TRL Assessment of CCS Technologies 2024

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 200 (2024) 114578
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Technology readiness level assessment of carbon capture and

storage technologies
Ahmed M. Bukar a, Muhammad Asif b, c, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia
b
Architectural Engineering & Construction Management, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia
c
IRC for Sustainable Energy Systems, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The global energy sector has experienced significant expansion in recent years, driven by rising demand and
Carbon capture technological advancements. This growth has led to both opportunities and challenges, including global warming
Carbon storage and the need to offset global carbon emissions. A wide range of technological maturity characterizes the current
Technology readiness level
state of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. To efficiently navigate and accelerate the implementa
Energy transition
Sustainable Development Goals
tion of these solutions, conducting an in-depth assessment of various CCS technologies is necessary. In the
Decarbonisation literature, maturity assessment-based study of CCS technologies exists only using expert surveys. This study
aimed to conduct a technology readiness level (TRL) assessment of CCS technologies with the help of a multi-
faceted approach comprising a literature review, technology identification, data collection, TRL mapping,
expert survey, and comparative analysis. To achieve this, 79 CCS projects from the literature were analyzed to
identify growing trends in the CCS industry. The analysis shows that both pre-combustion and post-combustion
capture are mature technologies achieving TRL 9, while oxy-fuel capture is ranked at TRL 7. Similarly, carbon
storage technologies achieved high ranking, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and storage in saline aquifers are fully
commercial and ranked at TRL 9. Enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) extraction is trailing at TRL 3 in the
research phase. In addition, a total of 21 experts were surveyed, and their statements corroborate the conclusions
of the literature review. The research concludes that post-combustion capture and EOR are the most popular CCS
technologies, respectively.
and the fossil fuel sector. Moreover, it is in line with Goal 7, which seeks
to guarantee affordable and sustainable energy access. CCS enables the
1. Introduction
ongoing utilization of fossil fuels while mitigating their ecological con
sequences [9]. CCS also promotes Goal 9 by facilitating the growth and
The global energy landscape faces profound challenges like rapid
enhancement of carbon capture technologies, thereby promoting in
growth in energy demand, soaring energy prices, depleting fossil fuel
dustry, innovation, and infrastructure. Thus, the outcome of this study
reserves, risks with security of supplies and above all global warming
directly contributes to the achievement of the relevant SDGs mentioned.
[1]. The issue of climate change driven by the greenhouse gas (GHG)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the solutions to mitigate
emissions associated with fossil fuels integrates the energy and envi
climate change, it involves collecting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
ronmental scenarios [2–6]. To address the interlinked energy and
from power plants or industrial activities, transporting them, and then
environmental scenarios, and to advance towards the United Nations
sequestering them deep underground where they can be kept for a very
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the world is targeting a major
long time [10]. Capturing can be accomplished using many methods,
transition in the energy sector. This transition, also termed as sustain
whereas storage is often carried out in onshore and offshore geological
able energy transition or low-carbon energy transition, primarily aims to
formations. Unrestricted CO2 emissions into the atmosphere have
decarbonize the energy sector [7,8]. Carbon capture and storage can
caused significant environmental harm, which is a pressing concern for
contribute to the attainment of the sustainable development goals. It
many developing countries. A substantial portion of these emissions
plays a crucial role in achieving goal 13, which specifically targets
originate from industrial activity, driven by the increasing level of
climate action, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industries
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dr.m.asif@gmail.com, asifm@kfupm.edu.sa (M. Asif).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114578
Received 10 September 2023; Received in revised form 10 May 2024; Accepted 15 May 2024
Available online 17 May 2024
1364-0321/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
A.M. Bukar and M. Asif Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 200 (2024) 114578
research, to field-tested solutions. The level of preparedness is typi

Abbreviation definition cally evaluated based on the extent of development and the scale of
conducted assessment [20]. As outlined by Olechowski et al. [24], the
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage expected outcome of a well-organized and thoroughly conducted TRL
CC Combustion Capture assessment includes the potential to detect and manage risks. While TRL
TRL Technology Readiness Level evaluation cannot completely eradicate potential risk, it can be lever
TDM Technology Development Matrix aged to shed light on areas of risk [25]. In other words, TRL assessments
SA Saline Aquifer are not a guaranteed means of eliminating risk, but they can provide
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery useful information on the potential risks associated with technology.
EGR Enhanced Gas Recovery Furthermore, TRL assessment can be revealing to investors, policy
ECBM Enhanced Coal Bed Methane makers, and organizations in selecting the appropriate technology from
DGS Dedicated Geological Storage multiple choice [26]. According to NASA research, the quality of the
CP Chemical Production technology and overall program success are closely tied to many of the
GHG Greenhouse gas technical tasks required in a formal readiness level assessment [27]. To
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Agency sum up, the better the engagement of a formal assessment of a techno
IGCC Integrated gasification combined cycle logical readiness level, the greater the chances of success for the tech
IEAGHG International Energy Association Greenhouse Gas nology. Thus, defining the purpose of this study.
SDG Sustainable Development Goals Industries and researchers have access to multiple approaches to
CO2 Carbon dioxide assess the technological maturity level. Several performance indicators
O2 Molecular oxygen including economic analysis [28], environmental impact evaluation
H2 Hydrogen gas [28,29], technology readiness level (TRL) assessment [30], technology
H2O Water development matrix (TDM) [31], and life cycle assessment [32] are
N2 Molecular nitrogen reported. The economic and environmental evaluation are closely
linked, with the primary economic indicator being the cost of capturing
each metric ton of CO2. Environmental indicators, such as global
warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and
industrialization worldwide. As a result, the planet Earth is experiencing ozone depletion potential, are employed to compare different CO2
a noticeable change in its climate, chief among them being the rise in capture methods [29]. The TDM is a recently developed metric for
global temperature (global warming) [11–13]. Apart from the increase measuring performance, established by Baker et al. [31]. This approach
in global temperature, climate change also causes an increase in the involves the evaluation of carbon capture technology using three key
frequency and severity of heat waves and drought [14], impact on ma criteria: lifetime, efficiency, and cost. In extensive research, Davijany
rine lives due to melting sea ice, ocean acidification, and change in and Myhrvold [20] analyzed different approaches, such as DNV’s
ocean current [15], increase in precipitation level [16] among others. strategy for risk-based technology qualification, the TRL approach, and
Thus, the effects of climate change can affect not only developing the benefits and drawbacks of using TRLs on CCS technologies. In their
countries but also developed countries either directly or indirectly. concluding remark, the authors further stressed the disadvantage of
Iniyan et al. [17] and Benjamin et al. [18] further stressed that climate implementing TRL independently as an assessment scale, one of which
alteration would continue even if all emissions from anthropogenic ac was the ease of use of TRL methods, which had the disadvantage of
tivities were to abruptly stop. This reiterates the importance of stopping preventing reflection on the qualification efforts required to know the
GHG emissions, and one of the ways to achieve this objective is through subsequent TRL. Likewise, Darabkhani et al. [33] assessed the most
the development of CCS technologies [19]. advanced stage of development of carbon capture for gas-turbine-based
As the field of CCS widens in terms of scope and application, it is power plants using TRL. With the emerging new technologies in the
necessary to update the knowledge base on CCS to reflect recent de energy sector, Goulart et al. [34] assessed the readiness level of Hybrid
velopments and the outlook to further scientific understanding on the Salt Cavern Subsea System as a CCS technology. The authors conducted
topic. It is important to analyze the various discovered technologies, and TRL assessment of the four main sections of the technology indepen
new processes needed to turn a potential new technology into a com dently and found that no technological limitations would have rendered
mercial reality [20]. An interesting perspective in this regard could be a the prototype impractical, as well as the TRL rating allows the initiative
technology readiness level (TRL) assessment. While carbon capture and to move toward the field test. Furthermore, Dermuhl et al. [35]
utilization (CCU) is currently more widely accepted than CCS, this study compared the most promising low-carbon hydrogen production tech
specifically focuses on CCS to provide a detailed analysis of its readiness nologies using TRL and other indicators. The authors found that there is
levels. This choice is deliberate to consider the unique environmental a wide variation of TRL between 4 and 9 in all the three technologies
challenges associated with CCS, such as containment, leakage risk, and studied. Similarly, Rahmanta et al. [36] and Pascual et al. [37]
atmospheric concerns as mentioned by Bhavsar et al. [21]. Additionally, employed TRL assessment in the nuclear energy and the thermal energy
CCS faces distinct economic challenges that make it less appealing storage industry, respectively. Beyond the energy sector, Rybicka et al.
compared to CCU [22]. Therefore, establishing a well-defined current [38] and Schumacher et al. [39] assessed the TRL of composite recycling
level of maturity of CCS technology will enable interested parties to technologies and industry 4.0 respectively. Thus, the brief literature
address these related difficulties seamlessly. review confirmed that the TRL approach has been applied in a variety of
Several organizations and institutes including the National Aero industries and has shown to be effective as a tool for decision-making
nautics and Space Agency (NASA), have developed different models of about technology finance, technology insertion, risk indicators and
TRL to describe the state of development of a particular technology. The management, and general awareness of technology status. In the liter
commonly referred to as the TRL has been classically defined by E. ature, to the best of the knowledge of the authors, maturity
Conrow [23] as a “logical measurement system that simplifies the assessment-based study of CCS technologies exists only using expert
evaluation of the readiness of a given technology and cohesive maturity survey [40]. Hence, the aim of this study is to adopt a TRL model and
analogy across various types of the technology”. Simply put, TRL uses a systematically assess the readiness and potential of CCS technologies,
scale to rank the level of readiness or maturity of a technology. Con and further validate the findings from literature using expert survey. The
textually, the TRL methodology emphasizes the technology’s experience specific objectives of this study are as follows.
and performance ranging from formulated ideas, and laboratory-level
2
Fig. 1. Research method.
• Provide a detailed description of different types of CCS technologies global level. This work is unique since it is the latest study to system
• Review existing CCS projects in the literature atically employ the TRL model to analyze CCS technologies compre
• Undertake a TRL assessment of the identified CCS technologies hensively. Furthermore, the novelty of the study is further demonstrated
• Validate the findings from literature review using expert survey by its comprehensive and holistic nature, which incorporates TRL
evaluations derived from literature review and expert survey.
Furthermore, the scientific objective is to acquire reliable data This research is structured as follows. The second section gives a brief
regarding the present state of CCS. As a result, it assists the decision- overview of the methodology adopted to achieve the objectives of the
making process and positively impacts industries and policymakers in study. The third section gives overview of CCS approaches and the
the energy sector. The scope of this study covers the data obtained from different technologies under each. The fourth section reviews the
the literature and a survey of the opinions of experts in the field of CCS. existing TRL models and the implementation of the TRL rating on the
The primary motivation behind this research is the inevitable CCS technologies identified in the preceding section. Furthermore, the
requirement for CCS technologies in the decades to come, driven by the fifth section of this work discusses the findings of the study, which in
escalating urgency to address climate change. This underscores the ne cludes both the TRL ranking based on literature review and expert
cessity for sustainable and mature CCS technology. Gaining insight into survey. The sixth section presents a case study on operational CCS plant
their levels of readiness is essential for efficient implementation on a to give insight to the reader on the timeframe it requires for a CCS
Fig. 2. Carbon capture and storage methods [46].
3
Fig. 3. IGCC coal plant with pre combustion [50].
technology to develop from research stage to fully commercial stage. 3.1. Methods of carbon capture
Finally, the conclusion are presented in the seventh section.
3.1.1. Pre-combustion capture
2. Methodology This process reforms fuel by removing CO2 and producing carbon
monoxide and hydrogen known as syngas. The two main processes that
Considering the evaluation of CCS technologies is the focus of this result in the creation of the synthesis gas are fuel reformation and
research, it is essential to analyze pertinent and important studies and oxidation. Similarly, to keep the catalyst functional and active, the
assess carbon capture technologies in their current context. This process also entails removing sulfur and particulate debris as a pre
research critically examines the existing literature on CCS technologies treatment. The end outcome of the process is the capture of CO2 and
and assesses the readiness level of these technologies based on the hydrogen gas for use as fuel, with water serving as the byproduct of
findings of the literature review. Furthermore, the TRL findings obtained burning [48,49]. To capture carbon from fuel before combustion, it is
from the literature reviewed will be validated through an expert survey necessary to transform it into a state that can be easily captured. This is
in the field of CCS. done for a coal-fired power plant by gasification in which coal is mixed
The framework for TRL serves as a scale for evaluating the technol with steam and oxygen at high pressure and temperature. Synthesis gas,
ogies. The technologies are ranked and cross-validated by several ex a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, also known as syngas, is
perts in the CCS field. Lastly, two-dimensional graphs showing the CCS the byproduct, and it is a.
technologies’ maturity landscape are shown. The graphical representa gaseous fuel that may be used to produce electricity in a combined
tion of the method adopted is shown in Fig. 1. This method enables the cycle power plant. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power
entire range of research needs to be covered, including assessing the generation is the term for this strategy as shown in Fig. 3 [50].
existing status of CCS technologies and outlining the needs of industries
and academics to guide future work on developing these technologies. 3.1.2. Post-combustion capture
Post-combustion capture is the process of eliminating CO2 emissions
3. Overview of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies after the combustion of fossil fuels. Essentially, at power plants or other
notable locations where emissions are produced, flue gases are treated to
CCS entails separating CO2 produced in different sectors ranging extract CO2 [51]. The solvent most frequently used in this process is
from manufacturing, oil and gas, and power sectors, and transporting it monoethanolamine [52]. Pulverized coal is mixed with air and burned
to a controlled area suitable for storage. It is regarded as one of the in a furnace in a contemporary coal-fueled power plant. The hot com
promising technologies that can be used to lessen global warming and its bustion gases that are produced, which are made primarily of nitrogen,
impact on the planet [41–43]. The three fundamental stages of CCS are with minor amounts of water vapor and CO2 produced from the
separation, transportation, and storage as shown in Fig. 2 below. With hydrogen and carbon in the fuel. To achieve needed emission levels,
regard to CO2 separation, three main methods are commonly used, these additional byproducts from coal impurities, such as sulfur oxides, ni
include pre-combustion capture, oxy-fuel processes, and trogen oxides, and ash, must also be eliminated. It might be necessary to
post-combustion separation [44]. As the name implies, pre-combustion eliminate mercury and other trace elements as well [50].
capture involves the separation of CO2 from other fuel constituents
before combustion, while post-combustion separation is done after 3.1.3. Oxy-fuel combustion capture
burning the fuel, as demonstrated by Wiesberg et al. [45] on bioenergy In this method, recovered flue gas and oxygen are combined to burn
production. Different separation technologies have been reported in the the fuel. An air separation unit is used in an oxy-fuel red plant to create
literature; these include adsorption, physical absorption. an oxygen stream, as opposed to traditional fossil fuel-fired power plants
cryogenic separation, membrane absorption, and chemical absorp that use air as the oxidant. An oxygen-dominated gas for the oxidant is
tion. However, CO2 sequestration can be achieved through different created by mixing the oxygen stream with the flue gas. Burning in pure
geological storage. The best place for storage is where the CO2 is oxygen would produce a high temperature, thus recycling is required to
immobile. The characteristics of the stored CO2 are dependent on lower it. High-purity CO2 is created after the flue gas exhaust stream has
pressure and temperature [47]. been cleaned of water and other contaminants. Oxyfuel combustion is a
process that can be used with a variety of fuels, such as coal, biomass,
and natural gas [53].
Cannone et al. [54] reported that the primary elements of oxyfuel
4
Fig. 4. (a) Coal plant with oxy-fuel capture, (b) gas turbine plant with oxy-fuel capture [54].
combustion power generating include the gas turbine to burn fuel and
produce electricity; flue gas processing unit to clean flue gas and control
its quality; air separation unit to produce nearly pure oxygen; and CO2
Processing.
unit for the final purification of CO2. Furthermore, this process can
be applied to both gas turbine and coal-based power plants as shown in
Fig. 4.
Mild oxy-combustion capture is an evolved version of oxy-fuel
combustion capture that runs at lower temperatures, resulting in
decreased nitrogen oxide generation and facilitating the separation of
CO2. However, it remains an emerging field of study and advancement.
Therefore, this study is limited to oxy-fuel combustion capture because
of the existence of various active oxy-fuel combustion projects world
wide as seen in the literature.
3.2. Methods of carbon separation
CO2 from exhaust gases can generally be captured using three ap Fig. 5. Absorption carbon capture process [55].
proaches as mentioned previously. These approaches include pre-
combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion. However,
3.2.1. Absorption separation
several separation methods, both developing and developed, for inte
The absorption process entails the separation of CO2 from flue gases
grating with the appropriate sequestration technology have been re
by using absorbents as shown in Fig. 5. This process can either be
ported in the literature. These methods are discussed in the following
physical or chemical absorption. The absorbents when in contact with
subsections.
the flue gases will chemically or physically absorb the CO2 carried by the
flue gas. The most common chemical absorbent solution includes amino
acids such as monoethanolamine and diethanolamine. However, these
5
Fig. 6. Membrane separation [57].
Fig. 7. Adsorption separation [50].
absorbents come with the disadvantage of high toxicity, high heat, and pore volume. Subsequently, the activated carbon is regenerated by
power requirement, and high degradation potential, thus aqueous po varying the pressure or temperature, thus releasing the captured CO2
tassium carbonates are used to reduce these flaws. Thus, indirectly [50]. Due to the reduced water.
reducing the absorption efficiency and subsequent increase in the cost of consumption during the regeneration process, adsorption process
energy [46]. However, when capturing CO2 at high temperatures and using solid sorbents have high energy efficiency compared to liquid
pressure, physical absorbents such as Rectisol, and Selexol are used. sorbents. As such, the overall cost of regeneration (heating/cooling) is
These absorbents are more convenient for capturing CO2 from the lower [60]. In this process, adsorbents commonly used include both
high-pressure exhaust. Moreover, they also offer lower heat consump physical (zeolite, activated carbon, and silica membrane) and chemical
tion as opposed to chemical absorbents [56]. (solid amines, lithium metal and calcium oxide). Relative to other
methods, adsorption process offers high capacity at low energy
3.2.2. Membrane separation requirement, less costly regeneration, and less complication in terms of
In this process, CO2 is separated from flue gas using membrane operation and maintenance [48].
materials through a process called membrane separation. The mem
branes’ designs are specifically created for CO2 absorption and are 3.2.4. Cryogenic separation
constructed of polymer or ceramic materials as shown in Fig. 6. The use Cryogenic separation captures CO2 through condensation at about
of this technology on a big scale and the development of membranes that 56 ◦ C. The basic idea involves the cooling of the flue gas below the
would function effectively for the intended purpose at quite high tem boiling point of CO2 while maintaining pressure above the triple point.
peratures continue to present challenges [55]. At these conditions, CO2 will condense into a liquid, which can then be
As membrane separation frequently has low energy consumption, separated from the other gases. Considering the costs of cooling, this
low operational costs, a compact footprint, and is simple to scale-up, it method is appropriate for capturing from streams with high CO2 con
may be a potential method with added advantage. Reverse osmosis, centrations. Furthermore, this process is most suitable for oxyfuel pro
biogas purification up to compressed natural gas quality [58], removal cess [52]. To enhance the efficiency of this technology, several
of heavy metals from water, membrane crystallization used in CO2 technologies have been developed, including controlled freeze zone,
collection, and other applications of membrane technology have all anti-sublimation, distillation, packed bed, and Stirling systems.
proven successful [59]. Membrane separation follows the principle of
Knudsen and flick’s diffusion [57]. 4. Technology readiness level (TRL) assessment
3.2.3. Adsorption separation 4.1. Key concepts and frameworks related to TRL assessment
Adsorption process uses activated carbon to capture CO2. The acti
vated carbon can adsorb CO2 molecules as they pass through a bed of Making wise choices concerning the incorporation and advancement
activated carbon (as shown in Fig. 7) due to its large surface area and of emerging technologies in challenging industrial projects calls for a
6
Table 1 TRL 5, and it is vital to show that the components function together as a
NASA TRL scale [34]. system. Assembly integration and installation need the.
TRL Description completion of TRL 5. To go beyond the discrete component level, this
Level level of validation entails testing the assembly of components or sub
1 Basic principles observed and reported systems [34].
2 Technology concept formulated According to Yasseri et al. [62], during the TRL analysis, the industry
3 Proof-of-concept demonstrated, analytically and/or experimentally must provide evidence-based responses to several questions. Some of
4 Component and/or breadboard laboratory validated these questions are interested in; whether the technology is widely used,
5 Component and/or breadboard validated in simulated or real space
environment
whether the technology has been proven in its final form, what the target
6 System adequacy validated in simulated environment performance and efficiency levels are, whether the infrastructure is
7 System prototype demonstration in the real space available for the deployment of the technology.
8 Actual system completed and qualified through testing The simplified International Energy Association Greenhouse Gas
9 Actual system field proven through successful application
(IEAGHG) TRL for CCS technologies is adopted for this study as
described by Menmuir et al. [63]. This is because of its compatibility
with the CCS. Table 2 shows the IEAGHG TRL scale which divides the
Table 2 TRL spectrum into three phases. The research phase encompasses TRLs
IEAGHG 2014 TRL for CCS technologies [63]. 1–3. Technology Readiness Level 1, also known as TRL 1, represents the
Category TRL Description most basic and initial stage of technological development. During this
Level phase, scientific research transitions into applied research. TRL 2 is the
1 Basic principles observed and reported stage where it is possible to create practical applications and initiate
Research 2 Technology concept formulated research and development. TRL 3 is achieved when active research and
3 Proof-of-concept demonstrated, analytically and/or development is started, which involves conducting analytical and lab
experimentally
oratory experiments to confirm the technology’s predicted outcomes.
4 System Validated in laboratory
Development 5 Sub-system validated in relevant environment The development phase covers TRLs 4–6. During TRL 4, several com
6 Fully integrated pilot tested in a relevant ponents are combined to ensure their compatibility in a controlled
environment laboratory setting. In contrast, TRL 5 involves confirming the func
7 Sub-scale demonstration, fully functional prototype
tionality of these components in an actual real-world setting. During the
Demonstration 8 Commercial demonstration, full scale deployment in
final form
TRL 6 phase, the completely assembled technology undergoes testing in
9 Normal Commercial Service an actual relevant environment. The demonstration phase covers TRLs
7–9. TRL 7 entails the implementation of a fully functional prototype in
an actual environment that closely resembles or matches the intended
deeper awareness of the readiness of the technology. This can be ach operational state. Furthermore, TRL 8 denotes the implementation of the
ieved by examining the concept, requirements, and capability of the functional system that has been validated to operate in its final design
technology through TRL analysis [61]. The generic outline of the NASA and within anticipated environments. TRL 9 is attained when the tech
TRL is shown in Table 1 [34]. nology is implemented for commercial use.
Even though most assessment techniques share a common basis,
many sectors and organizations have modified the core framework to fit
4.2. TRL of carbon capture technologies
their own unique meanings and terminology. For instance, the TRL
approach used by NASA as well as the Pentagon has nine levels,
There are several stages of development for global commercial CCS
although API recommends using only seven [20]. When deciding
facilities, each with a different average CO2 capture capacity [64]. Fig. 8
whether to make a substantial financial investment, API views reaching
shows the global CCS facilities by development stage. The number of
TRL 4 as a crucial factor. TRL 4 is therefore a crucial stage in deter
facilities in each stage varied with most facilities being in the early
mining whether to continue with the investment. Throughout the
development phase. According to a report released by the Global CCS
technology sector, the readiness of all required components is shown at
Institute in September 2023, there are currently (2023) 394 commercial
Fig. 8. Global CCS Facilities by development stage (July 2023).
7
Table 3
CCS Facilities with operational status (1972–2023)
S/ Facility Country Operational Industry Capture Capacity Storage
N date (Mtpa CO2) Type
1 Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant USA 1972 Natural Gas 0.5 EOR
Processing
2 Enid Fertilizer USA 1982 Fertiliser Production 0.2 EOR
3 Shute Creek Gas Processing Plant USA 1986 Natural Gas 7 EOR
Processing
4 MOL Szank field CO2 EOR Hungary 1992 Natural Gas 0.157 EOR
Processing
5 Sleipner CO2 Storage Norway 1996 Natural Gas 1 DGS
Processing
6 Great Plains Synfuels Plant and Weyburn-Midale USA 2000 Synthetic Natural 3 EOR
Gas
7 Core Energy CO2-EOR USA 2003 Natural Gas 0.35 EOR
Processing
8 Snøhvit CO2 Storage Norway 2008 Natural Gas 0.7 DGS
Processing
9 Arkalon CO2 Compression Facility USA 2009 Ethanol Production 0.29 EOR
10 Century Plant USA 2010 Natural Gas 5 EOR
Processing
11 Petrobras Santos Basin Pre-Salt Oil Field CCS Brazil 2011 Natural Gas 4.6 EOR
Processing
12 Bonanza BioEnergy CCUS EOR USA 2012 Ethanol Production 0.1 EOR
13 Coffeyville Gasification Plant USA 2013 Fertiliser Production 0.9 EOR
14 Air Products Steam Methane Reformer USA 2013 Hydrogen 1 EOR
Production
15 PCS Nitrogen USA 2013 Fertiliser Production 0.3 EOR
16 Boundary Dam 3 Carbon Capture and Storage Facility Canada 2014 Power Generation 1 Various
options
17 Quest Canada 2015 Hydrogen 1.2 DGS
Production
18 Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR Demonstration Saudi 2015 Natural Gas 0.8 EOR
Arabia Processing
19 Karamay Dunhua Oil Technology CCUS EOR Project China 2015 Methanol 0.1 EOR
Production
20 Abu Dhabi CCS (Phase 1 Being Emirates Steel Industries) UAE 2016 Iron and Steel 0.8 EOR
21 Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage USA 2017 Ethanol Production 1 DGS
22 CNPC Jilin Oil Field CO2 EOR China 2018 Natural Gas 0.6 EOR
Processing
23 Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Australia 2019 Natural Gas 4 DGS
Processing
24 Qatar LNG CCS Qatar 2019 Natural Gas 2.2 DGS
Processing
25 Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) With Northwest Redwater Canada 2020 Oil Refining 1.6 EOR
Partnership’s Sturgeon Refinery CO2 Stream
26 Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) With Nutrien CO2 Stream Canada 2020 Fertilizer 0.3 EOR
Production
27 Orca Iceland 2021 Direct Air Capture 0.004 DGS
28 Glacier Gas Plant CCS Canada 2022 Natural Gas 0.2 DGS
Production
29 Sinopec Qilu-Shengli CCUS China 2022 Chemical 1 EOR
Production
30 Red Trail Energy CCS USA 2022 Ethanol Production 0.18 DGS
31 NET Power USA 2023 Power Generation 0.8 DGS
32 Sinopec CCUS Project China 2023 Hydrogen 1 EOR
Production
33 Tata Chemicals Europe Northwick Plant UK 2023 Chemical 0.04 CP
Production (CP)
34 Global Thermostats USA 2023 Direct Air Capture 0.001 DGS
scale CCS facilities around the world, with a total mean CO2 capture America, Europe, and East Asia and the Pacific, which together account
capacity of 394 Mtpa. Out of these plants, 121 are in the advanced for 95.6 % of the total facilities. Specifically, North America represents
development stage, 204 are in the early development stage, 41 are 51.8 % of the capacity, while Europe and East Asia and the Pacific ac
operational as listed in Table 3, and 26 are in the construction phase. count for 30 % and 13.8 %, respectively.
Consequently, there was a significant increase in activities within the
CCS domain globally during the 10-month period from September 2022 4.3. TRL of carbon storage technologies
to July 2023, as illustrated in Fig. 9.
The private sector’s increased investment is a response to the The problem of safe containment in CCS technology can eventually
growing anticipation of a future with net-zero emissions. This is also be solved by sequestering CO2 transferred to a particular storage place.
influenced by the development of government policies and regulations Geological, oceanic, and mineral storage are the final three types of
that are strengthening the economic argument for investing in CCS [64]. storage [77]. Many of the same technologies that have been developed
Fig. 10 shows the regional distribution of CCS facilities. The global by the oil and gas industry are used in the storage of CO2 in deep
facilities of CCS technology is dominated by plants located in North onshore, or offshore geological formations, which has been shown to be
8
Fig. 9. Development in CCS facilities from September 2022 to July 2023.
Fig. 10. Regional overview of CCS Facilities (July 2023).
economically viable under certain circumstances [78]. Also, some CCS 5–8 [81]. While the least mature storage technology, ECMB is rated at
plants have dedicated geological storage (DGS) specifically constructed TRL 2–3 by Ref. [79].
to store the captured CO2 as shown Table 3.
If CO2 were injected into suitable saline formations or oil or gas 5. Results and discussion
fields, it would be prevented from rising to the surface by various
physical and geochemical trapping mechanisms. The most widely used 5.1. Results of TRL ranking based on literature review
strategies include storing CO2 in shallow coal beds, saline aquifers, and
the ocean. Additionally, the addition of CO2 storage to enhanced oil This section presents the outcome of the reviewed CCS projects. A
recovery (EOR) or, possibly, enhanced coal bed methane recovery total of 79 projects have been reviewed and were assigned TRL scores
(ECBM) could result in an increase in the amount of money made from based on the IEAGHG 2014 scale, as adopted. Among these, 20 projects
the oil or gas recovery [79]. Only a few of the geological storage options employ pre-combustion capture technology, while 58 projects used post-
have a TRL of 7 or higher. combustion capture technology. Table 4 shows the TRL of pre-
According to global 2023 CCS report [64], United States of America combustion capture technologies. Among these technologies,
has the highest undiscovered CO2 storage resources, Australia has the membrane-based capture appears to be the prevailing pre-combustion
highest discovered storage resources, while Norway, in Europe has the technology in operation, with a total of 9 projects. However, sorbent
highest stored CO2 in formations. Table 3 shows the CCS Facilities with and solvent absorption/adsorption each have two post-combustion
their operational status. 21 operational projects have employed EOR as projects. Fig. 11 shows the TRL mapping of pre-combustion capture
storage mechanism while Saline-storage based CCS project (Sleipner technologies, the maximum TRL attained by this technology is TRL 9,
offshore) is recorded in Norway and commercial scale implementation with membrane, and sorbent-based capture having one project at TRL 7
was also reported by Bachu [80]. The TRL ranking of carbon storage each, and solvent-based capture has a project at TRL 9. The CCS in
technologies shown in Fig. 14 ranked both methods at TRL 9. The vestments with pre-combustion capture covers TRL 1–9, this shows that
enhanced gas recovery (EGR) is still at demonstration stage, rated at TRL the development of pre-combustion technology constantly evolves from
9
Table 4
TRL of Pre-combustion capture technologies
Separation Prime performer Project concept Project Project scale/ending TRL Remark Reference
method date scale
Membrane Bettergy Corporation Capture CO2 using water gas shift 2018–2022 Prototype test 4 System validated in lab [65]
membrane reactor
Membrane Arizona State Ceramic-Carbonate Dual-Phase 2018–2022 Laboratory scale 4 System validated in lab [66]
University Membrane Reactor for CO2
Capture from Coal Syngas
Membrane The Ohio State Amine-Containing Polymeric 2018–2022 Laboratory scale 4 System validated in lab [67]
University Membranes for CO2 Capture from
Coal Syngas
Membrane Membrane Polymeric Membranes 2018–2022 Bench scale, 6 System tested in actual coal- [68]
Technology and Prototype field tested derived syngas
Research, Inc.
Membrane SRI International Polymer Membrane for CO2 2018–2023 Bench scale, 6 System tested in actual coal- [69]
Capture from Coal Syngas Prototype field tested derived syngas from an oxygen-
blown gasifier
Membrane State University of Carbon Molecular Sieve Hollow 2018–2022 Laboratory scale 4 System validated in lab [70]
New York Fiber Membranes with Coal
Syngas
Membrane Media and Process Ceramic Membranes with Coal 2020–2023 Small pilot, field test 6 Fully tested in blue hydrogen [71]
Technology, Inc. Syngas pilot plant
Membrane Los Alamos National High-Temperature Polymer Based NA Bench-Scale, 5 Simulated in syngas [63]
Laboratory Membrane Simulated Syngas
Membrane University of Hydrogen-Selective Zeolite NA Completed, Bench- 5 Simulated in syngas [63]
Minnesota Membranes Scale, Simulated
Syngas
Solvents Tallgrass MLP White Carbon Capture System 2021–2023 Commercial scale 8 Full scale commercially [72]
Operations, LLC with Natural pre-FEED deployed
Gas Reforming
Solvents Phillips 66 Company Solvent-Based Post Combustion 2021–2023 Commercial scale 4 Completed theoretical design [73]
Carbon Capture System for NG and techno-economic analysis
Reforming only
Sorbents TDA Research, Inc. High-Capacity Regenerable 2013–2023 Small pilot/field 6 Fully tested in syngas pilot [74]
Sorbent for Coal IGCC tested plant
Plants
Sorbents TDA Research, Inc. Integrated Pressure Swing 2020–2024 Small pilot/system 7 System tested in actual [75]
Adsorption -Water Gas Shift with tested integrated reactor
Coal Syngas
Combined University of Combined Membrane 2019–2023 Bench Scale/system 7 System tested in actual syngas [76]
Membrane- Southern California Reactor and Adsorption tested environment
Adsorption Reactor System
Fig. 11. TRL mapping of pre-combustion capture technologies. Fig. 12. TRL mapping of post-combustion capture technologies.
a small laboratory scale to a large commercial scale. Most of the pre- technologies which are ranked in Table 5,Table 6, and Table 7. This
combustion capture projects are within the research spectrum of the technology also covers the entire TRL scale (TRL 1–9). The solvent-based
TRL adopted (see Table 2), with 6 and 5 projects in TRL 3 and TRL 4 absorption/adsorption method seems to be the most developed, with
respectively. TRL ranging from TRL 7 to TRL 9. Both commercially deployed projects
Fig. 12 shows the TRL mapping of post-combustion capture at TRL 9 utilize an organic solvent to extract and absorb CO2 from flue
gas. The sorbent-based post-combustion capture has reached a TRL of 6,
10
Table 5
TRL of Post-Combustion Capture technologies (SOLVENT) [63].
Separation Prime performer/funding Project concept Project Project scale/ending TRL Remarks
method date scale
Solvent Kansai Electric Power Company Amine process using the KS-1 solvent 2016 – Demonstration stage 8 Fully demonstrated in
(KEPCO) present actual plant
Solvent Technip/Norwegian government Uses the next generation of their 2014 – Pilot/full scale 8 Fully demonstrated in
proprietary Cansolv advanced amine- present demonstration actual plant
based solvent
Solvent US Department of Energy Use Econoamine Plus advanced solvent to 2016 – Commercially 9 Normal commercial
capture CO2 from flue gas present deployed operation
Solvent Chevron, WAVE Equity Partners, Utilises the proprietary APBS advanced 2009 – Commercially 9 Normal commercial
Marubeni, Equinor, ICOS Capital solvent for flue gas applications present deployed operation
and Blume.
Solvent Oslo Stock Exchange Uses S26 advanced solvent for flue gas 2013 – Demonstration stage 8 Fully demonstrated in
capture present actual plant
Solvent BASF & Linde’s Utilises BASF’s proprietary OASE blue 2014 – Demonstration stage 8 Demonstrated in coal power
Technology advanced amine solvent present plant in US and Germany
Solvent C-Capture An amine and nitrogen free solvent 2020 – Pilot plant 5 Independent pilot plant
process using a carboxylic acid salt present demonstration trials only
Solvent CO2 Capsol (formerly Sargas) Hot potassium carbonate solvent process 2014 – Fully integrated pilot 6 Fully integrated in pilot
with patented heat recovery present plant
Solvent CO2 Solutions (Now owned by A carbonic anhydrase enzyme catalyzed 2015 – Fully functional 7 Prototype integrated in
SAIPEM) potassium carbonate solvent process present prototype actual environment
Solvent Baker Hughes CAP (Developed by A non-precipitating chilled ammonia 2012 – Fully functional 7 Prototype integrated in
Alstom, now owned by General solvent process present prototype actual environment
Electric)
Solvent ION Clean Energy (formerly ION A water-lean solvent 2015 – Fully integrated pilot 6 Fully integrated pilot test
Engineering) present
Solvent Kansai Electric Power Company Amine process using the KS-1 solvent 2016 – Demonstration stage 8 Fully demonstrated in
(KEPCO)/NETL present actual plant
Solvent SRI International, Baker Ammonia- and Potassium – Bench-Scale 4 Bench scale laboratory tests
Hughes and University of Illinois Carbonate-Based Mixed Salt Solvent
Solvent Southern Company Services, Waste Heat Integration – Pilot-Scale, Actual 6 Fully integrated pilot test
Inc. Flue Gas
Solvent Akermin, Inc Carbonic Anhydrase Catalyzed Advanced – Bench-Scale, Actual 5 Validated in actual
Carbonate and Non-Volatile Salt Solution Flue Gas environment
(“Solvents”)
Solvent William Marsh Rice University Novel Absorption/Stripper Process – Bench-Scale, 4 Validated by simulation
Simulated Flue Gas only
Solvent Carbon Capture Scientific Gas-Pressurized Stripping – Bench-Scale, Real 5 Validated in actual
Flue Gas environment
Solvent Novozymes North America, Inc. Solvent + Enzyme and Vacuum – Bench-Scale, 4 Validated by simulation
Regeneration Technology Simulated Flue Gas only
Solvent Babcock & Wilcox Optimized Solvent Formulation – Bench-Scale, Actual 5 Validated in actual
Solvent Lawrence Berkeley National Chemical Additives for CO2 Capture – Bench-Scale, 4 Validated by simulation
Laboratory Simulated Flue Gas only
which is the highest level. Currently (2023), there are two ongoing pilot discussed in section 4.3. However, only ECBM is still in the research
plant research. phase, whereas many storage technologies have already reached a
projects financed by the Svante and TDA research groups. Finally, mature stage at the commercial scale.
membrane technology is now at a relatively early stage of development, Fig. 15 shows the TRL ratings for pre-combustion capture (Pre-CC)
with the majority of projects limited to research scale. This technology and post-combustion capture (Post-CC) technologies. Pre-CC achieved
has achieved a maximum TRL of 6. However, it is worth noting that an average TRL rating of 5.2 based on the analysis of 21 projects,
membrane and sorbent-based post combustion capture technologies are whereas post-CC received an average TRL rating of 4.7 from the
well-represented in the developmental stages ranging from TRL 3 (early assessment of 58 projects. The lower TRL of post combustion capture is
stage) to TRL 6 (intermediate stage), suggesting a clear progression to attributed to the greater number of post combustion projects that have
wards commercialization. been examined in comparison to pre combustion.
When comparing the allocation of TRL between the pre- and post- capture. Nevertheless, the data reveals a higher proportion of Post-
combustion capture technologies, it is evident that there is a lower CC projects rated at TRLs 8–9 in comparison to Pre-CC, which only
amount of research conducted in pre-combustion capture. This pattern is has two projects in the same TRL range.
clearly visible in Fig. 13 which shows the Comparison between pre- and Fig. 16 illustrates the percentage of carbon capture projects studied
post-combustion capture technologies. A study by Xuefei et al. [82] also across different project scales. The analysis reveals that most of the
backed this finding. projects studied are at the bench scale, accounting for 48.1 % of the
In this study, post-combustion capture was found to have a higher total. Pilot-scale projects represent the second-largest category at 27.4
number of projects (58) compared to pre-combustion capture (21) out of %, followed by prototype-scale projects at 9.3 %. Laboratory-scale and
the total 79 projects surveyed. Oxy-fuel capture has not been thoroughly commercial-scale projects make up smaller percentages of the total, at
examined in this research. However, it has been assigned a TRL of 7 by 7.4 % each. This distribution highlights the prevalence of bench-scale
some references in the literature, such as [63,83]. and pilot-scale studies in carbon capture research, suggesting a focus
Fig. 14 illustrates the TRL ranking of carbon storage technologies, on early-stage and large-scale experimentation, while laboratory and
which includes EOR, saline aquifers, EGR, and ECMB. This ranking was commercial-scale projects receive comparatively less attention.
11
Table 6
TRL of Post-Combustion Capture technologies (SORBENT) [63].
Separation Prime performer/funding Project concept Project scale/ending TRL Remarks
method scale
Sorbents Kawasaki CO2 Temperature swing adsorption (TSA) process utilizing a Laboratory scale 4 Validation trials on
Capture (KCC) granulated amine-coated porous sorbent laboratory test plant
Sorbents Svante (formerly Structured solid sorbent in a rotating absorption bed system Pilot plant 6 Fully integrated pilot test
Inventys)
Sorbents TDA Research Isothermal process based on a granulated alkalized alumina Pilot plant 6 Fully integrated pilot test
sorbent
Sorbent GE Global Research Phase-Changing Absorbent Bench-Scale, Simulated 4 Validated by simulation
Flue Gas only
Sorbent SRI International Novel Solid Sorbent Bench-Scale, Actual 5 Validated in actual
Sorbent Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Advanced Aerogel Sorbents Bench-Scale, Simulated 4 Validated by simulation
Flue Gas only
Sorbent W. R. Grace and Co. Rapid Pressure Swing Adsorption Bench-Scale, Simulated 4 Validated by simulation
Flue Gas only
Sorbent RTI International Advanced Solid Sorbents and Processes for CO2 Capture Bench-Scale, Simulated 4 Validated by simulation
Flue Gas only
Sorbent ADA-ES, Inc Cross-Heat Exchanger for Sorbent-Based CO2 Capture Bench-Scale, Simulated 4 Validated by simulation
Flue Gas only
Sorbent TDA Research, Inc. Low-Cost, High-Capacity Regenerable Sorbent Bench-Scale, Actual 5 Validated in actual
Sorbent InnoSepra, LLC Novel Adsorption Process Bench-Scale, Actual 5 Validated in actual
Sorbent Georgia Tech Research Rapid Temperature Swing Adsorption Bench-Scale, Simulated 4 Validated by simulation
Corporation Flue Gas only
Sorbent University of North Hybrid Sorption Using Solid Sorbents Bench-Scale, Actual 5 Validated in actual
Dakota Flue Gas environment
Sorbent University of Akron Metal Monolithic Amine Grafted Zeolites Bench-Scale, Simulated 4 Validated by simulation
Flue Gas only
Sorbent RTI International A Dry Sorbent-Based Post Combustion CO2 Capture Bench-Scale, Actual 5 Validated in actual
Table 7
TRL of Post-Combustion Capture technologies (Membrane) [63].
Separation Prime performer/funding Project concept Project scale/ending scale TRL Remarks
method
Membrane Ohio State University Inorganic/Polymer Composite Membrane Pilot-Scale, Actual Flue Gas 6 Fully integrated pilot test
Membrane GE Global Research Composite Hollow Fibre Membranes Bench-Scale, Simulated Flue 4 Validated by simulation
Gas only
Membrane Membrane Technology and Low-Pressure Membrane Contactors (Mega- Bench-Scale, Simulated & 5 Validated in actual
Research, Inc. Module) Actual Flue Gas environment
Membrane RTI International Hollow-Fibre, Polymeric Membrane Bench-Scale, Simulated Flue 4 Validated by simulation
Gas only
Membrane Gas Technology Institute Nanoporous, Superhydrophobic Membrane Bench-Scale, Simulated Syngas 4 Validated by simulation
Contactor Process only
Fig. 17 illustrates the percentage of carbon capture projects studied

across various industries. Ethanol production emerges as the most
studied industry, accounting for 26.1 % of the total projects studied,
followed by power generation at 21.1 %, and natural gas processing at
16.7 %. Hydrogen production, fertilizer production, and chemical pro
duction also represent significant percentages of the projects studied,
with 12.8 %, 5.0 %, and 4.4 % respectively. However, industries such as
bioenergy, waste incineration, direct air capture, cement production, oil
refining, and iron and steel have comparatively lower percentages of
projects studied, ranging from 0.6 % to 2.8 %. This distribution high
lights the concentration of carbon capture research within specific in
dustries, such as ethanol production and power generation, while also
identifying industries with fewer studies, such as iron and steel pro
duction and oil refining.
The overall ranking of CCS is shown in Fig. 18, post and pre-
combustion capture are more mature CO2 capture technology
compared to oxy-fuel capture. However, post-combustion capture has
more investment.
Fig. 13. Comparison between pre- and post-combustion capture technologies.
12
Fig. 14. TRL ranking of carbon storage technologies.

Fig. 17. Distribution of carbon capture projects studied by industry.
5.2. Results of TRL ranking based on expert survey
This study surveyed a total of 21 experts, with 38 % being academic

professors, 28 % being research engineers, 24 % being master’s and
doctorate students, and the other individuals being industry pro
fessionals and post-doctoral associates, as illustrated in Fig. 19 which
shows the Professional distribution of experts surveyed. Table 8 gives
the breakdown of the expert survey questions. A diverse array of ques
tions was put forth and categorized into two sections. The initial section
is to ascertain the expertise of the individual in question in the domain of
carbon capture and storage. For the initial set of inquiries, experts were
requested to evaluate their level of knowledge with carbon capture
techniques, carbon storage techniques, and TRL assessment using a scale
ranging from 1 to 5, where 5 indicates a high level of knowledge and 1
indicates a low level of familiarity. The response obtained from the 21
experts, as depicted in Fig. 20, reveals that a substantial proportion of
the surveyed individuals are acquainted with carbon capture and stor
age. The figures labelled Fig. 20(a), . (b), and Fig. 20(c) correspond to
Fig. 15. TRL of Pre and Post combustion technologies.
questions 2, 3, and 4, respectively. It is evident that about 50 % of the
sample population is knowledgeable of carbon capture and storage
techniques, as indicated by their ratings of 1–2. Additionally, less than 5
% of the participants rated themselves.
below 2 in both cases, as shown in Fig. 20(a) and 20(b). Nevertheless,
a greater proportion of the sample population is not well-versed in the
TRL evaluation techniques. To address this issue, the IEAGHG TRL scale
was introduced and included on every page of the questionnaire to
ensure that the experts become acquainted with the methodology.
Fig. 21 displays the responses to questions 5, 6, and 7, respectively.
Fig. 21(a) reveals that 81 % of the experts are aware of the existence of
one or more functioning carbon capture plants. Moreover, among these
plants, 82 % are utilizing post-combustion capture, approximately 12 %
are utilizing pre-combustion capture, and around 6 % are utilizing oxy-
fuel combustion capture, as depicted in Fig. 21(b). Furthermore, as
illustrated in Fig. 21(c), about 70 % of these projects channel the
captured carbon towards enhanced oil recovery (EOR), whereas 6 % and
24 % store it in saline aquifers (SA) and enhanced gas recovery (EGR)
respectively.
Section two of the questionnaire requires the experts to evaluate the
three carbon capture approaches using the TRL scale presented in
Table 2. Fig. 22 clearly demonstrates that all the approaches have been
Fig. 16. Distribution of carbon capture projects studied by project scale.
assigned a TRL grade of 1–9 by one or more experts.
However, the breakdown of the responses indicates that most experts
13
Fig. 18. Overall ranking of CCS technologies.
Fig. 19. Professional distribution of experts surveyed.
placed post-combustion capture (Post-CC) as the highest ranked capture higher than the literature. Nevertheless, the primary conclusion
method, followed by pre-combustion capture (Pre-CC), and then oxy- remains unaltered, as post-combustion capture is already an advanced
fuel combustion capture (Oxy-fuel CC), with average TRL rankings of technology classified at TRL 9, TRL 8, and TRL 7 by 47 %, 28 %, and 9 %
8, 7.4, and 6, respectively. The heat map of the ranking indicates that the of the experts, respectively. Pre-combustion capture is also ranked at
TRLs 7–8, 8–9, and 5–7 are associated with Pre-CC, Post-CC, and Oxy- different TRLs by the experts. Specifically, 19 % of the experts put it at
fuel CC, respectively. TRL 9, 33 % at TRL 8, and 33 % at TRL 7. Among these approaches, oxy-
The survey findings significantly corroborate the conclusions of the fuel combustion capture is considered the least developed. It has.
literature study, albeit there is a lack of obvious differentiation between been ranked at TRL 5, TRL 6, and TRL 7 by 20 %, 30 %, and 30 % of
post-combustion capture and pre-combustion capture, as previously the experts, respectively. TRL 8 and TRL 9 received only one ranking
mentioned. Similarly, the expert survey ranked oxy-fuel combustion each from the total of 21 responses.
14
Table 8 largest of its kind in the middle east. It consists of two main components:
Summary of expert survey questions a CO2 capture facility situated in Hawiyah and an EOR scheme imple
Section Questions Options/Scale mented in the ’Uthmaniyah oil field as shown in Table 9. The Uthma
niyah CO2 – EOR Demonstration involves taking CO2 from the Hawiyah
1 Q1. What is your current (a) Academics (Professor), (b)
experience status? Research engineer, (c) Industry natural gas liquids recovery plant located in the Eastern Province of
professional, (d) Post-doctoral, (e) Saudi Arabia. The CO2 is compressed and dehydrated before being sent
Graduate research student through a 70 km pipeline to the Ghawar oil field (Jurassic organic-rich
Q2. Personally, how do you feel 1-5 (5 = highly informed) mudstones at a depth of between 1800 and 2100 m (6000–7000 ft) at a
informed about the following
methods of carbon capture? (a)
rate around 0.8 Mtpa). As per the Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Pre-CC, (b) Post-CC, (c) Oxy-fuel Forum, the objective of the scheme is to assess the incremental oil re
CC. covery, which goes beyond the traditional water flooding method, while
Q3. Personally, how do you feel 1-5 (5 = highly informed) also approximating the amount of CO2 that can be sequestered. The
informed about the following
program aims to address the potential hazards and uncertainties, such as
methods of carbon storage? (a)
EOR, (b) ECBM, (c) Saline Aquifer the possibility of CO2 movement within the reservoir and determine any
(SA), (d) EGR operational difficulties.
Q4. Personally, how do you feel 1-5 (5 = highly informed) This case study provides an in-depth analysis of the evolution of a
informed about technology large-scale CCS facility, starting with its initial research phase and
readiness level (TRL) assessment?
Q5. Are you aware of any active Yes/No
advancing through the demonstration phase, utilizing the TRL scale. The
carbon capture plant in operation? Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR Demonstration Project was chosen because of its
Q6. If your answer to Q5 is yes, strategic positioning in Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-largest oil
please tell us how many? production.
Q7. If your answer to Q5 is yes, (a) Pre-CC, (b) Post-CC, (c) Oxy-
please tell us which carbon capture fuel CC
method is employed? 6.2. Flowchart illustrating TRL milestone of Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR
Q8. If your answer to Q5 is yes, (a) EOR, (b) ECBM, (c) Saline
please tell us which carbon storage Aquifer (SA), (d) EGR
project [85]
method is employed?
2 Q9. What is the current level of TRLs 1-9 The Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR Project as incepted in 2006 is a fully
technical maturity of Pre-CC operational commercial carbon capture project rated at TRL 9 as shown
method?
in Fig. 23. It transitioned from research phase to development phase in
Q10. How much risk and (a) Very high, (b) High), (c) Low,
uncertainty are associated with this (d) Very low 2009 achieving TRL 4 after going through screening, laboratory, and
method? simulation studies. After 5 years of well drilling, pilot design and base
Q11. What is the current level of TRLs 1-9 line testing (development phase), a breakthrough of CO2 injection
technical maturity of Post-CC started in 2015 signaling the beginning of the demonstration phase
method?
Q12. How much risk and (a) Very high, (b) High), (c) Low,
before finally being declared fully commercial (TRL 9) in 2018. This case
uncertainty are associated with this (d) Very low study demonstrates that the process of establishing a CCS plant, starting
method? from the research stage, and progressing to the demonstration phase and
Q13. What is the current level of TRLs 1-9 ultimately commercial operation, requires significant amounts of time
technical maturity of Oxy-fuel CC
and capital investment. Therefore, the explanation for the higher num
method?
Q14. How much risk and (a) Very high, (b) High), (c) Low, ber of CCS plants found in the literature review being classified at low
uncertainty are associated with this (d) Very low TRLs, usually in the research stage.
method?
7. Conclusion
6. Case study: Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR Demonstration Project
This study presents a thorough examination of the current maturity
6.1. Project description trends in carbon capture, as well as a detailed mapping of capturing
methods based on their levels of technological readiness (TRL). An
This pilot project is the first CCS facility in Saudi Arabia and the analysis of 79 projects was conducted to determine the most promising
trends in CCS method. The findings revealed that the most advanced and
Fig. 20. Responses to (a) Q2: familiarity of carbon capture methods, (b) Q3: familiarity of carbon storage methods, and (C) Q4: familiarity of TRL.
15
Fig. 21. Responses to (a) question 5, (b) question 6, and (c) question 7.
Regarding the capture technology, solvent-based absorption/adsorption

post-combustion and pre-combustion capture technologies seem to be
the most advanced, with all the projects in this study achieving TRL 9.
Although membrane and sorbent technologies have been developed,
they have not yet been implemented for commercial use. These methods
are now TRL 3–7, with just one project each at TRL 7 and TRL 8,
respectively.
Regarding prevalence, solvent-based carbon capture is the most
widely used method, accounting for 42 % of the total projects reviewed
in this study. In comparison, sorbent-based and membrane-based cap
ture methods are less prominent, representing 30 % and 28 % of the total
projects, respectively. Carbon storage methods are technologically
advanced, except for ECBM recovery, which has a TRL of 3. Neverthe
less, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and saline aquifer technologies have
been classified as TRL 9, indicating the highest level of technological
maturity. Conversely, enhanced gas recovery (EGR) has attained TRL 8,
indicating a somewhat lower level of technological maturity.
To validate the results of the TRL rating of CCS technologies, which
was determined by a review of existing literature, a group of 21 experts
were surveyed to provide their comprehensive input. Most of these ex
Fig. 22. TRL ranking be experts. perts consist of academic professors and research engineers, while the
remaining portion comprises industry professionals and research stu
dents. The outcome aligns with the findings of the literature review,
Table 9 since 84 % of the specialists rated post-combustion capture as a fully
Key information [84]. developed technology in the demonstration stage. The experts also
Feature Information assess pre-combustion capture at different TRLs. More precisely, 19 % of
the experts rated it as TRL 9, 33 % as TRL 8, and 33 % as TRL 7. Ulti
Facility name Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR Demonstration
Facility category Large Scale Commercial CCS Facility
mately, oxy-fuel combustion capture was deemed the least advanced
Facility status Operational technology, as 80 % of the experts placed it in the development phase
Country Saudi Arabia (TRLs 4–7).
Location Near Al Hofuf, Eastern Province (24.806 N, 49.355 E) Although the TRL assessment is a commonly employed system for
Prime performer Saudi Aramco
evaluating technologies, the authors have identified its limitations
Capture Method Pre-combustion Capture
Separation Technology Solvent based chemical absorption (amine) within the specific context of CCS technology. The method fails to
Type of Storage EOR consider the subjectivity that arises from the authors’ (TRL rating based
CO2 Capture Source Hawiyah NGL Recovery Plant on literature review) and the experts’ (TRL ranking based on expert
CO2 Storage Site Uthmaniyah Production Unit (Ghawar oil Field) survey) perspectives, as they may hold differing viewpoints regarding
Transportation Type Pipeline (onshore to onshore)
the technology’s level of maturity. Furthermore, the qualitative nature
Transportation Distance 70 km
Capture Capacity 0.8 Mtpa of the CCS development process is not adequately represented, as there
is frequently an absence of clarity in assigning a definitive TRL. Also, it
fails to consider significant aspects of the CCS technology, including
commonly used method of capturing carbon dioxide is post-combustion environmental, economic, and social challenges. Combining TRL with
capture, which was implemented in 58 of the projects. Among these more sophisticated rating tools, like the technology development ma
initiatives, 31 % have attained a TRL of 3, while 9 % and 3.5 % have trix, can overcome the earlier source of error, and performing the life
reached TRL 8 and TRL 9, respectively. During the analysis of pre- cycle assessment of the various CCS technologies can overcome the later
combustion capture, a total of 21 projects were encountered. Out of limitation.
these projects, 28 % reached TRL 3, while TRL 8 and TRL 9 each The research discussed here contributes to the growth and organi
accounted for 5 % of the overall pre-combustion capture projects. zation of knowledge about CCS technologies. The output from this study
16
Fig. 23. Trl of Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR demonstration project.
will give useful information about the current state of carbon capture [8] Chen X, Wu X. The roles of carbon capture, utilization and storage in the transition
to a low-carbon energy system using a stochastic optimal scheduling approach.
and storage technologies to industry, academic, and governmental or
J Clean Prod 2022;366(Sep). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132860.
ganizations. The objective is to assist industry-led CO2 capture tech [9] Mikunda T, Brunner L, Skylogianni E, Monteiro J, Rycroft L, Kemper J. Carbon
nology development decision-making processes. For industries that rely capture and storage and the sustainable development goals. Int J Greenh Gas
on membrane, absorption, or adsorption for carbon capture, the Control 2021;108(Jun). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103318.
[10] Olabi AG, Wilberforce T, Elsaid K, Sayed ET, Maghrabie HM, Abdelkareem MA.
research’s conclusions can be a useful reference. This advice is intended Large scale application of carbon capture to process industries – a review. J Clean
to help industries and policymakers make sustainable decisions about Prod Aug. 15, 2022;362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132300. Elsevier
prospective capture technology solutions, both now and in the future. Ltd.
[11] Yoro KO, Daramola MO. CO2 emission sources, greenhouse gases, and the global
warming effect. In: Advances in carbon capture: methods, technologies and
CRediT authorship contribution statement applications. Elsevier; 2020. p. 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819657-
1.00001-3.
[12] McLaughlin H, et al. Carbon capture utilization and storage in review:
Ahmed M. Bukar: Data curation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Sociotechnical implications for a carbon reliant world. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
Writing – original draft. Muhammad Asif: Conceptualization, Meth May 01, 2023;177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113215. Elsevier Ltd.
[13] Win SY, Opaprakasit P, Papong S. Environmental and economic assessment of
odology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
carbon capture and utilization at coal-fired power plant in Thailand. J Clean Prod
2023;414(Aug). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137595.
[14] Zandalinas SI, Fritschi FB, Mittler R. Global warming, climate change, and
Declaration of competing interest environmental pollution: recipe for a multifactorial stress combination disaster.
Trends Plant Sci Jun. 01, 2021;26(6):588–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tplants.2021.02.011. Elsevier Ltd.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [15] Alfonso S, Gesto M, Sadoul B. Temperature increase and its effects on fish stress
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence physiology in the context of global warming. J Fish Biol Jun. 2021;98(6):
1496–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14599.
the work reported in this paper. [16] Papalexiou SM, Montanari A. Global and regional increase of precipitation
extremes under global warming. Water Resour Res Jun. 2019;55(6):4901–14.
Data availability https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024067.
[17] Vijayavenkataraman S, Iniyan S, Goic R. A review of climate change, mitigation
and adaptation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jan. 2012;16(1):878–97. https://doi.
No data was used for the research described in the article. org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.009.
[18] Caudle B, Taniguchi S, Nguyen TTH, Kataoka S. Integrating carbon capture and
utilization into the glass industry: economic analysis of emissions reduction
References through CO2 mineralization. J Clean Prod Sep. 2023;416:137846. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137846.
[1] Pandey A, Asif M. Assessment of energy and environmental sustainability in South [19] Chen S, Liu J, Zhang Q, Teng F, McLellan BC. A critical review on deployment
Asia in the perspective of the sustainable development goals. Renew Sustain Energy planning and risk analysis of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)
Rev Sep. 2022;165:112492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2022.112492. toward carbon neutrality. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Oct. 01, 2022;167. https://
[2] Asif M. Handbook of energy and environmental security. Handbook of energy and doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112537. Elsevier Ltd.
environmental security. Jan. 2022. p. 1–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2020-0- [20] Bakhtiary-Davijany H, Myhrvold T. On methods for maturity assessment of CO2
01524-0. capture technologies. In: Energy procedia. Elsevier Ltd; 2013. p. 2579–84. https://
[3] Q. H. and A. M.. Dynamics of energy, environment and Economy: a Sustainability doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.141.
perspective. first ed. Cham: Springer; 2020. [21] Bhavsar A, Hingar D, Ostwal S, Thakkar I, Jadeja S, Shah M. The current scope and
[4] Dubey A, Arora A. Advancements in carbon capture technologies: a review. J Clean stand of carbon capture storage and utilization ~ A comprehensive review. Case
Prod Nov. 01, 2022;373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133932. Elsevier Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering Dec. 2023;8. https://doi.org/
Ltd. 10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100368.
[5] Turgut O, Bjerketvedt VS, Tomasgard A, Roussanaly S. An integrated analysis of [22] Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation
carbon capture and storage strategies for power and industry in Europe. J Clean technologies: a critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental
Prod Dec. 2021;329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129427. impacts. J CO2 Util 2015;9:82–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2014.12.001.
[6] Kotagodahetti R, Hewage K, Karunathilake H, Sadiq R. Long-term feasibility of Elsevier Ltd.
carbon capturing in community energy systems: a system dynamics-based [23] Conrow EH. Estimating technology readiness level coefficients. J Spacecraft
evaluation. J Clean Prod Dec. 2022;377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Rockets 2011;48(1):146–52. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.46753.
jclepro.2022.134460. [24] Olechowski AL, Eppinger SD, Joglekar N, Tomaschek K. Technology readiness
[7] Asif M. The 4Ds of energy transition: decarbonization, decentralization, decreasing levels: shortcomings and improvement opportunities. Syst Eng Jul. 2020;23(4):
use and digitalization. Wiley; 2022. p. 414 [Online].Available: https://www.wiley. 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21533.
com/en-us/The+4Ds+of+Energy+Transition%3A+Decarbonization%2C+Decentr [25] Engel DW, Dalton AC, Anderson K, Sivaramakrishnan C, Lansing C. Development
alization%2C+Decreasing+Use%2C+and+Digitalization-p-9783527831432. of technology readiness level (TRL) metrics and risk measures [Online]. Available:
[Accessed 7 July 2023]. http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm; 2012.
17
[26] Halicka K. Technology selection using the TOPSIS method. Foresight STI Gov 2020; [52] Wang M, Lawal A, Stephenson P, Sidders J, Ramshaw C. Post-combustion CO2
14(1):85–96. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2020.1.85.96. capture with chemical absorption: a state-of-the-art review. Chem Eng Res Des Sep.
[27] NASA. Expanded guidance for NASA systems engineering. 2016 [Online]. 2011;89(9):1609–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.11.005.
Available: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20170007238. [Accessed 19 February [53] Boot-Handford ME, et al. Carbon capture and storage update. Energy Environ Sci
2023]. 2014;7(1):130–89. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee42350f. Royal Society of
[28] Gutsch M, Leker J. Co-assessment of costs and environmental impacts for off-grid Chemistry.
direct air carbon capture and storage systems. Commun Eng Jan. 2024;3(1):14. [54] Cannone SF, Lanzini A, Santarelli M. A review on co2 capture technologies with
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44172-023-00152-6. focus on co2-enhanced methane recovery from hydrates. Energies Jan. 02, 2021;14
[29] Yagmur Goren A, Erdemir D, Dincer I. Comprehensive review and assessment of (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020387. MDPI AG.
carbon capturing methods and technologies: an environmental research. Environ [55] Ben-Mansour R, et al. Carbon capture by physical adsorption: materials,
Res Jan. 01, 2024;240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117503. Academic experimental investigations and numerical modeling and simulations - a review.
Press Inc. Appl Energy Jan. 01, 2016;161:225–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[30] Kalina J, Skorek-Osikowska A, Bartela Ł, Gładysz P, Lampert K. Evaluation of apenergy.2015.10.011. Elsevier Ltd.
technological options for carbon dioxide utilization. Journal of Energy Resources [56] D’Alessandro DM, Smit B, Long JR. Carbon dioxide capture: prospects for new
Technology, Transactions of the ASME Sep. 2020;142(9). https://doi.org/ materials. Angew Chem Int Ed Aug. 16, 2010;49(35):6058–82. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.4047466/1084427. 10.1002/anie.201000431.
[31] Baker R, Alizadeh Sahraei O, Dal-Cin MM, Bensebaa F. A technology development [57] Khalilpour R, Mumford K, Zhai H, Abbas A, Stevens G, Rubin ES. Membrane-based
matrix for carbon capture: technology status and R&D gap assessment. Frontiers in carbon capture from flue gas: a review. J Clean Prod 2015;103:286–300. https://
Energy Resources 2022;10(Aug). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.908658. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.050. Elsevier Ltd.
[32] Terlouw T, Treyer K, Bauer C, Mazzotti M. Life cycle assessment of direct air [58] Koytsoumpa EI, Magiri – Skouloudi D, Karellas S, Kakaras E. Bioenergy with carbon
carbon capture and storage with low-carbon energy sources. Environ Sci Technol capture and utilization: a review on the potential deployment towards a European
Aug. 2021;55(16):11397–411. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03263. circular bioeconomy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;152(Dec. 01). https://doi.
[33] Darabkhani HG, Varasteh H, Bazooyar B. Carbon capture technologies for gas- org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111641. Elsevier Ltd.
turbine-based power plants. Carbon Capture Technologies for Gas-Turbine-Based [59] Kárászová M, et al. Post-combustion carbon capture by membrane separation,
Power Plants Jan. 2022:1–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-04100-6. Review. Separ Purif Technol May 01, 2020;238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[34] Goulart MBR, et al. Technology readiness assessment of ultra-deep Salt caverns for seppur.2019.116448. Elsevier B.V.
carbon capture and storage in Brazil. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2020;99(Aug). [60] Carlos Abanades J, Grasa G, Alonso M, Rodriguez N, Anthony EJ, Romeo LM. The
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103083. cost structure of a postcombustion CO2 capture system using CaO. Environ Sci
[35] Dermühl S, Riedel U. A comparison of the most promising low-carbon hydrogen Technol 2007;41. https://doi.org/10.1021/es070099a. ACS Publications, June 20.
production technologies. Fuel May 2023;340:127478. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [61] Bakke K. Technology readiness levels use and understanding. INCOSE; 2023
FUEL.2023.127478. [Online]. Available: https://9pdf.net/document/yr3dj8x7-technology-readiness-le
[36] Rahmanta MA, Harto AW, Agung A, Ridwan MK. Nuclear power plant to support vels-use-and-understanding.html.
Indonesia’s net zero emissions: a case study of small modular reactor technology [62] Yasseri SF, Bahai H. System readiness level estimation of oil and gas production
selection using technology readiness level and levelized cost of electricity systems. International Journal of Coastal & Offshore Engineering 2018;3
comparing method. Energies 2023;16:3752. https://doi.org/10.3390/ (September) [Online]. Available: http://ijcoe.org/browse.php?a_code
EN16093752. 16, no. 9, p. 3752, Apr. 2023. =A-10-121-3&sid=1&slc_lang=en.
[37] Pascual S, Lisbona P, Romeo LM. Thermal energy storage in concentrating solar [63] Menmuir D, Florence S, Taylor K. Next generation carbon capture technology
power plants: a review of European and North American R&D projects. Energies technology review work package 2 department for business, energy and industrial
Nov. 2022;15(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/EN15228570. strategy. 2022 [Online]. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/gove
[38] Rybicka J, Tiwari A, Leeke GA. Technology readiness level assessment of rnment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1079540/aecom-next-gen-
composites recycling technologies. J Clean Prod Jan. 2016;112:1001–12. https:// carbon-capture-technology-technology-review-annex-1.pdf. [Accessed 14 April
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.104. 2023].
[39] Schumacher A, Erol S, Sihn W. A maturity model for assessing industry 4.0 [64] Steyn M, et al. GLOBAL status of carbon capture and storage 2023. Global CCS
readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. In: Procedia CIRP. Elsevier B. Institute; 2023 [Online]. Available: https://status23.globalccsinstitute.com/.
V.; 2016. p. 161–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040. [Accessed 26 March 2023].
[40] Davies LL, Uchitel K, Ruple J. Understanding barriers to commercial-scale carbon [65] Tang Zhong. Integrated multichannel water gas shift catalytic membrane reactor
capture and sequestration in the United States: an empirical assessment. Energy Pol for pre-combustion carbon capture. United States: US Department of Energy; 2022
Aug. 2013;59:745–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.033. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1508831. [Accessed 28 April
[41] Wilberforce T, Baroutaji A, Soudan B, Al-Alami AH, Olabi AG. Outlook of carbon 2024].
capture technology and challenges. Sci Total Environ 2019 Mar 20;657:56–72. [66] Lin Jerry YS. High-temperature ceramic-carbonate dual-phase membrane reactor
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.424. Epub 2018 Dec 4. PMID: for pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture (final scientific/technical report).
30530219. United States: US Department of Energy; 2022. https://doi.org/10.2172/1899858.
[42] Rosa L, Mazzotti M. Potential for hydrogen production from sustainable biomass Web.
with carbon capture and storage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;157(Apr). [67] Ho, Winston WS, Han Yang. Transformational membranes for pre-combustion
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112123. carbon capture (final report). US Department of Energy, United States: Nahrung
[43] Shu DY, Deutz S, Winter BA, Baumgärtner N, Leenders L, Bardow A. The role of 2022. https://doi.org/10.2172/1872189. Web.
carbon capture and storage to achieve net-zero energy systems: trade-offs between [68] Kniep Jay, Salim Witopo, Merkel Tim, Casillas Carlos, Amo Karl, He Jenny,
economics and the environment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev May 2023;178. Huang Ivy, Nguyen Vincent, Batoon. Bench-scale development of a transformative
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113246. membrane process for pre-combustion Co2 capture. United States: US Department
[44] Wang M, Lawal A, Stephenson P, Sidders J, Ramshaw C. Post-combustion CO2 of Energy; 2022. Web.
capture with chemical absorption: a state-of-the-art review. Chem Eng Res Des Sep. [69] Jayaweera I. Development and testing of a high-temperature PBI hollow-fiber
2011;89(9):1609–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.11.005. membrane technology for pre-combustion CO 2 capture primary project goal.
[45] Wiesberg IL, de Medeiros JL, Paes de Mello RV, Santos Maia JGS, Bastos JBV, United States: US Department of Energy; 2022. Web.
Araújo O de QF. Bioenergy production from sugarcane bagasse with carbon capture [70] Lin H. Development of carbon molecular sieves hollow fiber membranes based on
and storage: surrogate models for techno-economic decisions. Renew Sustain polybenzimidazole doped with polyprotic acids with superior H2/CO2 separation
Energy Rev 2021;150(Oct). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111486. properties primary project goal (final report). United States: US Department of
[46] Ghiat I, Al-Ansari T. A review of carbon capture and utilisation as a CO2 abatement Energy; 2022.
opportunity within the EWF nexus. J CO2 Util Mar. 01, 2021;45. https://doi.org/ [71] Richard C. Critical component/technology gap in 21st Century power plant
10.1016/j.jcou.2020.101432. Elsevier Ltd. gasification-based Polygeneration: advanced ceramic membranes/Modules for
[47] Tao H, Qian X, Zhou Y, Cheng H. Research progress of clay minerals in carbon Ultra-efficient H 2 production/CO2 capture for coal-based polygeneration plants.
dioxide capture. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Aug. 01, 2022;164. https://doi.org/ United States: US Department of Energy; 2022. p. N.
10.1016/j.rser.2022.112536. Elsevier Ltd. [72] Schaefer Jeff. Blue Bison ATR advanced CCUS system (final report). US Department
[48] Wilberforce T, Olabi AG, Sayed ET, Elsaid K, Abdelkareem MA. Progress in carbon of Energy, United States: Nahrung 2023. https://doi.org/10.2172/1975500. Web.
capture technologies. Sci Total Environ 2021;761(Mar). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [73] Robert H. Initial engineering design study for advanced CO 2 capture from
scitotenv.2020.143203. hydrogen production unit at phillips 66 rodeo refinery. United States: US
[49] Olabi AG, et al. Assessment of the pre-combustion carbon capture contribution into Department of Energy; 2022. p. N.
sustainable development goals SDGs using novel indicators. Renew Sustain Energy [74] Alptekin Gökhan O. Pilot testing of a highly efficient pre-combustion sorbent-based
Rev 2022;153(Jan). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111710. carbon capture system. United States: US Department of Energy; 2022. https://doi.
[50] Rubin ES, Mantripragada H, Marks A, Versteeg P, Kitchin J. The outlook for org/10.2172/1906977. Web.
improved carbon capture technology. Prog Energy Combust Sci Oct. 2012;38(5): [75] Gokhan A. A high efficiency, modular pre-combustion capture system for 21st
630–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.003. century power plant polygeneration process primary project goal. United States:
[51] Chao C, Deng Y, Dewil R, Baeyens J, Fan X. Post-combustion carbon capture. US Department of Energy; 2022.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;138(Mar). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [76] Daniels K, Tsotsis T. Bench-scale testing of a high-efficiency, ultra-compact process
rser.2020.110490. for pre-combusion CO 2 capture primary project goal (final report). United States:
US Department of Energy; 2022.
18
[77] Liu Q, et al. Carbon capture and storage for long-term and safe sealing with [82] Yu X, Zhang S, Liu L, Du J. Optimal design and scheduling of carbon capture power
constrained natural CO2 analogs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2023;171(Jan). plant based on uncertainty decision-making methods. J Clean Prod 2022;380(Dec).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134852.
[78] Thonemann N, Zacharopoulos L, Fromme F, Nühlen J. Environmental impacts of [83] Dziejarski B, Krzyżyńska R, Andersson K. Current status of carbon capture,
carbon capture and utilization by mineral carbonation: a systematic literature utilization, and storage technologies in the global economy: a survey of technical
review and meta life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod Jan. 2022;332:130067. assessment. Fuel 2023;342(Jun). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.130067. [84] Uthmaniyah CO2 EOR demonstration project details. Saudi Aramco 2023 [Online].
[79] Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: Available: https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/project-info/624.
IPCC special report prepared by working group III of the intergovernmental panel [85] Alshehri AJ. Uthmaniyah CO 2-EOR demonstration project. Saudi Aramco 2023
on climate change, vol. 432; 2005. Montreal. [Online]. Available: https://fossil.energy.gov/archives/cslf/sites/default/files/do
[80] Bachu S. Review of CO2 storage efficiency in deep saline aquifers. Int J Greenh Gas cuments/tokyo2016/Alshehri-UthmaniyahCO2EORProject-Workshop-Session2-To
Control Sep. 2015;40:188–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJGGC.2015.01.007. kyo1016.pdf.
[81] Bui M, et al. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ
Sci May 2018;11(5):1062–176. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EE02342A.
19

TRL Assessment of CCS Technologies 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRL Assessment of CCS Technologies 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRL Assessment of CCS Technologies 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 200 (2024) 114578

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Technology readiness level assessment of carbon capture and

research, to field-tested solutions. The level of preparedness is typi­

Fig. 1. Research method.

Fig. 2. Carbon capture and storage methods [46].

Fig. 3. IGCC coal plant with pre combustion [50].

3.2. Methods of carbon separation

Fig. 6. Membrane separation [57].

Fig. 7. Adsorption separation [50].

Fig. 8. Global CCS Facilities by development stage (July 2023).

Fig. 9. Development in CCS facilities from September 2022 to July 2023.

Fig. 10. Regional overview of CCS Facilities (July 2023).

Fig. 17 illustrates the percentage of carbon capture projects studied

Fig. 13. Comparison between pre- and post-combustion capture technologies.

Fig. 14. TRL ranking of carbon storage technologies.

5.2. Results of TRL ranking based on expert survey

This study surveyed a total of 21 experts, with 38 % being academic

Fig. 18. Overall ranking of CCS technologies.

Fig. 19. Professional distribution of experts surveyed.

Regarding the capture technology, solvent-based absorption/adsorption

Fig. 23. Trl of Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR demonstration project.

You might also like

research, to field-tested solutions. The level of preparedness is typi