190, 481−489.
(33) Johansson, V.; Lehtveer, M.; Göransson, L. Biomass in the
Electricity System: A Complement to Variable Renewables or a
Source of Negative Emissions? Energy 2019, 168, 532−541.
(34) Restrepo-Valencia, S.; Walter, A. Techno-Economic Assess-
ment of Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage Systems in a
Typical Sugarcane Mill in Brazil. Energies 2019, 12, 1129.
(35) Umar, M. S.; Urmee, T.; Jennings, P. A Policy Framework and
Industry Roadmap Model for Sustainable Oil Palm Biomass
Electricity Generation in Malaysia. Renewable Energy 2018, 128,
275−284.
(36) Rodriguez, B. S.; Drummond, P.; Ekins, P. Decarbonizing the
EU Energy System by 2050: An Important Role for BECCS. Climate
Policy 2017, 17 (S1), S93−S110.
(37) Liu, L.; Li, J.; Xie, J. The Role of Biomass in Deeply
Decarbonizing China’s Power Generation: Implications for Policy
Design and Implementation. Carbon Manage. 2017, 8 (2), 191−205.
(38) Fajardy, M.; MacDowell, N. The Energy Return on Investment
of BECCS: Is BECCS a Threat to Energy Security? Energy Environ.
Sci. 2018, 11, 1581−1594.
(39) Leung, D. Y. C.; Caramanna, G.; Maroto-Valer, M. M. An
Overview of Current Status of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
Technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 426−443.
(40) Kanniche, M.; Gros-Bonnivard, R.; Jaud, P.; Valle-Marcos, J.;
Amann, J.-M.; Bouallou, C. Pre-combustion, Post-Combustion and
Oxy-Combustion in Thermal Power Plant for CO2 Capture. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 2010, 30, 53−62.
(41) Bhattacharyya, D.; Miller, D. C. Post-combustion CO2 Capture
TechnologiesA Review of Processes for Solvent-based and Sorbent-
based CO2 Capture. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2017, 17, 78−92.
(42) Jansen, D.; Gazzani, M.; Manzolini, G.; van Dijk, E.; Carbo, M.
Pre-combustion CO2 Capture. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2015, 40,
167−187.
(43) MacDowell, N.; Florin, N.; Buchard, A.; Hallett, J.; Galindo, A.;
Jackson, G.; Adjiman, C. S.; Williams, C. K.; Shah, N.; Fennell, P. An
Overview of CO2 Capture Technologies. Energy Environ. Sci. 2010, 3,
1645−1669.
(44) Le Moullec, Y.; Neveux, T.; Al Azki, A.; Chikukwa, A.; Hoff, K.
A. Process Modifications for Solvent-Based Post-Combustion CO2
Capture. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2014, 31, 96−112.
(45) Samanta, A.; Zhao, A.; Shimizu, G. K. H.; Sarkar, P.; Gupta, R.
Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Using Solid Sorbents: A Review. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 1438−1463.
pubs.acs.org/EF Review
(46) Symonds, R. T.; Hughes, R. W.; De Las Obras Loscertales, M.
Oxy-pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion: Configuration and
Options Analysis. Appl. Energy 2020, 262, 114531.
(47) Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Gao, Z.; fu, J.; Ao, W.; Dai, J. CO2 Capture
with Chemical Looping Combustion of Gaseous Fuels: An Overview.
Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 3475−3524.
(48) Finkenrath, M. Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture
from Power Generation; International Energy Agency (IEA): Paris,
France, 2011.
(49) Xiao, J.; Li, G.; Xie, L.; Wang, S.; Yu, L. Decarbonizing China’s
Power Sector by 2030 with Consideration of Technological Progress
and Cross-Regional Power Transmission. Energy Policy 2021, 150,
112150.
(50) Dolter, B.; Rivers, N. The Cost of Decarbonizing the Canadian
Electricity System. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 135−148.
(51) Newbery, D. Polices for Decarbonizing a Liberalized Power
Sector. Economics 2018, 12, 2108-40.
(52) Hirth, L.; Steckel, J. C. The Role of Capital Costs in
Decarbonizing the Electricity Sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11,
114010.
(53) Blazquez, J.; Fuentes-Bracamontes, R.; Bollino, C. A.;
Nezamuddin, N. The Renewable Energy Policy Paradox. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 1−5.
(54) Denholm, P.; King, J. C.; Kutcher, C. F.; Wilson, P. P. H.
Decarbonizing the Electric Sector: Combining Renewable and
Nuclear Energy Using Thermal Storage. Energy Policy 2012, 44,
301−311.
(55) United States Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Annual Energy Outlook 2021; EIA: Washington, D.C., 2021.
(56) Hamilton, J.; Walton, B.; Ringrow, J.; Alberts, G.; Fullerton-
Smith, S.; Day, E. Electric Vehicles: Setting a Course for 2030. Deloitte
Insights; Deloitte: London, U.K., 2020.
(57) United States Department of Energy. Hydrogen Strategy
Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy; Office of Fossil Energy, U.S.
DOE: Washington, D.C., July 2020.
(58) Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH. Shell Hydrogen Study: Energy of
the Future? Sustainable Mobility through Fuel Cells and Hydrogen; Shell
Deutschland Oil GmbH: Hamburg, Germany, 2017.
(59) Trencher, G.; Edianto, A. Drivers and Barriers to the Adoption
of Fuel Cell Passenger Vehicles and Buses in Germany. Energies 2021,
14, 833.
(60) Tlili, O.; Mansilla, C.; Frimat, D.; Perez, Y. Hydrogen Market
Penetration Feasibility Assessment: Mobility and Natural Gas
Markets in the US, Europe, China and Japan. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2019, 44, 16048−16068.
(61) Al-Amin, A. Q.; Doberstein, B. Introduction of Hydrogen Fuel
Cell Vehicles: Prospects and Challenges for Malaysia’s Transition to a
Low-Carbon Economy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26 (3), 31062−
31076.
(62) Miller, E. L.; Thompson, S. T.; Randolph, K.; Hulvey, Z.;
Rustagi, N.; Satyapal, S. MRS Bull. 2020, 45 (1), 57−64.
(63) Deloitte China. Fueling the Future of Mobility: Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell Solutions for Transportation; Deloitte China: Beijing, China,
2020; Vol. 1.
(64) United States Department of Energy (DOE). Hydrogen Strategy
Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy; Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. DOE,
Washington, D.C., 2020.
(65) Zhang, F.; Zhao, P.; Niu, M.; Maddy, J. The Survey of Key
Technologies in Hydrogen Energy Storage. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2016, 41, 14535−14552.
(66) Voldsund, M.; Jordal, K.; Anantharaman, R. Hydrogen
Production with CO2 Capture. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41,
4969−4992.
(67) Hosseini, S. E.; Wahid, M. A. Hydrogen from Solar Energy, a
Clean Energy Carrier from a Sustainable Source of Energy. Int. J.
Energy Res. 2020, 44, 4110−4131.
(68) Renewables Now. Hydrogen Production to Surge by 2030 as
More Countries Embrace It; Renewables Now: Sofia, Bulgaria, Nov 11,
2020; https://renewablesnow.com/news/hydrogen-production-to-
7381 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels
surge-by-2030-as-more-countries-embrace-it-720430/ (assessed Feb
22, 2021).
(69) Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Energy Council.
Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy; COAG Hydrogen Working
Group, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Common-
wealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2019.
(70) Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). A
Vision for Hydrogen in New Zealand; MBIE, New Zealand Govern-
ment: Wellington, New Zealand, 2019; www.mbie.govt.nz.
(71) Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
Brunei Darussalam: Shifting to a Hydrogen Society. ERIA Research
Project Report 2020; ERIA: Jakarta, Indonesia, June 2020.
(72) Bloomberg. Oil-Rich Abu Dhabi Targets Hydrogen as Future
Export Fuel; Bloomberg: New York, Jan 17, 2021; https://www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-17/oil-rich-abu-dhabi-targets-
hydrogen-as-fuel-for-future-export (accessed Feb 22, 2021).
(73) Bloomberg. Saudi Arabia Aims Next To Be Largest Hydrogen
Exporter; Bloomberg: New York, Nov 18, 2020; https://www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-18/biggest-in-oil-saudis-aim-
next-to-be-largest-hydrogen-exporter (accessed Feb 22, 2021).
(74) Damen, K.; van Troost, M.; Faaij, A.; Turkenburg, W. A
Comparison of Electricity and Hydrogen Production Systems with
CO2 Capture and Storage. Part A: Review and Selection of Promising
Conversion and Capture Technologies. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
2006, 32, 215−246.
(75) Cormos, C. Hydrogen Production from Fossil Fuels with
Carbon Capture and Storage Based on Chemical Looping Systems.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 5960−5971.
(76) Dufour, J.; Serrano, D. P.; Galvez, J. L.; Moreno, J.; Gonzalez,
A. Hydrogen Production from Fossil Fuels: Life Cycle Assessment of
Technologies with Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy Fuels
2011, 25, 2194−2202.
(77) Muradov, N. Low to Near-Zero CO2 Production of Hydrogen
from Fossil Fuels: Status and Perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2017, 42, 14058−14088.
(78) Global CCS Institute. Global Status of CCS 2020; Global CCS
Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2020.
(79) Bhandari, R.; Trudewind, C. A.; Zapp, P. Life Cycle Assessment
of Hydrogen Production vis ElectrolysisA Review. J. Cleaner Prod.
2014, 85, 151−163.
(80) Ardo, S.; Fernandez Rivas, D.; Modestino, M. A.; Schulze
Greiving, V.; Abdi, F. F.; Alarcon Llado, E.; Artero, V.; Ayers, K.;
Battaglia, C.; Becker, J.-P.; Bederak, D.; Berger, A.; Buda, F.; Chinello,
E.; Dam, B.; Di Palma, V.; Edvinsson, T.; Fujii, K.; Gardeniers, H.;
Geerlings, H.; Hashemi, S. M. H.; Haussener, S.; Houle, F.; Huskens,
J.; James, B. D.; Konrad, K.; Kudo, A.; Kunturu, P. P.; Lohse, D.; Mei,
B.; Miller, E. L.; Moore, G. F.; Muller, J.; Orchard, K. L.; Rosser, T.
E.; Saadi, F. H.; Schuttauf, J.-W.; Seger, B.; Sheehan, S. W.; Smith, W.
A.; Spurgeon, J.; Tang, M. H.; van de Krol, R.; Vesborg, P. C. K.;
Westerik, P. Pathways to Electrochemical Solar-Hydrogen Technol-
ogies. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 2768−2783.
(81) International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Hydrogen: A
Renewable Energy Perspective; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates, 2019.
(82) Noussan, M.; Raimondi, P. P.; Scita, R.; Hafner, M. The Role of
Green and Blue Hydrogen in the Energy TransitionA Techno-
logical and Geopolitical Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 298.
(83) Boyle, G. Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future, 3rd
ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K., 2012.
(84) Darda, S.; Papalas, T.; Zabaniotou, A. Biofuels Journey in
Europe: Currently the Way to Low Carbon Economy Sustainability is
Still a Challenge. J. Cleaner Prod. 2019, 208, 575−588.
(85) Villarreal, J. V.; Burgues, C.; Rosch, C. Acceptability of
Genetically Engineered Algae Biofuels in Europe: Opinions of Experts
and Stakeholders. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2020, 13, 92.
(86) Oh, Y.-K.; Hwang, K.-R.; Kim, C.; Kim, J. R.; Lee, J.-S. Recent
Developments and Key Barriers to Advanced Biofuels: A Short
Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 257, 320−333.
pubs.acs.org/EF Review
(87) Ebadian, M.; van Dyk, S.; McMillan, J. D.; Saddler, J. Biofuels
Policies that have Encouraged their Production and Use: An
International Perspective. Energy Policy 2020, 147, 111906.
(88) Bhutto, A. W.; Qureshi, K.; Abro, R.; Harijan, K.; Zhao, Z.;
Bazmi, A. A.; Abbas, T.; Yu, G. Progress in the Production of
Biomass-to-liquid Biofuels to Decarbonize the Transport Sector
Prospects and Challenges. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 32140−32170.
(89) Moula, M. M. E.; Nyari, J.; Bartel, A. Public Acceptance of
Biofuels in the Transport Sector in Finland. Int. J. Sustainable Built
Environ. 2017, 6, 434−441.
(90) Amorim, H. V.; Lopes, M. L.; de Castro Oliveira, J. V.;
Buckeridge, M. S.; Goldman, G. H. Scientific Challenges of
Bioethanol Production in Brazil. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011,
91, 1267−1275.
(91) Mekonnen, M. M.; Romanelli, T. L.; Ray, C.; Hoekstra, A. Y.;
Liska, A. J.; Neale, C. M. U. Water, Energy, and Carbon Footprints of
Bioethanol from the U.S. and Brazil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52,
14508−14518.
(92) Johari, A.; Nyakuma, B. B.; Nor, S. H. M.; Mat, R.; Hashim, H.;
Ahmad, A.; Zakaria, Z. Y.; Abdullah, T. A. T. The Challenges and
Prospects of Palm Oil Based Biodiesel in Malaysia. Energy 2015, 81,
255−261.
(93) Szulczyk, K. R.; Khan, M. A. R. The Potential and
Environmental Ramifications of Palm Biodiesel: Evidence from
Malaysia. J. Cleaner Prod. 2018, 203, 260−272.
(94) Lawson, A.; Ahmad, F. M. Decarbonizing U.S. Transportation;
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES): Arlington, VA,
2018.
(95) Fu, P.; Pudjianto, D.; Zhang, X.; Strbac, G. Evaluating
Strategies for Decarbonising the Transport Sector in Great Britain.
Proceedings of the IEEE Milan PowerTech Conference; Milan, Italy, June
23−27, 2019.
(96) Haasz, T.; Vilchez, J. J. G.; Kunze, R.; Deane, P.; Fraboulet, D.;
Fahl, U.; Mulholland, E. Perspectives on Decarbonizing the Transport
Sector in the EU-28. Energy Strategy Reviews 2018, 20, 124−132.
(97) Santarromana, R.; Mendonca, J.; Dias, A. M. The Effectiveness
of Decarbonizing the Passenger Transport Sector Through Monetary
Incentives. Transport Res. Part A 2020, 138, 442−462.
(98) Zhang, H.; Chen, W.; Huang, W. TIMES Modelling of
Transport Sector in China and USA: Comparisons from a
Decarbonization Perspective. Appl. Energy 2016, 162, 1505−1514.
(99) Rissman, J.; Bataille, C.; Masanet, E.; Aden, N.; Morrow, W. R.,
III; Zhou, N.; Elliott, N.; Dell, R.; Heeren, N.; Huckestein, B.; et al.
Technologies and Policies to Decarbonize Global Industry: Review
and Assessment of Mitigation Drivers Through 2070. Appl. Energy
2020, 266, 114848.
(100) Antonini, C.; Treyer, K.; Streb, A.; van der Spek, M.; Bauer,
C.; Mazzotti, M. Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas and
Biomethane with Carbon Capture and StorageA Techno-Environ-
mental Analysis. Sustainable Energy Fuels 2020, 4, 2967−2986.
(101) Madeddu, S.; Ueckerdt, F.; Pehl, M.; Peterseim, J.; Lord, M.;
Kumar, K. A.; Kruger, C.; Luderer, G. The CO2 Reduction Potential
for the European Industry via Direct Electrification of Heat Supply
(Power-to-Heat). Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 124004.
(102) de Pee, A.; Pinner, D.; Roelofsen, O.; Somers, K.; Speelman,
E.; Witteveen, M. Decarbonization of Industrial Sectors: The Next
Frontier; McKinsey & Company: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2018.
(103) Wei, M.; McMillan, C. A.; de la Rue du Can, S. Electrification
of Industry: Potential, Challenges and Outlook. Curr. Sustainable
Renewable Energy Rep. 2019, 6, 140−148.
(104) Parra, D.; Valverde, L.; Pino, F. J.; Patel, M. K. A Review on
the Role, Cost and Value of Hydrogen Energy Systems for Deep
Decarbonization. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 279−
294.
(105) Lau, H. C. The Role of Fossil Fuels in a Hydrogen Economy.
Proceedings of the 13th International Petroleum Technology Conference;
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 23−25, 2021; Paper IPTC-21162-
MS.
7382 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels
(106) Favier, A.; Scrivener, K.; Habert, G. Decarbonizing the
Cement and Concrete Sector: Integration of the Full Value Chain to
Reach Net Zero Emissions in Europe. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ.
Sci. 2019, 225, 012009.
(107) Cavaliere, P. Ironmaking and Steelmaking Processes; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Chapter 9.
(108) Anthony, E. J.; Clough, P. T. Post-Combustion Carbon
Capture and Storage in Industry. In CO2 Separation, Purification and
Conversion to Chemicals and Fuels; Winter, F., Agarwal, R. A., Hrdlicka,
J., Varjani, S., Eds.; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore,
2019; Chapter 4, pp 39−53, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-3296-8_4.
(109) Safonov, G.; Potashnikov, V.; Lugovoy, O.; Safonov, M.;
Dorina, A.; Bolotov, A. The Low Carbon Development Options for
Russia. Clim. Change 2020, 162, 1929−1945.
(110) Lenz, V.; Szarka, N.; Jordan, M.; Thran, D. Status and
Perspectives of Biomass Use for Industrial Process Heat for
Industrialized Countries. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, 1469−1484.
(111) Proskurina, S.; Heinimo, J.; Schipfer, F.; Vakkilainen, E.
Biomass for Industrial Applications: The Role of Torrefaction.
Renewable Energy 2017, 111, 265−274.
(112) Central Europe Energy Partners (CEEP). Pathways of Energy
Transition in Central Europe; CEEP: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
(113) Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(ESCAP). The Energy Transition Pathways for the 2030 Agenda in
Asia and the Pacific. Regional Trends Report on Energy for Sustainable
Development 2018; United Nations ESCAP, United Nations
Publication: Bangkok, Thailand, 2018.
(114) Energy Transitions Commission (ETC). Making Mission
Possible: Delivering a Net-Zero Economy, Version 1.0; ETC Secretariat:
London, U.K., Sept 2020.
(115) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Carbon
Storage Atlas, 5th ed.; Office of Fossil Energy, United States
Department of Energy: Washington, D.C., 2015; Report DOE/
NETL-2015/1709.
(116) Bruan, R. G., Jr.; Celia, M. A.; Guswa, A. J.; Peters, C. A. Safe
Storage of CO2 in Deep Saline Aquifers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002,
36, 240A−245A.
(117) Frailey, S. M.; Tucker, O.; Koperna, G. J. The Genesis of the
CO2 Storage Resource Management System (SRMS). Energy Procedia
2017, 114, 4262−4269.
(118) Liu, C.; Hsieh, B.; Tseng, C.; Lin, Z. Modified Classification
System for Estimating the CO2 Storage Capacity of Saline
Formations. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2014, 22, 244−255.
(119) Gorecki, C. D.; Holubnyak, I.; Ayash, S. C.; Bremer, J. M.;
Sorensen, J. A.; Steadman, E. N.; Harju, J. A. A New Classification for
Evaluating CO2 Storage Resource/Capacity Estimates. Proceedings of
the SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage and
Utilization; San Diego, CA, Nov 2−4, 2009; Paper SPE 126421.
(120) Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). Petroleum Resources
Management System; World Petroleum Council (WPC), American
Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), and Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE), 2007.
(121) Allinson, W. G.; Cinar, Y.; Neal, P. R.; Kaldi, J.; Paterson, L.
CO2-Storage CapacityCombining Geology, Engineering and
Economics. SPE Econ. Manage. 2014, 6, 15−27.
(122) Van der Meer, L. G. H. The CO2 Storage Efficiency of
Aquifers. Energy Convers. Manage. 1995, 36 (6−9), 513−518.
(123) Birkholzer, J. T.; Oldenburg, C. M.; Zhou, Q. CO2 Migration
and Pressure Evolution in Deep Saline Aquifers. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
Control 2015, 40, 203−220.
(124) Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. E.; Tsang, C.; Rutqvist, J. A Method
for Quick Assessment of CO2 Storage Capacity in Closed and Semi-
Closed Saline Formations. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2008, 2,
626−639.
(125) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), United
States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). Methodology for Develop-
ment of Carbon Sequestration Capacity Estimates. Appendix A in Carbon
Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada; NETL, U.S. DOE:
Pittsburgh, PA, 2007.
pubs.acs.org/EF Review
(126) Bachu, S. Review of CO2 Storage Efficiency in Deep Saline
Aquifers. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2015, 40, 188−202.
(127) Buscheck, T. A.; Sun, Y.; Chen, M.; Hao, Y.; Wolery, T. J.;
Bourcier, W. L.; Court, B.; Celia, M. A.; Friedmann, S. J.; Aines, R. D.
Active CO2 Reservoir Management for Carbon Storage: Analysis of
Operational Strategies to Relieve Pressure Buildup and Improve
Injectivity. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2012, 6, 230−245.
(128) Ringrose, P. A. The CCS Hub in Norway: Some Insights from
22 Years of Saline Aquifer Storage. Proceedings of the International
Carbon Conference (ICC 2018); Reykjavik, Iceland, Sept 10−14, 2018.
(129) Furre, A.-K.; Eiken, O.; Alnes, H.; Vevatne, J. N.; Kiær, A. F.
20 Years of Monitoring CO2 Injection at Sleipner. Energy Procedia
2017, 114, 3916−3926.
(130) Wright, I.; Ringrose, P. M. A.; Eiken, O. An Overview of
Active Large-Scale CO2 Storage Projects. Proceedings of the SPE
International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage and Utilization; San
Diego, CA, Nov 2−4, 2009; Paper SPE 127096.
(131) Duer, J. Modeling of CO2 Leakage from CCS into Overlying
FormationsQuest CCS Monitoring Evaluation. Proceedings of the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; San Antonio, TX,
Oct 9−11, 2017; Paper SPE-187100-MS.
(132) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC
Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; Metz, B.,
Davidson, O., de Coninck, H. C., Loos, M., Meyer, L. A., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005.
(133) Bachu, S.; Bonijoly, D.; Bradshaw, J.; Burruss, R.; Holloway,
S.; Christensen, N. P.; Mathiassen, O. M. CO2 Storage Capacity
Estimation: Methodology and Gaps. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control
2007, 1 (4), 430−443.
(134) Yang, F.; Bai, B.; Tang, D.; Dunn-Norman, S.; Wronkiewicz,
D. Characteristics of CO2 Sequestration in Saline Aquifers. Pet. Sci.
2010, 7, 83−92.
(135) Gustafson, C.; Key, K.; Evans, R. L. Aquifer Systems
Extending far Offshore on the U.S. Atlantic Margin. Sci. Rep. 2019,
9, 8709.
(136) Post, V. E.A.; Groen, J.; Kooi, H.; Person, M.; Ge, S.;
Edmunds, W. M. Offshore Fresh Groundwater Reserves as a Global
Phenomenon. Nature 2013, 504, 71−78.
(137) Ringrose, P. S.; Meckel, T. A. Maturing Global CO2 Storage
Resources on Offshore Continental Margins to Achieve 2DS
Emissions Reductions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 17944.
(138) United Nations. Ocean Conference; United Nations, New York,
June 5−9, 2017; https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/Ocean-fact-sheet-package.pdf (accessed
Feb 20, 2021).
(139) House, K. Z.; Schrag, D. P.; Harvey, C. F.; Lackner, K. S.
Permanent Carbon Dioxide Storage in Deep-Sea Sediments. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006, 103 (33), 12291−12295.
(140) Voronov, V. P.; Gorodetskii, E. E.; Podnek, V. E.; Grigoriev,
B. A. Properties of Equilibrium Carbon Dioxide Hydrate in Porous
Medium. Chem. Phys. 2016, 476, 61−68.
(141) Jemai, K.; Kvamme, B.; Vafaei, M. T. Theoretical Studies of
CO2 Hydrates Formation and Dissociation in Cold Aquifers Using
RatrasCodeBright Simulator. WSEAS Trans. Heat Mass Transfer 2014,
9, 150−168.
(142) Lindeberg, E.; Vuillaume, J.-F.; Ghaderi, A. Determination of
the CO2 Storage Capacity of the Utsira Formation. Energy Procedia
2009, 1, 2777−2784.
(143) Kongsjorden, H.; Kårstad, O.; Torp, T. A. Saline Aquifer
Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Sleipner Project. Waste Manage.
1998, 17 (5−6), 303−308.
(144) Hansen, O.; Eiken, O.; Ostmo, S.; Johansen, R. I.; Smith, A.
Monitoring CO2 injection into a fluvial brine-filled sandstone
formation at the Snohvit Field. Proceedings of the SEG Annual
Meeting; San Antonio, TX, Sept 18−23, 2011.
(145) Equinor. Northern Lights Project Concept Report RE-PM673-
00001; Equinor: Stavanger, Norway, 2019; https://northernlightsccs.
com/assets/documents/Northern-Lights-Project-Concept-report.pdf.
7383 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF
(146) Chadwick, R. A.; Arts, R.; Bernstone, C.; May, F.; Thibeau, S.;
Zweigel, P. Best Practice for the Storage of CO2 in Saline Aquifers;
British Geological Survey: Nottingham, U.K., 2008.
(147) Tanner, C. S.; Baxley, P. T.; Crump, J. G.; Miller, W. C.
Production Performance of the Wasson Denver Unit CO2 Flood.
Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium; Tulsa,
OK, April 22−24, 1992; Paper SPE-24156-MS.
(148) Lake, L. W.; Johns, R.; Rossen, B.; Pope, G. Fundamentals of
Enhanced Oil Recovery; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson,
TX, 2015.
(149) Borchardt, J. K.; Bright, D. B.; Dickson, M. K.; Wellington, S.
L. Surfactants for CO2 Foam Flooding. Proceedings of the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition; Las Vegas, NV, Sept 22−26,
1985; Paper SPE-14394-MS.
(150) Pittaway, K. R.; Rosato, R. J. The Ford Geraldine Unit CO2
FloodUpdate 1990. SPE Reservoir Eng. 1991, 6 (4), 410−414.
(151) Olenick, S.; Schroeder, F. A.; Haines, H.; Monger-McClure, T.
G. Cyclic CO2 Injection for Heavy-Oil Recovery in Halfmoon Field:
Laboratory Evaluation and Pilot Performance. Proceedings of the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Washington, D.C., Oct
4−7, 1992; Paper SPE-24645-MS.
(152) Perera, M. S. A.; Gamage, R. P.; Rathnaweera, T. D.;
Ranathunga, A. S.; Koay, A.; Choi, X. A Review of CO2-Enhanced Oil
Recovery with a Simulated Sensitivity Analysis. Energies 2016, 9 (7),
481.
(153) International Energy Agency (IEA). Storing CO2 through
Enhanced Oil RecoveryCombining EOR with CO2 Storage (EOR+) for
Profit; IEA: Paris, France, 2015.
(154) Heidug, W.; Lipponen, J.; McCoy, S.; Bonoit, P. Storing CO2
through Enhanced Oil Recovery: Combining EOR with CO2 Storage
(EOR+) for Profit; International Energy Agency (IEA) Publications:
Paris, France, 2015.
(155) International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG).
Case Studies of CO2 Storage in Depleted Oil and Gas Fields; IEAGHG
Offices: Cheltenham, U.K., 2017; IEAGHG Technical Report 2017-
01.
(156) Hannis, S.; Lu, J.; Chadwick, A.; Hovorka, S.; Kirk, K.;
Romanak, K.; Pearce, J. CO2 Storage in Depleted Oil and Gas Fields:
What Can We Learn From Existing Projects? Energy Procedia 2017,
114, 5680−5690.
(157) Agartan, E.; Gaddipati, M.; Yip, Y.; Savage, B.; Ozgen, C. CO2
Storage in Depleted Oil and Gas Fields in the Gulf of Mexico. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control 2018, 72, 38−48.
(158) Li, H.; Lau, H. C.; Wei, X.; Liu, S. CO2 Storage Potential in
Major Oil and Gas Reservoirs in the Northern South China Seas. Int.
J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2021.
(159) Li, Z.; Dong, M.; Li, S.; Huang, S. CO2 Sequestration in
Depleted Oil and Gas ReservoirsCaprock Characterization and
Storage Capacity. Energy Convers. Manage. 2006, 47, 1372−1382.
(160) Chen, Z.; Zhou, F.; Rahman, S. S. Effect of Cap Rock
Thickness and Permeability on Geological Storage of CO2:
Laboratory Test and Numerical Simulation. Energy Explor. Exploit.
2014, 32 (6), 943−964.
(161) Gherardi, F.; Xu, T.; Pruess, K. Numerical Modeling of Self-
Limiting and Self-Enhancing Caprock Alteration Induced by CO2
Storage in a Depleted Gas Reservoir. Chem. Geol. 2007, 244, 103−
129.
(162) Gaus, I. Role and Impact of CO2-Rock Interactions During
CO2 Storage in Sedimentary Rocks. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control
2010, 4, 73−89.
(163) Bennion, D. B.; Thomas, F. B.; Schulmeister, B. Retrograde
Condensate Droput Phenomena in Rich Gas ReservoirsImpact on
Recoverable Reserves, Permeability, Diagnosis, and Stimulation
Techniques. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2001, 40 (12), PETSOC-01-12-
TN1.
(164) Shen, C.; Hsieh, B.; Tseng, C.; Chen, T. Case Study of CO2-
IGR and Storage in a Nearly Depleted Gas-Condensate Reservoir in
Taiwan. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 7740−7749.
7384
Review
(165) Barrufet, M. A.; Bacquet, A.; Falcone, G. Analysis of the
Storage Capacity for CO2 Sequestration of a Depleted Gas
Condensate Reservoir and a Saline Aquifer. J. Can. Pet. Technol.
2010, 49 (8), 23−31.
(166) Narinesingh, J.; Alexander, D. CO2 Enhanced Gas Recovery
and Geological Sequestration in Condensate Reservoir: A Simulation
Study of the Effects of Injection Pressure on Condensate Recovery
from Reservoir and CO2 Storage Efficiency. Energy Procedia 2014, 63,
3107−3115.
(167) Raza, A.; Gholami, R.; Rezaee, R.; Rasouli, V.; Bhatti, A. A.;
Bing, C. H. Suitability of Depleted Gas Reservoirs for Geological CO2
Storage: A Simulation Study. Greenhouse Gases: Sci. Technol. 2018, 8
(5), 876−897.
(168) Seidle, J. Fundamentals of Coalbed Methane Reservoir
Engineering; PennWell Books: Tulsa, OK, 2011.
(169) Rogers, R.; Ramurthy, M.; Rodvelt, G.; Mullen, M. Coalbed
Methane Principles and Practices, 3rd ed.; Oktibbeha Publishing
Company: Starkville, MS, 2011.
(170) Zhang, Y.; Lebedev, M.; Sarmadivaleh, M.; Barifcani, A.;
Iglauer, S. Swelling-induced Changes in Coal Microstructure due to
Supercritical CO2 Injection. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016, 43, 9077−9083.
(171) Perera, M. S. A. Influences of CO2 Injection Into Deep Coal
Seams: A Review. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 10324−10334.
(172) Mazumder, S.; Wolf, K. H. Differential Swelling and
Permeability Change of Coal in Response to CO2 Injection for
ECBM. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2008, 74, 123−138.
(173) Lau, H. C.; Li, H.; Huang, S. Challenges and Opportunities of
Coalbed Methane Development in China. Energy Fuels 2017, 31,
4588−4602.
(174) Zhou, F.; Hou, W.; Allinson, G.; Wu, J.; Wang, J.; Cinar, Y. A
Feasibility Study of ECBM Recovery and CO2 Storage for a
Producing CBM Field in Southeast Qinshui Basin, China. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control 2013, 19, 26−40.
(175) Cai, B.; Li, Q.; Lin, Q.; Ma, J. China CCUS Report 2019;
Climate Change and Environmental Policy Institute: Beijing, China,
2020.
(176) Lau, H. C.; Zhao, C.; Lau, S. W. Coalbed Methane Recovery
by Injection of Hot Carbon Dioxide. Proceedings of the Carbon
Management Technology Conference; Houston, TX, July 17−20, 2017;
Paper CMTC-485492-MS.
(177) Li, H.; Lau, H. C.; Huang, S. China’s Coalbed Methane
Development: A Review of the Challenges and Opportunities in
Subsurface and Surface Engineering. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 166, 621−
635.
(178) Coro, G.; Trumpy, E. Predicting Geographical Suitability of
Geothermal Power Plants. J. Cleaner Prod. 2020, 267, 121874.
(179) Randolph, J. B.; Saar, M. O. Combining Geothermal Energy
Capture with Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 2011, 38 (10), L10401.
(180) Ganjdanesh, R.; Bryant, S. L.; Orbach, R. L.; Pope, G. A.;
Sepehrnoori, K. Coupled Carbon Dioxide Sequestration and Energy
Production from Geopressured/Geothermal Aquifers. SPE J. 2014, 19
(2), 239−248.
(181) Buscheck, T. A.; Bielicki, J. M.; Edmunds, T. A.; Hao, Y.; Sun,
Y.; Randolph, J. B.; Saar, M. O. Multifluid Geo-Energy Systems: Using
Geologic CO2 Storage for Geothermal Energy Production and Grid-
Scale Energy Storage in Sedimentary Basins. Geosphere 2016, 12 (3),
678−696.
(182) Buscheck, T. A.; Bielicki, J. M.; Randolph, J. B. CO2 Earth
Storage: Enhanced Geothermal Energy and Water Recovery and
Energy Storage. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 6870−6879.
(183) Brown, D. W.; Duchane, D. V.; Heiken, G.; Hriscu, V. T.
Mining the Earth’s Heat: Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy; Springer-
Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2012; DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-68910-2.
(184) Wang, Y.; Li, T.; Chen, Y.; Ma, G. Numerical Analysis of Heat
Mining and Geological Carbon Sequestration in Supercritical CO2
Circulating Enhanced Geothermal Systems Inlayed with Complex
Discrete Fracture Networks. Energy 2019, 173, 92−108.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels
(185) He, Y.; Bai, B.; Li, X. Investigation on Heat Transfer
Properties of Supercritical Water in a Rock Fracture for Enhanced
Geothermal Systems. Int. J. Thermophys. 2018, 39, 136.
(186) Institute of Energy Research (IER). U.S. Oil Production
Reaches Record High; IER: Washington, D.C., Dec 10, 2018. https://
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/u-s-oil-
production-reaches-record-high/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA0MD_
BRCTARIsADXoopZ10pM6YMdYoyI0kagUJK0FcB_
Dq6ZFUBQtdmtmTpuRSrgBMiBH2ZMaArdtEALw_wcB (accessed
Jan 2, 2021).
(187) Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources Exploitation and
Development; Ahmed, U., Meehan, D. N., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, 2016.
(188) Wang, J.; Ng, Q. H.; Lau, H. C.; Stubbs, L. P. Experimental
Study on Enhanced Shale Recovery by Competitive Adsorption of
CO2-CH4 under High-Temperature, High-Pressure Conditions.
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference Asia; Virtual, Nov
2−6, 2020; Paper OTC-30279-MS.
(189) Edwards, R. W. J.; Celia, M. A.; Bandilla, K. W.; Doster, F.;
Kanno, C. M. A Model To Estimate Carbon Dioxide Injectivity and
Storage Capacity for Geological Sequestration in Shale Gas Wells.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 9222−9229.
(190) Tao, Z.; Bielicki, J. M.; Clarens, A. F. Physiochemical Factors
Impacting CO2 Sequestration in Depleted Shale Formations: The
Case of the Utica Shale. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 5153−5163.
(191) Tayari, F.; Blumsack, S. A Real Options Approach to
Production and Injection Timing Under Uncertainty for CO2
Sequestration in Depleted Shale Gas Reservoirs. Appl. Energy 2020,
263, 114491.
(192) Middleton, R. S.; Carey, J. W.; Currier, R. P.; Hyman, J. D.;
Kang, Q.; Karra, S.; Jimenez-Martinez, J.; Porter, M. L.; Viswanathan,
H. S. Appl. Energy 2015, 147, 500−509.
(193) He, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Wan, X. Experimental Investigation
on the Fractures Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing Using Freshwater
and Supercritical CO2 in Shale Under Uniaxial Stress. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 2019, 52, 3585−3596.
(194) Liu, L.; Zhu, W.; Wei, C.; Elsworth, D.; Wang, J. Microcrack-
based Geomechanical Modeling of Rock-Gas Interaction During
Supercritical CO2 Fracturing. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 164, 91−102.
(195) Sloan, E. D., Jr.; Carolyn, A. K. Clathrate Hydrates of Natural
Gases, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2007.
(196) Lau, H. C.; Zhang, M.; Wang, J.; Pan, L. Some Technical
Considerations of Gas-Hydrate Development from Chinese Perma-
frost Regions. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 2020, 23, 369−387.
(197) Hunter, R. B.; Collett, T. S.; Boswell, R.; Anderson, B. J.;
Digert, S. A.; Pospisil, G.; Baker, R.; Weeks, M. Mount Elbert Gas
Hydrate Stratigraphic Test Well, Alaska North Slope: Overview of
Scientific and Technical Program. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2011, 28 (2), 295−
310.
(198) Makogon, Y. F.; Omelchenko, R. Y. Commercial Gas
Production from Messoyakha Deposit in Hydrate Conditions. J.
Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2013, 11, 1−6.
(199) Li, B.; Li, X.; Li, G.; Chen, Z. Evaluation of Gas Production
from Qilian Mountain Permafrost Hydrate Deposits in Two-Slot
Horizontal Well System. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2015, 109, 87−98.
(200) Bellefleur, G.; Riedel, M.; Brent, T.; Wright, F.; Dallimore, S.
R. Implication of Seismic Attenuation for Gas Hydrate Resource
Characterization, Mallik, Mackenzie Delta, Canada. J. Geophys. Res.
2007, 112 (B10), B10311.
(201) Wu, N. Y.; Zhang, H. Q.; Yang, S. X. Preliminary Discussion
on Natural Gas Hydrate (NGH) Reservoir System of Shenhu Area,
North Slope of South China Sea. Nat. Gas Ind. 2007, 27 (9), 1−6.
(202) Daigle, H.; Thomas, B.; Rowe, H.; Nieto, M. Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Characterization of Shallow Marine Sediments
from the Nankai Trough, Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
Expedition 333. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2014, 119, 2631−2650.
(203) Miyakawa, A.; Saito, S.; Yamada, Y.; Tomaru, H.; Kinoshita,
M.; Tsuji, K. Gas Hydrate Saturation at Site C0002, IODP
pubs.acs.org/EF Review
Expeditions 314 and 315, in the Kumano Basin, Nankai Trough. Isl.
Arc 2014, 23 (2), 142−156.
(204) Wei, J.; Fang, Y.; Lu, H.; Lu, H.; Lu, J.; Liang, J.; Yang, S.
Distribution and Characteristics of Natural Gas Hydrates in the
Shenhu Sea Area, South China Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2018, 98, 622−
628.
(205) Birkedal, K. A.; Hauge, L. P.; Graue, A.; Ersland, G. Transport
Mechanisms for CO2-CH4 Exchange and Safe CO2 Storage in
Hydrate-Bearing Sandstone. Energies 2015, 8, 4073−4095.
(206) Boswell, R.; Schoderbek, D.; Collett, T. S.; Ohtsuki, S.; White,
M.; Anderson, B. J. The Ignik Sikumi Field Experiment, Alaska North
Slope: Design, Operations, and Implications for CO2-CH4 Exchange
in Gas Hydrate Reservoirs. Energy Fuels 2017, 31 (1), 140−153.
(207) Palodkar, A. V.; Jana, A. K. Modeling Recovery of Natural Gas
from Hydrate Reservoirs with Carbon Dioxide Sequestration:
Validation with Ignik Sikumi Field Data. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9 (1), 18901.
(208) Gislason, S. R.; Oelkers, E. H. Carbon Storage in Basalt.
Science 2014, 344, 373−374.
(209) Ragnheidardottir, E.; Sigurdardottir, H.; Kristjansdottir, H.;
Harvey, W. Opportunities and Challenges for CarbFix: An Evaluation
of Capacities and Costs for the Pilot Scale Mineralization
Sequestration Project at Hellisheidi, Iceland and Beyond. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5, 1065−1072.
(210) McGrail, B. P.; Spane, F. A.; Sullivan, E. C.; Bacon, D. H.;
Hund, G. The Wallula Basalt Sequestration Pilot Project. Energy
Procedia 2011, 4, 5653−5660.
(211) Global Carbon Atlas, 2019; http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/
en/CO2-emissions (accessed Feb 20, 2021).
(212) United States Department of Energy. Internal Revenue Code
Tax Fact Sheet; Office of Fossil Energy, United States Department of
Energy: Washington, D.C., 2019 (accessed Oct 19, 2020).
(213) Wilberforce, T.; Olabi, A. G.; Sayed, E. T.; Elsaid, K.;
Abdelkareem, M. A. Process in Carbon Capture Technologies. Sci.
Total Environ. 2021, 761, 143203.
(214) Dixon, T.; McCoy, S. T.; Havercroft, I. Legal and Regulatory
Development on CCS. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2015, 40, 431−
448.
(215) Langlet, D. Exporting CO2 for Sub-Seabed Storage: The Non-
Effective Amendment to the London Dumping Protocol and Its
Implications. Int. J. Mar. Coastal Law 2015, 30, 395−417.
(216) Waarum, I.; Blomberg, A. E. A.; Eek, E.; Brown, J.; Ulfsnes, A.;
Carpenter, M.; Grimsrud, T. S.; Park, J.; Cornelissen, G.; Sparrevik, P.
CCS Leakage Detection TechnologyIndustry Needs, Government
Regulations, and Sensor Performance. Energy Procedia 2017, 114,
3613−3627.
(217) Schumann, D.; Duetschke, E.; Pietzner, K. Public Perception
of CO2 Offshore Storage in Germany: Regional Difference and
Determinants. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 7096−7112.
(218) Ashworth, P.; Sun, Y.; Ferguson, M.; Witt, K.; She, S.
Comparing How the Public Perceive CCS Across Australia and
China. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2019, 86, 125−133.
(219) Saito, A.; Itaoka, K.; Akai, M. Those Who Care About CCS
Results from a Japanese Survey on Public Understanding of CCS. Int.
J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2019, 84, 121−130.
(220) Arning, K.; Offermann-Van Heek, J.; Linzenich, A.;
Kaetelhoen, A.; Sternberg, A.; Bardow, A.; Ziefle, M. Same or
Different? Insights on Public Perception and Acceptance of Carbon
Capture and Storage or Utilization in Germany. Energy Policy 2019,
125, 235−240.
(221) Terwel, B. W.; Harinck, F.; Ellemers, N.; Daamen, D. D. L.
Going Beyond the Properties of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS)
Technology: How Trust in Stakeholders Affects Public Acceptance of
CCS. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5, 181−188.
(222) Yang, L.; Zhang, X.; McAlinden, K. J. The Effect of Trust on
People’s Acceptance of CCS Technologies: Evidence from a Survey in
the People’s Republic of China. Energy 2016, 96, 69−70.
(223) Harkin, T.; Filby, I.; Sick, H.; Manderson, D.; Ashton, R.
Development of a CO2 Specification for a CCS Hub Network. Energy
Procedia 2017, 114, 6708−6720.
7385 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386
Energy & Fuels pubs.acs.org/EF Review

(224) Whitmarsh, L.; Xenias, D.; Jones, C. R. Framing Effects on

Public Support for Carbon Capture and Storage. Palgrave Commun.
2019, 5, 17.
(225) Goldthorpe, W.; Ahmad, S. Policy Innovation for Offshore
CO2 Transport and Storage Deployment. Energy Procedia 2017, 114,
7540−7549.
(226) Bielicki, J. M.; Peters, C. A.; Fitts, J. P.; Wilson, E. J. An
Examination of Geological Carbon Sequesteration Polices in the
Context of Leakage Potential. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2015, 37,
61−75.

7386 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00032
Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7364−7386