Prospects of carbon capture, utilization and storage for mitigating climate change

Carbon capture ( i.e. , CO 2 capture) and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilization (CCU) are recognized as potential pathways to combat global climate change. Numerous e ﬀ orts are underway, such as CCS ( e.g. , biochar used for soil amendment; captured carbon injected into onshore or o ﬀ shore reservoirs) and CCU (captured CO 2 used for crop/algae production), due to enormous societal, economic and environmental concerns on climate change and for complying with emission regulations as well as meeting the committed emission reduction targets. This study compiled information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction initiatives, including CCS and CCU on the earth, recent technological advances in CCS and CCU, and their economic, environmental and societal implications. The prospect of CCS and CCU technologies has also been discussed. CCS processes require less energy compared with CCU and thus tend to be more cost-e ﬀ ective than CCU. The global warming potential (GWP) and the cost of energy systems that deployed CCS/CCU varied from 0.007 – 0.225 kg CO 2 eq per MJ and $0.017 – 0.070 MJ − 1 , respectively. Both CCS and CCU have challenges, and public perception of these initiatives seems to be complex or not satisfactory for deploying large-scale projects, which hinders meeting the GHG emission reduction targets of di ﬀ erent jurisdictions. The acceptance of CCU seems to be higher compared to that of CCS because of the concerns about land-use complexities. For a carbon-neutral economy, a single transition pathway appears to be inadequate. Stringent policies, ﬁ nancial incentives/bene ﬁ ts, stakeholder participation and technological advances would be crucial for the transition; however, technological advances and policy initiatives must be justi ﬁ ed by a broader sustainability check to avoid the risk of investment and climate change.


Introduction
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to increase with industrial growth to meet the rising demand of the increasing population on the earth.Fig. 1 depicts the emissions of CO 2 from different sectors on the earth. 1 Most of the climate change in the last 50 years resulted mainly from human activities, and population growth is noted to be the main driver of GHG emissions. 2It is noted that about 87% of CO 2 emissions produced by human activities are from burning of fossil fuels. 3he growing concerns about the global warming led different jurisdictions to initiate CCS initiatives in an attempt to combat climate change.Despite various climate change mitigation initiatives, CO 2 emissions from energy sectors increased by 1.7% in 2018 compared to the previous year and reached 33.1 billion tonnes. 4Annual global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions are 32 000 million tonnes, while utilization is noted to be only 200 million tonnes. 5The global emissions need to be reduced at a rate of 3% (37 Gt CO 2 per year) to net-zero by 2050 6 to limit global warming to 2 °C.Fossil fuel-powered plants (industries/ power plants) require CCS for low carbon energy technologies and to mitigate rising emissions; 7,8 however, low carbon technologies are yet to be ready for commercial deployment. 9The International Energy Agency (IEA) urged for annual CCS of 6000 MtCO 2 by 2050 10 to combat rising global warming.2][13] The methods of postcombustion carbon capture include adsorption by solid materials and aqueous solutions 14 along with afforestation and in situ injection and storage of carbon in the form of treated biomass (biocarbon/biochar).The adsorption methods are less energy-intensive as well as avoid the production of contaminated sorbents and adverse byproducts. 14,15Consequently, carbon balance not only in the terrestrial ecosystem but also in the entire ecosystem by 2050 would be the key to mitigating global climate changes.
The commonly used CCS/CCU routes are the bioroute (biomass is grown and processed for producing chemicals) and the current fossil fuel and chemical processes, which are equipped with a carbon capture infrastructure and the captured carbon is used for green hydrogen production in a chemical process. 16Several authors have noted that pyrolytic CCS (PyCCS) is a potential way to mitigate global climate changes. 17,18In a PyCCS process, biochar/biocarbon and bio-oil, as well as CO 2 captured from pyrogas, are stored for a prolonged period, which may evolve as a key tool in developing sustainable development goals and mitigating climate change. 17he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identied four potential pathways to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C and foresee the signicant contribution of Prof. Amar Mohanty is a Distinguished Research Chair in Sustainable Biomaterials at the Ontario Agriculture College and the Director of the Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre.He is a Professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture and School of Engineering at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Dr Mohanty is the Editor-in-Chief of Sustainable Composites @ Composites Part C -Open Access.He is one of the most cited researchers worldwide with more than 800 publications to his credit, including 450 peer-reviewed journal papers, 70 patents (awarded/applied), 5 edited books, 25 book chapters, 350+ conference papers and over 200 plenary and keynote presentations.His Google-Scholar citation count is 48115 and the h-index is 98 (January 29, 2023).He has received many awards, the most recent one being the prestigious Miroslaw Romanowski Medal of 2021 for his signicant scientic contributions to the resolution of environmental problems from the Royal Society of Canada.CCS and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), 11,19 which could be the key to limiting the climate change to 1.5-2 °C; 11,20 however, the process is yet to be implemented on the industrial scale. 6In the long-term, the CCS approach tends to be a cost-efficient power supply; however, the energy efficiency is hindered by the energy requirement in operating the CCS process. 19The International Energy Agency (IEA) also projected the required sectoral changes for achieving the CO 2 emission mitigation target.CO 2 emission reduction through CCS, renewables, nuclear generation efficiency, power generation efficiency and fuel switching, end-use fuel switching, and end-use fuel and electricity efficiency need to be 19, 17, 6, 5, 15 and 38%, respectively, to meet the climate change goal by 2050. 21,22Fig. 2 represents the required emission reduction through different technological changes from 2010-2050. 22Although numerous efforts are underway to deploy carbon capture, utilization and storage initiatives, their economic, environmental and societal prospects are yet to be fully developed.This study compiled information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction initiatives, including CCS and CCU, and recent technological advances in CCS and CCU, and their economic, environmental and societal implications have been discussed.

Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) initiatives
CCUS encompasses carbon capture, separation and compression, transport, storage, and utilization and is a recognized promising emission mitigation technology. 235][26][27] A study that introduced industrial CCS in a global multi-region multi-sector energy-Fig. 2 Projected technologies to be used to mitigate climate change. 22[Although enormous efforts are underway in every sector of human activities for mitigating rising GHG emissions and meeting the climate change targets, a wide range of technologies will be necessary to reduce energy-related CO 2 emissions substantially.Among the projected technologies, the end-use fuel and electricity efficiency leads the potential emission reduction, followed by CCS, renewables and end-use fuel switching].Copyright 2022, Elsevier (Earth-Science Reviews; Open access).economic model also conrmed the CO 2 mitigation opportunity in industrial sectors, especially in the chemicals, steel and cement industries. 12ECCS and afforestation with land use management are recognized as the main negative emission technologies. 28,29owever, CCU was noted to be a better option compared to CCS, 25 and CCU has higher acceptance. 30In contrast, the CCS approach is noted to be more practical 31,32 and can be adapted to address global climate change challenges. 31CCU is also recognized as a valid alternative to geological storage and producing value-added products. 33For example, emissions from steel mills and gasied waste biomass were converted directly into monoethylene glycol (MEG) through fermentation by using an engineered bacterium as the building block for various plastic products such as resins, bres, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and bottles; 34 however, the demand of CO 2 as a feedstock for various end-products is noted to be less than global CO 2 emissions. 30However, CCU is identied to be energy-intensive (10-25 times higher than the CCS process if hydrogen is produced), mainly because of greater electricity consumption in hydrogen production. 16On the other hand, the bio-route (biomass is grown and processed for producing chemicals) requires 40 and 400 times more land area compared with CCU and CCS processes, respectively.
The present technologies and infrastructures can be used for CCS instead of reshaping the chemical industries for CCU, i.e., hydrogen production from captured carbon; however, the authors noted that each process has its pros and cons; thus, there is no clear winner. 16Although various technologies are available for decarbonization of industries, CCS is noted to be the cheap option for the cement and steel industries. 35,36New power plants operating on fossil commodities require about 25-30% energy per net kW h output for carbon capturing. 31In an advanced chemical process, anthropogenic carbon is captured and converted into inorganic solid carbonates to reduce the carbon intensity of energy systems. 37In addition, carbonates can be produced by deploying accelerated carbonation in solid waste management stages, which have the reuse potential. 38ological storage CCS usually consists of four stages: capturing, compression, transportation and injection. 39,40The depleted oil reservoirs, coal beds or deep saline aquifers, [41][42][43] and in situ mineralization in basalts 44,45 are used for geological CO 2 storage.It is estimated that oil and gas reservoirs as well as saline aquifers have adequate capacity to store anthropogenic CO 2 for two centuries. 24The captured carbon is concentrated at high pressure and temperature (at a supercritical state; 31 °C at 73.77 bar) 3,46 and then transported (usually through pipelines) 47 to onshore or offshore reservoirs or into the saline aquifers for storage.The injected carbon reacts with other minerals in the host rocks and produces solid minerals, considered a permanent form of sequestration (known as mineral carbonation). 48On the other hand, carbon mineralization also has the potential where CO 2 from waste can react with mineral/metal oxides, silicates or hydroxides to produce carbonates. 38or in situ mineralization in basaltic rocks, CO 2 is separated from other non-condensable emissions in the exhaust gas of a thermal power plant through water dissolution and then transported to the well-site and injected along with geothermal brine from the power plant. 44Koukouzas et al. noted that the physicochemical properties of basaltic rocks provide signicant advantages for CO 2 mineral carbonation and thus for CCS. 45A laboratory-based study on mineral carbonation in uid-rocks, i.e., representative mantle rocks also conrmed that carbon can be stored in mantle rocks. 49

Afforestation and reforestation
Afforestation and reforestation is another potential pathway of carbon capture from air through photosynthesis and produces oxygen, thus reducing CO 2 concentration in air, 50,51 which is also known to be a nature-based solution. 52A hybrid model (computable general equilibrium model) for China predicted that annual carbon removals through afforestation will reach 617 MtCO 2 in 2060. 53The model also projected that most biomass would consist of 43-47% cellulosic crops and 49-52% residues in 2060; thus, the cropland in China would reduce by 6.9-8.3%due to land competition. 53The Chinese study also indicates that not only in China, but this trend would also prevail in most other jurisdictions.Ocean afforestation (with Sargassum) was also reported to be effective for CCS; however, carbon removal efficiency of Sargassum reduced by 20-100% because of nutrient reallocation and calcication by marine life. 54he afforestation of unproductive or abandoned farmland or non-forest land increases carbon land sinks and thus can Fig. 3 An overview of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.[Carbon can be captured from the power generation or industry sector or from the atmosphere through chemical absorption, membrane separation or adsorption, concentrated at high pressure and temperature, transported to the onshore or offshore reservoir or saline aquifers and then injected for storage.Alternatively, atmospheric carbon can be captured through photosynthesis and converted into various bioproducts (e.g., biocarbon, bio-oil, graphene, etc.).For a successful implementation of CCS and CCU, technological advances and stakeholder participation are required].
mitigate climate change. 55The authors also noted that the choice of species and the forest management strategy have a signicant impact on carbon stocks. 55Although afforestation is a potential pathway for CCS, emission mitigation of afforestation depends on the forest growth rate irrespective of tree harvesting. 56The soil organic carbon also has valuable implications in afforestation or reforestation and their management. 57Reforestation also shows promise for carbon capture; however, there are concerns about water use for CO 2 xation. 58n another study, it is also noted that afforestation may be limited by water availability and about half of the suitable tree restoration on the earth are experiencing water scarcity for at least 7 months of the year. 59The higher temperature due to the global warming can accelerate decomposition of the soil organic matter, which affects nutrient availability and thus plant productivity. 60In addition, the rising concerns about landuse change can also restrict afforestation activities for carbon capture.Consequently, plant species and land need to be selected carefully for any afforestation and reforestation activity.

Seaweed/algae
The photosynthesis rate of algae was noted to be forty times greater than those of terrestrial plants, 61 and thus can play a crucial role in carbon capture and mitigating GWP.Then algae can be used for diversied biomaterials and biofuels and thus can also be a potential BECCS pathway.For example, microalgae are identied as one of the potential feedstocks for thirdgeneration bioenergy/biofuels for transferring atmospheric CO 2 into biomass through photosynthesis and algae are accounted for 50% of global organic CO 2 xation; 62 however, it is not yet commercially viable and is currently operating at a pilot scale only. 63Technological advances in the cultivation and conversion process of microalgae to bioenergy would be effective in CO 2 removal.In addition, algae contain health-benecial components such as iodine and tyrosine as well as antioxidants, 64 and thus can be used as vegetable/food ingredients in the food industry or the medical industry and can help in mitigating CO 2 in the environment.Although seaweed farming is likely useful in achieving some of the sustainable development goals (zero hunger, sustainable production, and consumption, economic growth, etc.) of the United Nations but it may affect marine life. 65In addition, BECCS deployed in algal bioenergy (bicarbonate-based integrated carbon capture and algae production) can also be a low-carbon algal bioeconomy. 66icroalgae use CO 2 as their building block and can be used for various value-added products such as biofuels, carbohydrates and lipids, biomaterials, and extracellular polymeric substances, and electricity. 67In the USA, a model study conrmed that pure CO 2 from the corn ethanol production process could be used for algae cultivation in an open pond, thus reducing GHG emission and water stress and can avoid the energy-intensive carbon capturing process for CCU. 68A wide range of value-added products for industrial applications can also be produced from algae-based biomass, such as food, feed and cosmetics. 69It seems that algae not only have a promising future for removing atmospheric CO 2 but also can play an important role in producing food, feed and biofuels.

Application of biocarbon for carbon capture and storage
Biocarbon/biochar used for soil amendment is one of the promising pathways to capture and store carbon as well as improve soil health; 17 however, the accumulation capacity of organic carbon is limited. 70The carbon efficiency of the thermal conversion of biomass into biochar is noted to be only 30-50%; however, it can be more than 70% in the case of pyrolytic CCS. 17 It is also argued that carbon in bio-oil can be sequestered for more than 1000 years if pumped into the depleted fossil deposits/reservoirs. 71 Simultaneous activation and graphitization at high temperatures in the presence of iron acetate and potassium acetate produced porous graphitized carbon facilitating a smooth transition from micro to mesopores which is suitable for both low-and high-pressure carbon capture. 72The carbon capture efficiency (35-74 mg g −1 ) was noted to be dependent on the treatment conditions of biochar/biocarbon. 73owever, microporous carbon had a higher adsorption capacity, i.e., it seems adsorption depends on the narrow space (<1 nm) rather than on the surface area or the pore space of activated carbon. 74ctivated carbons produced from biomass usually have a high surface area and porous structure, 75 thus having great application in many sectors such as carbon capture, contaminant removal, etc. 76 In addition, the surface functionality and microporosity of activated carbon can be controlled by changing sodium hydroxide concentration. 77The CO 2 adsorption capacity of graphene-type materials (0.07 mol g −1 ) is noted to be ten times higher than that of the activated carbon. 5The regeneration of the CO 2 sorbent is energy intensive; however, the recent advances in sorbent technology reduce the energy consumption in the regeneration process.For example, regeneration energy consumption for the modulated amine blend reached 2.17 GJ per tonne of CO 2 ; however, it is 3.5 GJ in the case of monoethanolamine. 5arious adsorption methods are used in pre-conversion and post-conversion stages, such as amine-based, alkaline, activated carbon, etc.; however, the amine-based solvent (monoethanolamine) is noted to be the most commonly used solvent. 78The specic surface area increases several times if biocarbon is activated. 74The adsorption capacity of porous biocarbon produced from the undervalued biomass led to increased applications for purication in both gaseous and aqueous phases. 79Porous biocarbon is recognized as an excellent adsorbent to remove CO 2 from biogas/syngas to produce bio-CH 4 . 79Pressure swing adsorption (PSA) is one of the most used gas purication processes using a carbon molecular sieve, 80 which uses pressure modulation to capture undesired gases such as CO 2 in biogas. 81licy efforts for carbon capture, storage, and utilization Many policy efforts are underway to commercialize the CCS initiatives, such as cash and tax incentives, preferential nancing, etc. 7,82 Turning carbon sources into carbon sink initiatives are in place to combat the rising GHG emissions, especially in developing countries, through the World Bank BioCarbon Fund or the voluntary market. 83The United States of America (USA) established the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Initiative comprising more than 400 organizations in 43 states to support research for storing carbon through eld projects.Canada has conducted 19 small-scale eld research studies in four provinces and developed the required framework to validate geological carbon storage. 82The capacity of underground/geological (oil and gas; coal bed and saline aquifers) storage is projected to be 10 329-200 492 GtCO 2 ; 24 however, site development would be costly and time-consuming. 11The storage capacity of various reservoirs in the USA and Canada is 2618-21 978 GtCO 2 , which can store anthropogenic CO 2 for two centuries. 24On the other hand, a hybrid computable general equilibrium (CGE) model for China predicted that in 2060 the annual carbon removal through bioelectricity with CCS, biofuels with CCS and afforestation will reach 2118, 170 and 617 MtCO 2 , respectively. 53O 2 source-sink mapping analysis noted that almost all stationary CO 2 (annual emission from power plants, reneries, iron and steel mills and cement factories is 1.7 Gt) in China for 367 years could be stored in offshore gas and oil reservoirs and saline aquifers within a 350 km distance from the coast.84 The increasing policy support resulted in the development of 23 large-scale projects, mainly in natural gas processing and chemical processing plants in the world, with an annual CO 2 capture capacity of 40 million tonnes.11 However, in 2021, 27 plants were in operation, and the total CCS capacity of those plants was 36.6 million tonnes.85 Although various activities are underway, technological readiness, the capital cost, and the credibility of revenues and incentives are noted to be the important attributes.7 The technological advances as well as policy initiatives may dictate the viability of CCS and CCU.11 Norway is the rst country to adopt the CCUS initiative and dra an action plan, 'Climate Settlement 2007' for becoming a net carbon-neutral country 86,87 followed by Japan which enacted a law in 2007 to legalize the injection of CO 2 into underground saline aquifers.87,88 In 2018, the incentive for CCUS was enacted in the United States of America (USA) to enable it to be economically viable.It is noted that 50% of government nancing in infrastructure development would enable to protably capture and transport 19 million tonnes of CO 2 each year, while 100% of nancing would lead to enhancing the oil recovery industry by 50%.89 The progress of CCUS is falling short of what is required to achieve net-zero emissions.For example, the CCS technology is deployed in only 3% of electricity generation plants in some jurisdictions such as China, Japan, the European Union, and the USA.18 The UK's committee on climate change recommends the Fig. 4 Technology deployment requirements in order to meet the UK's CCC target.18 [The surfaces show the requirement of technology deployment for meeting the UK's decarbonization targets of the power generation sector for CO 2 emissions of 100 g kW −1 h −1 and 50 g kW −1 h −1 .For a weaker emission target (100 g kW −1 h −1 target) a pure CCS solution is possible at just 27 GW of CCS. Onthe other hand, for a maximum wind scenario ( 56 deployment of various technologies for electricity generation to achieve the emission reduction targets of 50-100 g CO 2 per kW h.18 Fig. 4 depicts various combinations of electricity technology deployment to achieve the emission reduction target of the UK.18 The two surfaces (ACDB and cdb) of this gure represent the technological mix to meet the reduction targets of 50 g CO 2 per kW h and 100 g CO 2 per kW h, respectively.For example, point A is pure nuclear (31 GW), and C is the mix of wind (56 GW) and nuclear (18 GW) in the absence of gas-CCS.This model would be useful for other jurisdictions to outline their strategies for meeting climate change goals.
Wang et al. noted that the risk in the implementation of CCS projects increases with the plant capacity, and larger plants face a greater risk.For example, the risk failure increases by 50% if the annual plant capacity is raised by 1 million tonnes of CO 2 . 90However, increased policy support in building its market as well as gradual upscaling would balance the risk and return. 90he authors also argued that the existing support is inadequate to mitigate the risk allied with CCS project upscaling.The carbon taxes are noted to be a better option for the deployment of CCS technologies compared to emission trading. 90The recent introduction of the 45Q tax credit in the USA stimulated private sector industries for the deployment of CCS, which would be the foundation for future CCS projects. 82Although CCS/CCUS is useful for decarbonizing coal-based power plants, technological advances, markets, and policy design would determine the viability of CCU/CCUS in coal-based power plants. 82he carbon nance initiatives can be a potential way not only in developing countries but also in developed countries.For example, a study in Alberta, Canada, conrmed that carbon incentives for afforestation and agricultural farming for new cash crops are benecial. 83China has adopted CCUS for future strategies for carbon mitigation initiatives which have exhibited a strong inuence on progress; however, the Chinese CCUS policy was noted to be insufficient for further development. 87It is also noted that CCUS has the potential to meet the energy demand and CO 2 emission reduction limit in developing countries 87 and is crucial for decarbonizing the energy system. 91he existing energy system can be decarbonized through CCUS, and it can be achieved at a low cost through hydrogen storage and renewables. 13,92However, the construction of new power plants without CCS receive higher public support compared with the plants with CCS because of greater taxes to support the CCS approach; thus, a specic policy is required to shape the public support for the deployment of large-scale CCS projects. 93n addition, the public support for CCS seems to be low, 94,95 which needs to increase for the successful deployment of CCS projects.

Advances in carbon capture and storage
CCS and CCU are widely recognized decarbonizing processes having the potential to meet climate change challenges. 18,96The potential CCS technologies applied in power plants are postcombustion (solvent is used to capture carbon and it is passed through a regenerator for stripping the CO 2 from the solution), oxy-combustion (fossil fuels burn in oxygen) and precombustion (fossil fuels are converted into synthetic gas, especially into hydrogen and CO 2 ). 97Becattini et al. revealed that the CCUS initiative where CO 2 was captured directly from air or from the point source such as the biogenic carbon capture from waste to energy plants (in both cases, CO 2 was used as a feedstock to produce jet fuel) was feasible for the net-zero emission aviation industry.Although CCUS exhibits the potential of capturing anthropogenic carbon, 38 there are pros and cons to the processes as well as challenges to achieving netzero emission aviation. 96Leakage has been identied to be one of the major constraints in geological carbon storage; however, various sealant materials and mechanisms have also been developed for CO 2 leakage remediation (Portland cement, resins, geopolymer cement, foams, biolms barriers, gel systems, and nanoparticles). 41Lime production through the calcium-looping process integrated with the steel industry is identied as a potential pathway for decarbonizing the industrial sector by 2030 and meeting the long-term decarbonization target, which also emerged as economically viable. 98uel switching, improvement of energy efficiency and increasing use of renewables are noted to be useful in the decarbonization of energy systems. 99There are concerns about the environment and biodiversity in the case of the deployment of large-scale bioenergy systems with CCS because of its land and water demand 20 as well as competition with food crops for productive land.However, the impacts of BECCS on agricultural commodity prices are projected to be limited (5-15%), and the deployment of large-scale BECCS projects is not detrimental to agricultural commodity prices. 28Consequently, careful consideration must be placed on the deployment of a large-scale bioenergy system coupled with CCUS to avoid competition for land with food crops to avoid any unwanted rebound effects on the food supply chains for the rising population on the earth; thus, a regulatory framework is a must for land use for the jurisdictions adopting large-scale bioenergy systems.

Environmental, economic, and societal impacts
Although CCS plays an important role in mitigating global climate change, 100,101 its economic and environmental costs are not well known, 101 or economic viability and technological feasibility are challenging, 100 or the potential economic and environmental implications of decarbonization pathways have not been fully evaluated. 53A study that simulated hydrogen production (i.e., energy production) from either natural gas or biomethane with CCS provided economic and environmental benets; however, the use of biomethane was reported to be a better option. 102The CCU initiatives in hydrogen production reduced 23% of global warming potential (GWP) compared to the CCS initiatives, where captured carbon was used for polyol production. 103On the other hand, GWP reduction from the power plants was 63-82% in the case of CCS; however, it was 4-48% in the case of mineral carbonization. 78Schakel et al. noted that dimethyl ether (DME) produced from captured carbon through dry reforming reduced GWP by 8% compared to that without CO 2 capture; however, it was 37% higher than the conventionally produced DME, while carbon is stored. 104he addition of CCS with the steam reforming of natural gas into hydrogen reduced GWP by 45-85%, while other impacts slightly increased. 8,102The authors noted that at a 20-60% increased production cost of hydrogen, 55-90% of CO 2 of the plant can be captured. 102For example, although 90% reduction of direct CO 2 emission was observed in the case of CCS-adopted power plants (combustion-based electricity generation), the actual reduction reached 40-80% for the climate change impact; however, other environmental impacts (AP, EP, HTP, and ETP) increased to a varying extent, 8,105 which resulted in 15-44% energy penalty. 8The environmental impacts of CCS-adopted coal-based power plants also depend on CCS technologies. 78 trial experiment for offshore carbon storage conrmed the potentiality of offshore carbon storage even though a small leakage was observed where each day 43-143 kg CO 2 was injected. 106A model also projected that with a yearly <0.01%leakage, 90% of injected carbon would sequester aer 1000 years; 107 however, if the leakage can be controlled to <0.001%, the climate change mitigation strategy becomes efficient. 108The pH of seawater changes in the case of leakage in offshore storage. 109Industrial sustainability can also be improved by deploying CCS. 12,110For example, the environmental burden of the steel industry was reduced from −0.5 to 0.1 t CO 2 per t steel by introducing bioenergy and CCS, whereas it was 1.3-2.4t CO 2 per t steel without bioenergy and CCS; however, CCS provided greater mitigation than bioenergy while the combination of bioenergy and CCS had greater decarbonization potential in the steel industry. 110The environmental impacts were found to be widely varied among the reviewed articles (Table 1) because of the variation in the system boundary, assumption, feedstock, technology, plant capacity and the scenarios or deployment of CCS in the systems. 78,111he cost is one of the main impediments to CCS and CCU in the energy sector. 11Carbon capture is the main cost component in a power plant that integrates carbon capturing systems. 112nergy consumption in the CCU process was 20 times higher than that in CCS; thus, the CCS process emerged as the most cost-effective pathway for decarbonizing the aviation industry as well as it can be cost-competitive with the conventional jet fuels while a carbon tax is harnessed. 96On the other hand, value-added products produced in CCU approaches are noted to have improved the carbon capture process. 33Direct carbon capture from the air pathway was more expensive than point source carbon capture. 96On the other hand, the CCUS approach is noted to be both economically and environmentally favourable, where shale and ue gas from a coal-based power plant were co-converted into value-added chemicals (methanol, urea and sulphur).The MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis model revealed that the BECCS could be a backstop technology at a price of $240 per tonne CO 2 . 28A simulated study revealed that the carbon capture cost for a bioenergy system (sugarcane bio-reneries) varied from $17.2-262.0per tonne CO 2 depending on the seasonal variability, operating time and plant capacity. 114owever, various jurisdictions have set up the goal of reducing the cost of CCS/CCU.For example, the US Department of Energy's (DOE) goal is to reduce to $30 per tonne by 2030 through innovation pathways (equipment, processes and materials). 11However, the projected decarbonizing cost will reach $82 per tonne of CO 2 by 2050 for the ambitious decarburization initiative for creating a carbon-neutral economy. 35n the other hand, for an optimal CCUS supply chain network (mixed integer linear programming model), the emission mitigation cost was noted to be about $23.53 per tonne of CO 2 . 115limate change mitigation was noted to be 12% and 71% higher in 2075 and 2100 without adopting CCS compared with the adoption of CCS in the industrial sector. 12In addition, the CCUadopted energy system becomes protable at a price range of £72-102 MW −1 h −1 while the current market price is £52 MW −1 h −1 ; however, the scope of CCU for decarbonization is small. 92he cost of CO 2 emission abatement from coal-red power plants by deploying CCS depends on the CO 2 removal efficiency, plant location and capacity, variable and xed cost, and CCS technologies (Table 2); 116,117 however, the cost increased by 58-108% compared to that without CCS. 117In the USA, the 45Q tax credit was $20 and $10 per tonne of CO 2 geological storage and CO 2 -EOR, respectively, in 2018, and it will be raised to $50 and $35, respectively, in 2026. 82BECCS was noted to be the most cost-effective route to achieving negative emissions when combined with photosynthesis and carbon capture. 51he low oil price, public acceptance, inconsistent policy, lack of incentives and high investment for geological storage hinder the protability of CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery and implementation of CCS projects. 24The authors perceived that public-private partnership, stakeholder engagement, carbon pricing, and the development of regional CCS corridors would accelerate the implementation of CCS projects.However, the present incentive and investment packages are identied to be inadequate for the deployment of CCUS projects, which can be improved by improving carbon trading. 125It is also noted that the geological storage of carbon affects the quality of coal as the pore structure of the coal changes due to different pressure and temperature (usually at the supercritical phase), which also affects the carbon storage capacity. 126Similarly, the porosity of sandstone is also affected due to carbon geological storage in sandstone reservoirs. 127Stored carbon tends to move vertically towards the surface due to the density difference with brine. 127The geological formation contains a minute amount of organic materials, which inuence CO 2 containment security and uid dynamics. 22In addition, the time-dependent deformation of the rock affects its properties which inuence the injectivity and security of geological storage; 128 thus, the rebound effects of geological storage of carbon, especially in coal beds, need to be carefully considered.
The integrity of CCS and the comprehended risk of CO 2 leakage as well as social acceptance are major concerns which may inhibit the implementation of CCS projects. 11The over-pressurization during the injection process is noted to be one of the main reasons for CO 2 leakage in the case of geological storage, which also affects the surface water pH, enhances organic compounds in water and metal and metalloid mobilization, and the alteration depends on the amount of leakage. 129The sealing capacity also depends on the surface wettability, and thus the carbon storage potential and integrity of geological storage. 22,130espite the large-scale BECCS reducing pressure on the planetary boundary, BECCS through afforestation may exacerbate water scarcity, 131 especially in dryland regions such as Africa and Oceania. 59In addition, in the case of ocean afforestation, the carbon removal efficiency of Sargassum reduces because of nutrient reallocation and calcication by marine animals; 54 thus, its potential rebound impacts on ocean animals such as sh need to be explored.
Although enormous efforts are underway to reduce GHG emissions and climate change, only 24 countries were able to record a reduction in their annual GHG emissions, where energy sectors, especially electricity and heat generation, played the main role in reducing emissions. 132Consequently, it seems that CCUS coupled in/with energy systems and industry would lead to sustaining GHG emission reduction targets that are set by different countries.For example, the Global CCS Institute is an international think tank whose mission is to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS), a vital technology to tackle climate change and deliver climate neutrality. 133It seems that the sustainability of CCUS is highly dependent on the scenarios (CCS or CCU deployment rate, CO 2 storage capacity, land use, use of biomass resources, etc.) and technologies adopted for the study, carbon trading and stakeholder participation.In addition, CCS and CCU are recognized as linear and circular approaches; 33 thus, the improvement of the CCU approach in reducing energy consumption is desirable and can grow in the near future.However, concerns about the economic and social impacts of BECCS, such as the competition for productive land and the rising food prices, have to be addressed for the deployment of large-scale BECCS projects.Sun et al. revealed that energy stakeholders are favourable toward CCS while public attitudes vary as they are concerned about the risk of the CCS approach. 134Large-scale removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide (BECCS or afforestation) to combat climate change may lead to public disengagement because of a lack of widespread involvement as well as land-use complexities. 135onsequently, it is important to ensure the participation of all stakeholders, increase public awareness about CCS for the successful deployment of CCS projects and mitigate the risk of investment.In addition, interdisciplinary assessments such as techno-economic and life cycle assessments can be integrated to develop a standardized assessment framework for a broader sustainability check.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Projected global CO 2 emissions from different sectors. 1 [The power generation sector is the main contributor, followed by the industry and transportation sectors.Deployment of carbon capture, utilization and storage initiatives in power generation and industrial sectors can play a key role in mitigating the increasing GHG emissions].
Fig.4Technology deployment requirements in order to meet the UK's CCC target.18[The surfaces show the requirement of technology deployment for meeting the UK's decarbonization targets of the power generation sector for CO 2 emissions of 100 g kW −1 h −1 and 50 g kW −1 h −1 .For a weaker emission target (100 g kW −1 h −1 target) a pure CCS solution is possible at just 27 GW of CCS.On the other hand, for a maximum wind scenario (56GW), a combination of low carbon capacity power systems is required (either 11 GW new nuclear or 19 GW of CCS)].Copyright 2018, Royal Society of Chemistry (Energy & Environmental Science; Open access).
He has also received the Synergy Award for Innovation from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Andrew Chase Forest Products Division Award from the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the BioEnvironmental Polymer Society (BEPS).OMAFRA) and the University of Guelph.Dr Misra completed her Bachelor's, Master's, MPhil and PhD from Ravenshaw College at Utkal University in India focusing on Chemistry with a specialization in Polymer Chemistry and Natural Fibers during her graduate program.Dr Misra's current research focuses primarily on novel bio-based composites and nanocomposites from agricultural, forestry and recycled resources for the sustainable bioeconomy moving towards the Circular Economy.She has authored more than 750 publications, including 445 peer-reviewed journal papers, 25 book chapters, and 55 patents.She is the editor or co-editor of 5 books in the area of biocomposites and nano-composites.In 2020, she was selected as one of Canada's Most Powerful Women: Top 100 Award Winner in the Manulife Science and Technology category from the Women Executive Network.She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK), the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), and the Society of Plastic Engineers (SPE)).life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of agri-food industries.He has authored/co-authored 60 peerreviewed research articles and six book chapters.He served as a Guest Editor for special issues of Sustainability (MDPI) and AIMS Energy (AIMS Press).He is an Editorial Board Member of AIMS Energy and the Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Therapy.Presently, Dr Roy is working as a Sessional Lecturer and Special Graduate Faculty at the School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Table 1
Carbon capture technologies and their environmental impacts a a CCS: Carbon capture and storage; SMR: steam methane reforming; ATR: autothermal reforming; GWP: global warming potential; AP: acidication potential; kt: thousand tonne.

Table 2
Cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and carbon capture and utilization (CCU).a