Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4 (section)

== 4.3.4.5 CO2 capture, utilization and storage in industry ==

<div id="section-4-3-4-5-block-1"></div>

CO <sub>2</sub> capture in industry is generally considered more feasible than CCS in the power sector (Section 4.3.1) or from bioenergy sources (Section 4.3.7), although CCS in industry faces similar barriers. Almost all of the current full-scale (&gt;1MtCO <sub>2</sub> yr <sup>−1</sup> ) CCS projects capture CO <sub>2</sub> from industrial sources, including the Sleipner project in Norway, which has been injecting CO <sub>2</sub> from a gas facility in an offshore saline formation since 1996 (Global CCS Institute, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r442|442]]</sup> . Compared to the power sector, retrofitting CCS on existing industrial plants would leave the production process of materials relatively untouched (Åhman et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r443|443]]</sup> , though significant investments and modifications still have to be made. Some industries, in particular cement, emit CO <sub>2</sub> as inherent process emissions and can therefore not reduce emissions to zero without CC(U)S. CO <sub>2</sub> stacks in some industries have a high economic and technical feasibility for CO <sub>2</sub> capture as the CO <sub>2</sub> concentration in the exhaust gases is relatively high (IPCC, 2005b; Leeson et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r444|444]]</sup> , but others require strong modifications in the production process, limiting technical and economic feasibility, though costs remain lower than other deep GHG reduction options (Rubin et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r445|445]]</sup> . There are indications that the energy use in CO <sub>2</sub> capture through amine solvents (for solvent regeneration) can decrease by around 60%, from 5 GJ tCO <sub>2</sub> <sup>−</sup> <sup>1</sup> in 2005 to 2 GJ tCO <sub>2</sub> <sup>−</sup> <sup>1</sup> in the best-performing current pilot plants (Idem et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r446|446]]</sup> , increasing both technical and economic potential for this option. The heterogeneity of industrial production processes might point to the need for specific institutional arrangements to incentivize industrial CCS (Mikunda et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r447|447]]</sup> , and may decrease institutional feasibility.

Whether carbon dioxide utilization (CCU) can contribute to limiting warming to 1.5°C depends on the origin of the CO <sub>2</sub> (fossil, biogenic or atmospheric), the source of electricity for converting the CO <sub>2</sub> or regenerating catalysts, and the lifetime of the product. Review studies indicate that CO <sub>2</sub> utilization in industry has a small role to play in limiting warming to 1.5°C because of the limited potential of reusing CO <sub>2</sub> with currently available technologies and the re-emission of CO <sub>2</sub> when used as a fuel (IPCC, 2005b; Mac Dowell et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r448|448]]</sup> . However, new developments could make CCU more feasible, in particular in CO <sub>2</sub> use as a feedstock for carbon-based materials that would isolate CO <sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere for a long time, and in low-cost, low-emission electricity that would make the energy use of CO <sub>2</sub> capture more sustainable. The conversion of CO <sub>2</sub> to fuels using zero-emission electricity has a lower technical, economic and environmental feasibility than direct CO <sub>2</sub> capture and storage from industry (Abanades et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r449|449]]</sup> , although the economic prospects have improved recently (Philibert, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r450|450]]</sup> .

<span id="overarching-adaptation-options-supporting-adaptation-transitions"></span>