Carbon Capture, Utilization & Storage (CCUS) KPIs by Sector
Essential KPIs for evaluating CCUS projects across industrial sectors, with 2024-2025 benchmark ranges for capture costs, efficiency, and permanence—plus guidance on avoiding stranded asset risk.
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage sits at the center of industrial decarbonization debates. Proponents see it as essential for hard-to-abate sectors; critics warn of costly distractions from emissions reduction. What both sides need is rigorous performance data. This benchmark deck provides the KPIs that matter for CCUS evaluation, with ranges drawn from operational projects in 2024-2025 across industrial sectors.
The CCUS Landscape in 2025
The IEA reports 45 operational commercial-scale CCUS facilities globally, capturing approximately 50 million tonnes of CO2 annually—less than 0.2% of global emissions. The project pipeline is more encouraging: over 500 projects in development, representing potential capacity of 300+ Mtpa by 2030.
The Inflation Reduction Act's enhanced 45Q tax credits ($85/tonne for geological storage, $180/tonne for direct air capture) fundamentally changed US project economics. Europe's CBAM and emissions trading prices above €80/tonne create parallel incentives. Yet project completion rates remain low—only 12% of announced CCUS projects since 2010 reached operation.
Understanding why projects succeed or fail requires moving beyond headline announcements to operational KPIs. The metrics below distinguish viable projects from aspirational announcements.
The 8 KPIs That Matter
1. Capture Cost ($/tonne CO2)
Definition: Fully-loaded cost of capturing CO2, including capital, operations, energy, and maintenance.
| Source Type | Bottom Quartile | Median | Top Quartile | 45Q Breakeven |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural Gas Processing | $15-22 | $18-25 | $12-18 | Profitable at $85 |
| Ethanol Fermentation | $18-28 | $22-32 | $15-22 | Profitable at $85 |
| Ammonia Production | $25-38 | $30-45 | $20-30 | Profitable at $85 |
| Cement | $55-85 | $65-95 | $45-65 | Marginal at $85 |
| Steel (Blast Furnace) | $60-95 | $75-110 | $50-75 | Requires carbon price |
| Power Generation (Post-combustion) | $65-110 | $80-130 | $55-85 | Requires carbon price |
| Direct Air Capture | $400-800 | $500-1,000 | $250-450 | Needs $180 + premium credits |
Key insight: High-concentration sources (natural gas processing, ethanol) are economically viable today. Low-concentration sources (power, DAC) require significant cost reduction or premium credits.
2. Capture Rate (%)
Definition: Percentage of CO2 in flue gas or process stream that is actually captured.
| Technology | Design Target | Operational Median | Leading Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-combustion (amine) | 90% | 82-88% | >92% |
| Pre-combustion | 90% | 85-90% | >94% |
| Oxy-fuel combustion | 95% | 88-93% | >96% |
| Direct Air Capture | 90% | 85-90% | >92% |
Why rates fall short: Operational variability, sorbent degradation, and unplanned outages reduce actual capture below design specifications. Projects claiming 90%+ capture should demonstrate sustained operational data, not nameplate capacity.
3. Energy Penalty
Definition: Percentage reduction in net output or increase in energy consumption due to capture equipment.
| Application | Energy Penalty Range | Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|
| Power Generation | 15-35% | Waste heat integration, advanced solvents |
| Cement | 20-40% | Oxy-fuel, calcium looping |
| Steel | 10-25% | Process integration, hydrogen direct reduction |
| Refineries | 8-18% | Heat recovery, process optimization |
| Ethanol | 5-12% | Low-pressure CO2, minimal conditioning |
The hidden cost: Energy penalty translates directly to increased operating costs and, for fossil applications, additional emissions from energy production. Net capture benefit requires accounting for these upstream emissions.
4. Storage Capacity Utilization
Definition: Percentage of permitted storage capacity actually being used for injection.
| Storage Type | Capacity Utilization | Key Constraints |
|---|---|---|
| Depleted Oil/Gas Fields | 60-85% | Well integrity, legacy infrastructure |
| Saline Aquifers | 40-65% | Characterization uncertainty, pressure management |
| Enhanced Oil Recovery | 75-95% | Oil price sensitivity, CO2 recycling |
| Basalt Mineralization | 30-50% | Early stage, reaction kinetics |
Bottleneck alert: Many capture projects lack contracted storage. The "CO2 infrastructure gap" means projects capture CO2 with no assured destination. Evaluate projects on storage security, not just capture capability.
5. Storage Permanence
Definition: Demonstrated or modeled retention time and leakage risk.
| Permanence Level | Timeframe | Verification Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Geological (Regulatory) | 1,000+ years | EPA Class VI permit, post-injection monitoring |
| Geological (Demonstrated) | 100+ years | Existing operations with monitoring data |
| Mineral Carbonation | Permanent | Physical transformation verification |
| Utilization (Concrete) | 50-100+ years | Product lifetime modeling |
| Utilization (Fuels/Chemicals) | <1-10 years | Re-emission accounting required |
Critical distinction: "Utilization" in CCUS often means temporary storage. CO2 converted to fuels re-enters the atmosphere when burned. Only mineral carbonation and long-lived products (concrete aggregates) provide durable storage.
6. Levelized Cost of Capture and Storage (LCCS)
Definition: Full lifecycle cost including capture, transport, injection, monitoring, and long-term liability.
| Pathway | LCCS Range ($/tonne) | Cost Drivers |
|---|---|---|
| High-Purity Industrial + Pipeline | $35-65 | Short transport, existing infrastructure |
| Power + Pipeline + Saline | $95-150 | Large volumes, new infrastructure |
| Cement + Shipping + Offshore | $120-180 | Complex logistics, offshore complexity |
| DAC + Dedicated Storage | $300-600 | High capture cost, lower transport |
| DAC + Enhanced Weathering | $350-700 | Novel storage, monitoring challenges |
Investment threshold: Current voluntary carbon credit prices ($10-40/tonne) cannot support most CCUS pathways. Projects depend on 45Q ($85-180/tonne), compliance markets (EU ETS €80+), or premium voluntary credits ($200+/tonne for DAC).
7. Project Completion Rate
Definition: Percentage of announced projects reaching operational status.
| Project Stage | Cumulative Completion Rate | Typical Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 100% (baseline) | - |
| Pre-FID | 55-65% | 1-2 years |
| FID | 35-45% | 2-3 years |
| Construction | 18-25% | 3-5 years |
| Operational | 10-15% | 5-7 years |
Why projects fail: Financing gaps (35%), storage access (25%), cost overruns (20%), permitting delays (12%), technology failures (8%). The high attrition rate means portfolio approaches outperform single-project bets.
8. MRV (Measurement, Reporting, Verification) Quality
Definition: Rigor of monitoring systems for verifying actual CO2 storage.
| MRV Level | Characteristics | Confidence Level |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Minimum | Annual injection reports, surface monitoring | Moderate |
| Enhanced | Continuous injection monitoring, pressure tracking | High |
| Comprehensive | Seismic imaging, distributed fiber sensing, atmospheric monitoring | Very High |
| Independent Verification | Third-party continuous monitoring, open data | Highest |
Why MRV matters: Projects with weak monitoring cannot verify permanence claims. Investors increasingly require comprehensive MRV before financing. The 2024 CalCCUS guidelines and EU CRCF set new verification standards.
What's Working in 2024-2025
Industrial Clusters with Shared Infrastructure
The highest-performing CCUS projects share transport and storage infrastructure across multiple emitters. The Port of Rotterdam's Porthos project (2.5 Mtpa capacity, €500M infrastructure) demonstrates the model: multiple industrial sources feeding a common offshore storage facility.
UK industrial clusters (Humber, Teesside) follow similar approaches, achieving 20-35% lower per-tonne costs than standalone projects. The infrastructure-first model de-risks capture investments by ensuring storage availability.
High-Purity Sources with 45Q Stacking
US ethanol and natural gas processing projects demonstrate clear economic viability. Archer Daniels Midland's Illinois project captures CO2 at ~$25/tonne, receives $85/tonne 45Q credit, and generates significant returns. Summit Carbon Solutions' Midwest network targets similar economics across multiple ethanol facilities.
These projects succeed because CO2 is already separated in the production process—minimal additional capture equipment required.
Direct Air Capture with Premium Offtake
While DAC costs remain high ($400-1,000/tonne), projects with premium offtake agreements are advancing. Climeworks' Orca and Mammoth facilities in Iceland secured corporate purchase agreements at $600-1,000/tonne from Microsoft, Stripe, and others.
The strategy: serve the premium end of the voluntary market while costs decline. Frontier Climate's advance market commitment ($1B+ pledged) creates demand certainty for DAC developers.
What Isn't Working
Power Sector Post-Combustion
Despite being the original CCUS focus, coal and gas power capture projects continue struggling. SaskPower's Boundary Dam achieves only 40-50% of design capture rates. Cost overruns, operational complexity, and electricity market competition from renewables undermine economics.
New power CCUS projects face a fundamental problem: why capture emissions when you can avoid them with renewables? The use case is narrowing to peaker plants and system backup roles.
Announcement-Driven Development
Many CCUS "projects" exist primarily as press releases. Analysis of 2020-2024 announcements shows only 12% reaching construction phase. Common pattern: announce project with optimistic timeline, secure some early funding, stall on financing or permitting, quietly delay or cancel.
Evaluate projects on concrete milestones: FID (Final Investment Decision), EPC contracts, storage permits, and offtake agreements—not ambitions.
Utilization Without Permanence Accounting
Converting CO2 to methanol, synthetic fuels, or chemicals creates products that eventually release CO2 back to atmosphere. These pathways provide temporary storage measured in months to years, not the geological timescales required for climate mitigation.
Projects claiming climate benefits from utilization pathways without lifecycle accounting are misleading. The exception: mineral carbonation and building materials where CO2 is permanently locked.
Key Players
Established Leaders
- Equinor — Norwegian energy company with 35-40% market leadership in offshore CO2 storage. Operates Sleipner project (19M+ tonnes stored since 1996). Partner in Northern Lights cross-border transport and storage project.
- Shell — Major CCS developer operating Quest facility in Canada and partnering on Northern Lights and Polaris/Atlas hubs. Extensive pipeline and storage infrastructure globally.
- ExxonMobil — Operates 1,500+ miles of CO2 pipelines in Gulf Coast and has captured 120M+ tonnes to date. Developing Louisiana Carbon Hub (2M tonnes/year capacity).
- SLB Capturi — Joint venture (80% SLB, 20% Aker Carbon Capture) specializing in industrial capture for cement, steel, and power. Operating Brevik cement plant capture (400k tonnes/year). First modular plant in Netherlands (2025).
Emerging Startups
- Climeworks — Direct air capture leader based in Switzerland. Raised $1B+ total funding (including $162M in 2025). Operates Orca (4,000 tonnes/year) and Mammoth (36,000 tonnes/year) facilities in Iceland. Premium offtake from Microsoft, Stripe, British Airways.
- Carbon Clean — Modular capture technology (CycloneCC C1) with 1.7M+ tonnes removed from 49 facilities. Achieves 90%+ capture rates with 50%+ smaller footprint than traditional systems.
- Svante — Rotary adsorption machines (RAMs) capturing thousands of tonnes daily. Raised $100M from Canada Growth Fund (2024).
- LanzaTech — Carbon recycling company using bacteria to convert emissions to ethanol and fuels. Partners include Migros and On running shoes. Norway CCUS project launched October 2024.
Key Investors & Funders
- BigPoint Holding & Partners Group — Co-led Climeworks' $162M round (2025), the largest carbon removal investment globally.
- Breakthrough Energy Ventures — Major backer of direct air capture and carbon removal technologies.
- US Department of Energy — Funding DAC hubs through $3.5B program including Climeworks' Cypress facility in Louisiana.
- Frontier Climate — $1B+ advance market commitment from Stripe, Shopify, Meta, Google, and McKinsey providing demand certainty for DAC developers.
Examples
Northern Lights (Norway): The world's first commercial cross-border CO2 transport and storage project, developed by Equinor, Shell, and TotalEnergies. Capacity: 1.5 Mtpa initially, expandable to 5 Mtpa. Cost: €2.7B including offshore storage. Status: Operational 2024, receiving CO2 from cement and waste-to-energy facilities. Key metric: Storage verified in Johansen formation with comprehensive seismic monitoring.
Archer Daniels Midland Illinois Basin (US): Operational since 2017, capturing 1.1 Mtpa from corn ethanol production. Capture cost: approximately $25/tonne (high-purity stream). Storage: Mount Simon sandstone formation. Significance: Demonstrated both capture economics and saline aquifer storage viability in US Midwest.
Climeworks Mammoth (Iceland): Largest operational DAC facility at 36,000 tonnes/year capacity (scaling to 40,000). Cost: estimated $800-1,200/tonne at current scale. Storage: Mineral carbonation in basalt (Carbfix process). Funding: Premium corporate offtake agreements plus government grants. Key metric: Demonstrated permanent mineralization within 2 years of injection.
Action Checklist
- Evaluate capture projects on operational data, not design specifications—request 12-month performance records
- Verify storage access and permanence before capture investment—secured storage contracts are essential
- Model full LCCS including transport, injection, and long-term monitoring—capture cost alone is misleading
- Assess energy penalty and upstream emissions for net climate benefit calculation
- Review MRV systems for verification rigor—weak monitoring means uncertain storage
- Apply portfolio approach to CCUS exposure—single-project failure rates exceed 80%
- Track policy developments (45Q, EU ETS, CBAM) that determine economic viability
- Distinguish permanent storage from temporary utilization in climate benefit claims
FAQ
Q: Is 45Q sufficient to make CCUS projects economically viable? A: For high-purity sources (ethanol, natural gas processing, ammonia), $85/tonne 45Q creates clear profitability. For cement and steel, it covers roughly half of costs—projects need additional revenue (carbon prices, premium products). For DAC at $180/tonne, it covers 20-45% of current costs—projects depend on cost reduction trajectories and premium voluntary credits.
Q: How do I assess storage permanence risk? A: Key indicators: storage formation geology (well-characterized saline aquifers or depleted fields are lower risk); injection pressure management (overpressure creates leakage risk); monitoring systems (continuous subsurface monitoring vs. annual reporting); regulatory framework (EPA Class VI permits require 50-year post-injection monitoring); and operator track record.
Q: Should we prioritize CCUS or emissions reduction? A: For sectors with viable alternatives (power, ground transport), reduction is more economic. For sectors without alternatives (cement, steel process emissions, aviation fuels), CCUS is necessary. The "either/or" framing is false—both are needed, with sequencing based on sector-specific economics.
Q: What's the realistic timeline for DAC cost reduction? A: Current costs of $400-1,000/tonne need to reach $100-200/tonne for broad deployment. Industry roadmaps target this by 2040-2050 through learning curves and scale. Historical comparison: solar PV fell 90% over 20 years, but DAC has different physics (thermodynamic minimum energy requirements limit floor). Conservative assumption: 50-70% cost reduction by 2035 is plausible with policy support.
Sources
- International Energy Agency, "CCUS Projects Database and Progress Report," November 2024
- Global CCS Institute, "Global Status of CCS 2024," October 2024
- US Department of Energy, "45Q Tax Credit Implementation Guidance," Updated 2024
- European Commission, "Carbon Removal Certification Framework," 2024
- BloombergNEF, "CCUS Market Outlook 2024-2035," September 2024
- Rhodium Group, "Carbon Capture Investment Tracker," Q4 2024
- Nature Climate Change, "Direct Air Capture Cost Trajectories," July 2024
Related Articles
Myth-busting Carbon capture, utilization & storage (CCUS): 10 misconceptions holding teams back
Myths vs. realities, backed by recent evidence and practitioner experience. Focus on duration, degradation, revenue stacking, and grid integration.
Case study: Carbon capture, utilization & storage (CCUS) — a leading organization's implementation and lessons learned
A concrete implementation with numbers, lessons learned, and what to copy/avoid. Focus on duration, degradation, revenue stacking, and grid integration.
Explainer: Carbon capture, utilization & storage (CCUS) — the concepts, the economics, and the decision checklist
A practical primer: key concepts, the decision checklist, and the core economics. Focus on duration, degradation, revenue stacking, and grid integration.