natural gas

now browsing by tag


Top 10 Carbon Capture Technology Companies

carbon capture technology companies

Carbon capture technology companies are central to meeting the aims of the Paris Agreement. 195 countries signed the Paris Agreement in 2016, committing them to keeping the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Fundamental to curbing the temperature rise is the reduction in emissions of long-lasting greenhouse gases, for example carbon dioxide (CO2).1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has demonstrated that carbon capture technology companies are likely to be fundamental for preventing the increase in global temperature and are especially useful in decreasing the cost of mitigating climate change.2

This article examines ten companies at the forefront of carbon capture technology. These carbon capture technology companies use innovative ways to capture waste CO2 – often produced by factories and power plants.3 They either store the waste CO2 to keep it out of the atmosphere, or recycle it for reuse. The following have been included in this list either for their immense contribution to carbon capture and storage or conversion on a global scale, or for their innovative methods to reduce CO2 emissions. 

carbon capture technology companies
Nike’s ColorDry technology similar to DyeCoo’s27

Global Thermostat – direct air carbon capture

Global Thermostat have developed direct air capture technology to pull in air through giant fans and subsequently soak up the CO2 in chambers.4 When attached to power plants, the process uses their leftover heat to grab their CO2 pollution, which can then be sold on to other companies as a further power source.4 Global Thermostat’s facility in Alabama is currently the largest commercial plant of its kind worldwide and it can capture 4,000 tons of CO2 annually – approximately the same amount produced by 870 cars.5 By cogenerating carbon capture and power, Global Thermostat is both removing CO2 from the air and utilising it for practical purposes.  

Newlight Technologies – carbon capture and conversion

Newlight Technologies is another company that converts waste carbon into a new and practical product, in their case AirCarbon™. AirCarbon™ is a biodegradable energy material that can be used for creating both fibers and solid parts.6 The everyday uses of AirCarbon™ should not be underestimated, as it is being used to produce packaging, furniture and electronics accessories amongst other products.7 Consequently, Newlight Technologies has won numerous awards for their breakthrough technology, for instance the Innovation Prize for “Biomaterial of the Year 2013″ by the Nova Institute.8

Carbon Upcycling Technologies – carbon capture for profit

Carbon Upcycling Technologies chemically adsorbs CO2 emissions into materials such as polyethylene to create a much stronger product than by traditional methods.9 Not only does this capture and store CO2, the product is produced more quickly, it requires fewer labour and operating costs, and the product lasts longer.9 The success of Carbon Upcycling Technologies’ business model was soon evident. In 2017, they became the youngest CO2 capture and utilization company to begin generating commercial revenue.10

DyeCoo – textiles and carbon capture technology companies

Netherlands-based DyeCoo has developed unique technology that uses CO2 to pressurise powdered dye into fabrics without needing water.11 Their system recycles 95 percent of the CO2 for re-use, thereby utilising the greenhouse gas for a practical purpose whilst reducing water, energy and chemical waste.11 This is important technology for the textiles industry whose current dyeing techniques deposit effluents of unabsorbed dyes, chemicals and heavy salts into rivers and waterways.12 However, the major limitation for DyeCoo is that its process can only be used for dyeing polyester. 

Climeworks – carbon capture anywhere

Another direct air capture technology, Climeworks stands out because their carbon removal technology does not require water or arable land and consequently has a small physical footprint.13 By installing their machines on the roofs of power plants, they tap into the plant’s own low-carbon electricity and the heat from its incineration system.14 Using their power, Climeworks’ machines suck air into ducts and over a reusable filter material to chemically bind the CO2. It is then heated to release the high-purity captured gas which can then be repurposed, for instance for beverages or fertiliser.14

Carbicrete – carbon capture technology companies in construction

Cement is a key ingredient when making concrete. However, to produce cement, a great deal of CO2 is also released.15 To overcome this, Carbicrete has patented technology to produce cement-free and carbon-negative concrete.16 They use a by-product of the steel-making process (that is also cheaper than cement) and captured CO2.17 Not only does Carbicrete avoid the usual cement production emissions, it also captures CO2, thus meaning products made in this way are carbon-negative, sequestering CO2 in the process.16 In addition to being a far more environmentally friendly technique, Carbicrete’s products are cheaper to make and are more durable.17 

Chevron – Gorgon gas fields project

Energy company Chevron manages one of the world’s largest carbon capture projects in Australia’s Gorgon gas fields. These gas fields have been responsible for a massive amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere as the natural gas there is extracted.18 But, to reduce Gorgon’s carbon footprint by around 40 percent, Chevron are now injecting compressed CO2 in a sandstone reservoir nearby on Barrow Island. The massive amount of CO2 being captured makes it the third largest carbon capture and storage project in the world.19

However, Chevron’s CO2 capture and storage project only began in 2019 and was beset by delays.18 Indeed, half of Australia’s increase in annual carbon dioxide emissions between 2017 and 2018 have been linked to Chevron and its partner’s failure to initiate the project sooner.18

SaskPower – scaling carbon capture technology companies

In 2014, SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Power Station in Canada became the first power station in the world to successfully deploy carbon capture and storage technology.20 The facility captures CO2 emissions and also removes sulfur and other waste products. Subsequently, the CO2 is either reused for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or else is injected deep underground to permanently separate it from the atmosphere.21 

Nevertheless, the Boundary Dam Power Station’s carbon capture and storage technology has faced frequent and significant obstacles. Issues with the plant have often forced it to shut down and instead of capturing 90 percent of CO2 emissions, around half as much have been captured.22 As such, SaskPower is closing down Boundary Dam units 4 and 5 at the plant, instead of transforming them to use carbon capture and storage technology.23

NRG Energy – carbon capture for coal

NRG Energy is also at the forefront of global carbon capture technology companies. In 2017, their Petra Nova coal-fired power plant was one of only two power plants with carbon capture and storage capabilities.24 Coal-fueled power plants are one of the most environmentally damaging power sources currently in use, therefore mitigating their CO2 emissions is of critical importance. The Petra Nova plant routes part of their emissions to a filtration system to isolate and compress the CO2 for liquidation. It is then pumped 5,000 feet beneath the West Ranch Oil Field where it combines with oil to lower its density. When this oil is extracted, the CO2 is separated from the oil, greatly increasing oil production.25

Nevertheless, NRG Energy’s carbon capture technology has fallen short of expectations at the Petra Nova plant. Despite claiming their techology could capture 90 percent of carbon emissions at the plant, Petra Nova captured between 65 percent and 70 percent of the plant’s CO2.26 These figures also fail to take into account emissions from the natural gas turbine that runs the carbon capture equipment. Once these emissions are considered, the effective capture rate at Petra Nova is reduced to about 50 percent.26


  1. Summary for Policy Makers. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC. Published 2018. Accessed April 29, 2020.
  2. Cambridge University Press. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. Published 2005. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  3. Taylor, Matthew and Watts, Jonathan. Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions. The Guardian. Published Oct 9, 2019. Accessed May 13, 2020.
  4. Home. Global Thermostat. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  5. Peters, Adele. We have the tech to suck CO2 from the air – but can it suck enough to make a difference? FastCompany. Published June 2019. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  6. Newlight. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  7. Newlight Technologies Signs 15-Year Production License Agreement with Paques Holdings bv. Paques. Published July 2016. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  8. Innovation Prize for “Biomaterial of the Year 2013″ awarded to PHA producer Newlight Technologies (USA) at the Cologne International Conference 2013 on Industrial Biotechnology and Bio-based Plastics & Composites. Bio-based News. Published May 2013. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  9. Polyethylene Nucleating Agent. Carbon Upcycling Technologies. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  10. Member – Carbon Upcycling Technologies. About. Solar Impulse Foundation. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  11. DyeCoo’s water-free and process-chemical free-dyeing technology for textiles. Business Europe. Published February 2019. Accessed April 29, 2020.
  12. Hepburn, Stephanie. Nike and Adidas show cautious support for eco-friendly dye technology. The Guardian. Published April 2015. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  13. Climeworks. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  14. Gertner, Jon. New York Times. Published February 2019. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  15. Rodgers, Lucy. Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about. BBC. Published December 17, 2018. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  16. Genest, Florence. Solve. Published July 2019. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  17. Carbicrete. Accessed April 29, 2020.
  18. Morton, Adam. Gorgon LNG plant begins long-delayed carbon capture and storage project. The Guardian. Published August 8, 2019. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  19. Duckett, Adam. The Chemical Engineer. Published August 2019. Accessed April 29, 2020.
  20. Burgess, Molly. SaskPower celebrates carbon capture milestone at Boundary Dam Power Station. Published November 2019. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  21. SaskPower Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Project. PCOR. Accessed April 29, 2020.
  22. Burton, Bob. The fallout from SaskPower’s Boundary Dam CCS debacle. Renew Economy. Published Nov 12, 2015. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  23. SaskPower abandons carbon capture at Boundary Dam 4 and 5. CBC. Published July 9, 2018. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  24. Dubin, Kenneth. Petra Nova is one of two carbon capture and sequestration power plants in the world. eia. Published October 2017. Accessed April 28, 2020.
  25. Williams, Todd. Billion Dollar Petra Nova Coal Carbon Capture Project a Financial Success But Unclear If It Can Be Replicated. Scott Madden. Accessed April 29, 2020.
  26. Schlissel, David. IEEFA op-ed: Reality of carbon capture not even close to proponents’ wishful thinking. IEEFA. Published August 8, 2019. Accessed May 14, 2020.
  27. NIKE, Inc. Unveils ColorDry Technology and High-Tech Facility to Eliminate Water and Chemicals in Dyeing. December 2, 2013.

How Many CCS Plants Are There in the World?

ccs plants

Supporters of CCS plants see carbon capture storage as a way for us to use fossil fuels in the short term but still cut our emissions. 1

As a result, world governments are funding a number of carbon capture and sequestration projects,2 but are CCS project funds really the answer to our climate change fight?

How Many CCS Plants Are There?

There are 23 CCS plants around the world that are either in operation or are under construction, according to a 2019 report by the Global CCS Institute.3 A further 10 CCS plants are in the later stages of development. 18 are currently at an early development stage.

It’s important to note that only a couple of CCS plants are actually working though.

Key Examples of CCS Plants

The globally known Petra Nova coal fired plant in Texas is one of only two power plants in the world today that are operating with capture and storage technology, says the U.S. Energy Information Agency.4 The CO2 captured at Petra Nova is used for enhanced oil recovery.

Oil recovery works by pumping carbon dioxide into partially depleted oil fields. The process forces out the remaining oil and, in turn, traps carbon dioxide.5 As such, energy companies like Shell support CCS as a way of making the oil they trade a so-called “cleaner” energy.

Similarly, supporters of natural gas also advocate using CCS technology. Through post-combustion capture, we can reduce the amount of CO2 produced during shale gas extraction to as little as five percent of the carbon dioxide output of a new conventional coal power plant that does not have CCS, the Clean Air Task Force estimates.7

The idea of removing carbon from our atmosphere to slow climate change is based on sound science.8 As a result, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports “negative emissions technologies” as an important tool for climate change prevention.9

But, CCS can only work where two things are in place. One is money, and the other is the technology to make CCS a reality quickly and at scale.

The Problem With Capture and Sequestration

Unfortunately, CCS is still not where we need it to be. Take air flow carbon capture and storage. It will only reach low cost by 2070.10 In addition, wide-scale adoption will not happen until 2100.11 Based on current climate models, that’s not soon enough to prevent climate change’s worst effects.

The Paris Climate Agreement made it clear that we need solutions to climate change and we need them now. Luckily, we do have them.

For example, every year wind and solar energy displaces about 35 times the amount of CO2 that CCS plants have been able to displace in their entire history.12

Consequently, CCS plants might one day be a tool that can help fight climate change, but wind and solar power are working and available right now. They, and other green energy resources, are where our focus needs to be.


  1. 2020. Tackling Climate Change – The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 7 May 2020].
  2. Rubin, E., 2012. Capture Carbon Today For A Secure Tomorrow. [online] World Bank. Available at: <> [Accessed 7 May 2020].
  3. Page, B., 2019. Global Status Of CCS 2019; Targeting Climate Change. [online] Available at: <>
  4. Dubin, K., 2017. Petra Nova Is One Of Two Carbon Capture And Sequestration Power Plants In The World. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
  5. Mather, V., n.d. CCS With CO₂-Enhanced Oil Recovery. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
  6. Fossil, n.d. Natural Gas With Carbon Capture (CCUS). [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
  7. Bui, M., Adjiman, C., Bardow, A., Anthony, E., Boston, A., Brown, S., Fennell, P., et al. 2018. Carbon Capture And Storage (CCS): The Way Forward. [online] Available at: <!divAbstract> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
  8. 2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture And Storage — IPCC. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
  9. Minx, J. and Nemet, G., 2018. The Inconvenient Truth About Carbon Capture. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: <> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
  10. Minx, J. and Nemet, G., 2018. The Inconvenient Truth About Carbon Capture. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: <> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
  11. Barnard, M., 2019. Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar | Cleantechnica. [online] CleanTechnica. Available at: <> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
© 2020: globalcarboncare | GREEN EYE Theme by: D5 Creation | Powered by: WordPress