Talk:Carbon capture and storage

More images and a different image for the lead?

Does anyone have time to add more images to this article? For the lead, I think an image of a technical installation for CCS would be better than an image with a bar chart with a very long caption that takes a while to read and understand. I've done a quick search on Wikimedia Commons but nothing jumped at me, except for two protest images which I have now added. EMsmile (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. I've been looking for more and the best I've found so far is a diagram, which I added. I would love to add photographs of CCS facilities and pipelines, but most of the photographs on Commons that are labelled as showing CCS infrastructure actually do not show anything CCS-related as far as I can tell. The main image for the category is of a power plant where CCS was never implemented, which in a weird way is actually emblematic of the technology's history. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. Wondering why the image labeling is often wrong, I guess people are confused over what CCS entails. EMsmile (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder too. I removed the miscategorized main image from the category home page. FYI @Bluerasberry: in case I've misunderstood something. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clayoquot and EMsmile: I agree with the assessment you both made. The situation is that some category images come from Wikidata, and there is incorrect labeling of images in Wikidata which propagate elsewhere. Wikidata is powerful because it allows centralized multilingual management of Wikimedia content, but dangerous for the same reason as in this case when a random power plant is the image for an environmental protection practice. Bluerasberry (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If interested/relevant I have some self-taken photos of the new CC plant at the Heidelberg cement factory in Brevik, Norway. CCS is mostly pipes and metal boxes so we can't get around that.

The issue with my image is that storage is not carried out on site, only CC, treatment and compression. Storage occurs elsewhere. Example here [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heidelberg_Brevik_Carbon_Capture.jpg] - it was a characteristically grey November day. PutTheKettleOn (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you managed to take this photo! Thanks for doing this. I'd be in favour of replacing the main image with this one and moving the main image further down. Fingers crossed that this project works out. Do you know what the different parts of this facility do? E.g. will the shiny pipe be used to transport CO2? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It was on an official visit, so no sneakiness! This was as close as they'd let us though as it was the week before mechanical completion. And I do indeed - here are a couple of explanatory slides https://imgur.com/a/FCqLckE. The CO2 pipeline is comically small as it's cooled and pressurised into a liquid. The big shiny pipe is for heat recycling - if I remember correctly they're using the heat to warm up the amine solution, which causes it to release/desorb the CO2 for treatment and compression. The amine solution can then be cooled and reused in the tower. PutTheKettleOn (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting! I've added the photo to the body of the article for now. If nobody objects in the next few days we can make it the main image. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Bias towards favorability of the technology

I agree with the flag placed and assume the bias was about bias towards treating this as a credible, significant climate solution despite significant evidence casting a doubt on these strategies. I have added discussion of one article in the lead and politics sections and wanted to start this thread to be able to link to from the flag for any discussion to make this a more neutral article. Superb Owl (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a bias flag. CCS is basically a way for oil companies to get more oil out of the ground and make money from the government. It’s not good for the climate. LizIndy (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Superb Owl's comment above is from July 30, when the article looked like this. At the time, the article did not make it clear how closely the CCS industry is tied to the oil industry, how heavily it is subsidized by governments, and how much additional fossil fuel usage it causes. The article has changed a lot since then to make these things more clear. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I added the flag back as there is no consensus for removing it and agree the article still appears to be written more from a fan's perspective. WP:DUE and WP:AGEMATTERS do not seem to be met here with regard to how the technology is received and its impact or potential impact Superb Owl (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to changes. Can you be more specific about what issues need to be addressed? E.g. what should be added or covered in more or less depth to satisfy WP:DUE? What sources does the article use that have been superseded? (FYI for new editors, the above comment refers to the guideline WP:AGEMATTERS).

One thing to keep in mind is that if we make the article sound like it has anti-CCS bias, people who are already anti-CCS might like it but undecided people will trust it less.

This talk page has been quiet lately - I'll ping everyone who was involved in prior discussion about neutrality so we can hash it out as a group: @Superb Owl, Wuerzele, Jondvdsn1, EMsmile, PutTheKettleOn, Chidgk1, and LizIndy: Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I am actually very surprised that User Superb Owl undid Clayoquot's removal of that bias tag, given that Superb Owl has not edited the article nor participated on the talk page until now, as far as I can see (I didn't check the archive). Personally, I trust the judgement of Clayoquot who has tiredlessly slogged away at this difficult article over several weeks, including writing on this talk page on many occasions to explain her changes and asking for input (very little input has been forthcoming from the other page watchers). Myself, I've been quiet on this talk page for two reasons: 1) don't have the time for this difficult topic at the moment, and 2) I trust Clayoquot's judgement and editing performance. She's very, very thorough. So when she feels confident to remove that particular tag, I think the timing is right. - Anyone who wants to insist that the tag remains should indicate where in the article the problem areas apparently still lie? EMsmile (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove the tag - it was Chidgk1 who did that on Sept 16. I appreciate your comments but honestly I'm not asking anyone to trust my judgement. I'm looking for consensus and fresh eyes are always good. I saw some specific issues raised by Supreme Owl within the article that I think made sense. I tried to address them in a series of edits here: [1] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know but that's just my own reason for not engaging in the issue of tag "yes or no" any further. Don't have time and trust yours and Chidgk1's judgement. :-) Hopefully others will have more to bring to this brainstorming than I do, especially Superb Owl if they insisted on putting the tag back in on 4 November. I'll stay out of this discussion now. EMsmile (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl I hope the changes made since you re-added the tag have fixed the problem. If not please could you let us know specifically what problem remains in the current article - thanks. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My issues have largely been addressed - thank you for making those fixes and improvements and removing the tag Superb Owl (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Superb Owl, Chidgk1, and EMsmile! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a better pic available for the lead?

I don’t like the existing one because I think it over-emphasises coal-power. When we look at the second diagram we see that implementations for power are negligible compared to the other implemetations.

But I have not yet found a better pic - any ideas? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No better ideas from me, unfortunately - see the "More images and a different image for the lead?" section above. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the caption for the main image, it currently says With CCS, carbon dioxide is captured from a point source, such as an ethanol refinery or a gas-fired power plant., based on the assumption that CCS is more common in gas power plants than in coal plants.[2] AFAIK there is only one gas power plant in the world operating with CCS, and it's only "partially active".[3]. CCS is used in four coal power plants. How about if we just have the caption say With CCS, carbon dioxide is captured from a point source such as an ethanol refinery. to avoid giving power production undue weight? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I changed the caption. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Preparing for Good Article nomination

I"m planning to nominate the article for wp:Good article status soon. Please let me know if there are any issues you'd like me to look into before then. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

New additions to the lead

Hi LizIndy, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your efforts here. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm going to revert most of your additions to the lead section. Please don't get discouraged. You've generally got the right idea and there are lots of other CCS-related articles where we could use more help. To address your points one-by-one:

• Most CCS in operation as of 2023 is used as part of natural gas processing,

This is true for the U.S. but I don't think it's true globally. The latest Global CCS Institute report says 16 out of 44 CCS plants worldwide are for natural gas processing.

• in which previously geologically sequestered CO₂ is piped to the surface as part of a gas mixture, separated from methane and other gases (such as helium), and then injected, most often into aging oil reservoirs to increase oil recovery.

Most of these points are already stated in the lead, and the lead must be extremely succinct. I don't know why helium, a trace and inert gas, would be worth mentioning here.

• At the longest-running CCS operation in the world, most of the separated CO₂ has been vented to the atmosphere.

The lead already states that business issues that can keep facilities from operating as designed, and that some large CCS implementations have sequestered far less CO2 than originally expected. This addition doesn’t add new information; it just adds more emphasis by focusing on one bad project. Top-quality overview sources on CCS do not emphasize single bad projects like this. In general, the IEEFA is an OK source for uncontroversial statements but as it is an advocacy group it is not the kind of source that we use to make decisions about wp:due weight.

• much more effective at reducing energy-system-wide carbon dioxide emissions

This is already covered by ”Given its cost and limitations, CCS is envisioned to be most useful in specific niches.”

• reducing other types of air pollution.

This was already clear before adding “other types of”. The term air pollution is generally used to mean non-CO2 pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, especially in the context of discussions on climate change.

• has been proposed by oil-industry interests to complement a broader shift to renewable energy.

This is misleading, as CCS is also proposed for this niche by the IPCC and International Energy Agency in their reports, and in many other high-quality reliable sources.

• Fossil fuel companies heavily promote CCS

This is fine.

As I stated above, I’m open to shifting this article’s balance but it needs to be done by providing factually accurate, balanced information and not by repetition. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Should we add “CCS ladder” diagram(s)?

I see some have been attempted, similar to the “hydrogen ladder” in Hydrogen economy#Uses, but CCS seems to be very region specific. As I have not been able to find one for China maybe we should not add US and Europe even if we can find CC-BY versions of

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/blog/u-s-ccs-ladder-for-industrial-decarbonization/

and

https://www.e3g.org/publications/carbon-capture-and-storage-ladder/ ? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into ways to add more visual communication. I agree being global rather than region-specific is important. When it comes to charts, I'd also consider 1) how understandable the chart is to a general reader, and 2) whether it gives viewpoints more weight than we would give if we didn't have a nice-looking free chart. I think both of the charts above fail #1 because of jargon and complexity, and I'm not sure about #2. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why condition it?

The IPCC definition says it is “conditioned” but I could not find where in the article that is explained. Is that to remove some impurity which might corrode the pipe taking it to storage? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It involves removing water as well as other impurities. I believe yes, it's about preventing pipes and other equipment from corroding, and it's also about the fact that impurities affect the phase behavior of CO2. I'll add an explanation. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

CO2 Plume-Geothermal

Dear Wikipedians,

Could an independent editor please take a look if CO2-Plume Geothermal can feature on this page? This is a proposed technology researched at the ETH Zurich that combines CCS with Geothermal (all CO2 stored just like in CCS while geothermal power is produced using the benefits of CO2 as a working fluid). Thank you —Rtmgeo (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (CET)

Hi Rtmgeo. Thanks for asking - it's great to see someone from the research community getting engaged with Wikipedia. Regarding new technologies, there is a lot of research going on in the area of clean energy and we have to triage so that broad-scope articles like this one don't become overwhelmed with lists of research areas. The main way we do this triage is to look at recent review articles like this one from 2023. I don't see a mention of CO2 Plume-Geothermal in that article or in any similarly broad sources, so I think it should stay out for now. We like to follow the literature rather than decide for ourselves what technologies and approaches have the most promise. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Clayoquot, many thanks for your reply. I can understand your considerations about triage. Regarding technology review articles / reports, how about this one? IEAGHG: Prospective Integration of Geothermal Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage. There is a lot going on to combine geothermal and CCS, for good reasons; in my opinion, this is relevant information for the audience of wikipedia. Would it be an idea to insert a link to this literature review to at least make readers aware of this combination, instead of referring to individual technologies? Thank you for your ideas, Rtmgeo (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

To justify including this topic, we would need a much more broadly-scoped source than that, like an overview of CCS technologies or an overview of a major aspect of CCS such as capture. And that's just to start considering it. I think everything currently in the article is currently at at least a technology readiness level of 7 (demonstration stage). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Clayoquot, indeed, that makes a lot sense, to me to broaden the scope. Glad to make a start - would you recommend this to be a separate article or a dedicated section about emerging technologies / intersection areas? Rtmgeo (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggested broadening the scope of the sources to look at. In terms of what content to add, my opinion is that Wikipedia should not be used to promote CO2 plume geothermal. We have a policy that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or public relations. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carbon capture and storage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Clayoquot (talk · contribs) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 02:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take on this review. As is apparent, it's a long article with lots of things to check, so I'm going to take my time and will need a few days to carefully read it and assess it against the GA criteria. I'll make (what I think to be) uncontroversial copyedits along the way (revert those you disagree with), and bring other things up for discussion here. Esculenta (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you for volunteering! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• 1: A couple of suggestions for tightening the prose:

• "In strategies to mitigate climate change, CCS could have a critical but limited role in reducing emissions.[6] Other ways to reduce emissions such as solar and wind energy, electrification, and public transit are less expensive than CCS and also much more effective at reducing air pollution." -> "Although CCS may play a limited but important role in cutting emissions, more cost-effective options—such as solar, wind, electrification, and public transit—generally reduce air pollution more effectively."

• Good idea and partly done.[4] I adjusted your suggestion to 1) place more emphasis on cost avoidance and 2) avoid excessive overgeneralization about co-benefits for air pollution. Some cheap ways to reduce GHG emissions actually worsen air pollution (e.g. burning garbage for electricity). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• "The IPCC estimates that at appropriately-selected and well-managed storage sites, it is likely that over 99% of CO2 will remain in place for more than 1000 years, with "likely" meaning a probability of 66% to 90%" -> "According to the IPCC, well-managed storage sites likely retain over 99% of injected CO₂ for more than a thousand years, where 'likely' means a 66–90% probability."

• Love it. Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• In section "Related concepts", subsection "CO2 utilization in products", I think the paragraph is a bit confusing for readers unfamiliar with urea's significance or its relationship to CO2 utilization. We learn in the next paragraph that urea is used in fertilizer production, but that still doesn't clarify why it would need to (or not need to) be reported when reported CC figures. Perhaps a small tweak (incorporating the final sentence of the next paragraph) is sufficient for brief context for urea and explain why it is relevant: "In the production of urea, an important agricultural fertilizer, CO2 generated within the same industrial process is often recycled and reused. However, by convention, this type of internal recycling is not included in figures on carbon capture. Similarly, CO2 produced for the food and beverage industry is also excluded from these figures."

• Much better. Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Once injected, the CO2 plume tends to rise since it is less dense than its surroundings." this may be confusing, as the reader was told elsewhere that the injected CO2 is in a fluid state. Of course, it's in a supercritical state, so it acts as both fluid and gas. I suggest making this a bit clearer, e.g. "Once injected at depths greater than 800 meters, CO2 is typically in a supercritical state, but it may still tend to rise due to being less dense than the surrounding fluids, until it is trapped beneath impermeable rock layers."

• I can see why this would be confusing. The physics behind CO2 movement underground are probably not necessary information so I think we can boil it down to the fact that CO2 does move: "After injection, supercritical CO2 tends to rise until it is trapped beneath a caprock." I also added a definition of caprock to the previous paragraph. Let me know if this needs more work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• 2: see spotchecks below. Generally, source quality is fine, with a mix of academic sources, intergovernmental bodies and governmental agency reports, Major international news outlets, academic or well-known think-tank websites, and respected national/regional magazines. Although it's not strictly part of the GA criteria, I recommend adding extra bibliographic details to the sources where available. For example, #52 (Climatewire, Christa Marshall) was published in 2010. The final two citations (The Economist) don't give the authors. Some other sources in between are missing authors or publication dates (or access-dates).

• Found and fixed a few issues. As Chidgk1 said below, the Economist doesn't name authors for individual pieces. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• 3a: Overall, the article does a thorough job laying out the key aspects of carbon capture and storage, touching on technical fundamentals, historical evolution, current deployment status, policy debates, economics, social acceptance, and controversies, the article is indeed broad in coverage of the main facets of CCS
• 3b: Despite the breadth, the sections generally remain on-topic and does not bury the core subject in irrelevant detail. The controversies (e.g., fossil fuel industry promotion, partial capture vs. full capture) and cost estimates are given enough explanation to show why they matter for CCS's viability, but the article avoids going off into purely political or corporate histories. Summary style is used properly to point to related articles with more detail.

One concern: the statement "Construction of pipelines often involves setting up work camps in remote areas. In Canada and the United States, oil and gas pipeline construction has historically been associated with a variety of social harms, including sexual violence committed by workers against Indigenous women." introduces a topic—social harms, including sexual violence related to pipeline construction—that, while relevant to broader discussions about the impacts of fossil fuel infrastructure, may stray somewhat from the narrower focus on CCUS. Since the connection is indirect, perhaps the statement could be reframed to clearly connect the social concerns to CCUS pipelines and infrastructure development. Or, if the connection to CCUS is too tenuous, it might be better to omit it to keep the article tightly focused.

• I added a source that explicitly makes the connection to CCS pipelines. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• 4: I think the article has a proper balance of supportive vs. critical perspectives. In general, claims and opinions are attributed to relevant parties—e.g., "Fossil fuel companies heavily promote CCS", "Many environmental groups regard CCS as …", etc.—rather than stated in Wikipedia's own voice. This style keeps editorial bias in check. The tone of the article is largely neutral and fact-based, relaying each side’s arguments with sources. Regarding due weight, no single perspective dominates the article. The widespread critiques are prominent (reflecting a notable body of literature and high-profile NGO positions), but so are mainstream statements from the IEA and IPCC acknowledging CCS’s potential importance for certain sectors. The discussion of controversies (enhanced oil recovery, pipeline safety) is balanced against the fact that CCS is actively subsidized and deployed by multiple governments.

• Thank you. This is great to hear. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• 5: No evidence of anything other than steady article improvements in recent history.
• 6: All images have licenses appropriate for use on Wikipedia. The images are relevant and align with the major themes of the article, and the captions tend to do more than just label an image; they draw clear connections to the article's content.

• Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• I successfully verified many of the statements sourced to the most common source, IEA (2020).
• I checked all statements cited to source Lebling et al. 2023 "7 Things to Know About Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration"; all statements successfully verified.
• "In these cases, the fossil fuel is partially oxidized ... Several advantages and disadvantages apply versus post combustion capture." source url has presumably changed, as current page does not support this statement

• I replaced the ref. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• who is Fatih Birol and why is the article using a tweet of his as a source for a somewhat controversial statement?

• Fatih Birol is the IEA's Executive Director. I replaced the ref as my hope that his tweet would be taken as seriously as an IEA report obviously was not fulfilled. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• first paragraph of Social and environmental impacts#Pollution lacks a citation

• Added. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Saskatchewan extended its 20 per cent tax credit under the province's Oil Infrastructure Investment Program to pipelines carrying CO2" needs a citation

• Added ref. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Denmark has recently announced €5 billion in subsidies for CCS." needs a citation

• Added ref. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Impurities in CO2 streams, like sulfur dioxides and water vapor, can have a significant effect on their phase behavior and could cause increased pipeline and well corrosion." the second part of the sentence is not supported by the source

• Replaced ref. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Like I warned, I made several copyedits to the article, summarized here, that should be checked. Overall, I think the article is very well done and just needs some tweaks to fully meet the GA-criteria. I'll place the article on hold to give the nominator time to address the suggestions above. Esculenta (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you Esculenta for taking the time to do such a constructive and thorough review. I think I've addressed your commments above. Please let me know if anything else needs doing. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope you two don't mind me butting in. I have a query about the scope of the article - the hatnote tells us that is about flue gas and the #Technical components also deals with this exclusively, but looking at the figure at the start of #History_and_current_status we see that the majority of CCS has nothing to do with flue gas but is instead to do with processing of natural gas. I'm not sure how to resolve this, but it's currently unclear and there maybe needs to be more of a distinction made between the two? Related to this, are there any stats on what proportion of global emissions are currently being captured from flue gas? It must be a fair bit smaller than the 0.1% currently cited, but I'm not sure what the "other industrial" means in the figure. SmartSE (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both Esculenta and SmartSE for your edits and comments! I'm delighted and grateful for such detailed feedback. Just got back from holidays and I should be able to work on things this week. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smartse, great question. The term "flue gas" refers to the waste gases produced in many types of industrial plants, including natural gas processing plants and steel mills. You can see "flue gas" being used to refer to natural gas processing on page 15 of Dziejarski et al. I just updated the flue gas article to try to make it clear that combustion is not necessarily involved in producing the gas. "Other industrial" refers to plants that make hydrogen, ammonia, fertilizer, iron and steel, and chemicals, and maybe a few other things. Do you think the CCS article needs changes to make any of this more clear, and if yes where could it do that? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, I didn't find that very convincing, but you'll see that I found a better one which does make it explicit. It does still seem like a relatively unusual use of the term though with most sources saying that it's produced by combustion e.g. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-809570-6.00003-5 Flue gas (sometimes called exhaust gas or stack gas) is the gas that emanates from combustion plants and which contains the reaction products of fuel and combustion air and residual substances. This is also how dictionaries define it e.g. Merriam the mixture of gases resulting from combustion and Collins A flue gas is a waste gas from a combustion process.. The term I've seen used to describe unprocessed natural gas is sour gas or raw gas and I wonder whether that might make it clearer to readers that current CCS is not capturing combustion products? Or maybe in #Process_overview we can just replace it with gas? I know it's complicated to deal with because so many of the sources about CCS are talking about the potential to capture from combustion. I still think that #Technical_components needs adjusting to make it clearer that these are potential methods rather than implying that they are methods used at scale today. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

These are all excellent points. I just looked into how various sources define CCS, and I see they don't use the term "flue gas". Here's what I did find:

• British Geological Survey: "the main way to reduce CO2 emissions from large industrial sources is called carbon capture and storage, or CCS. CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) at emission sources..."[5]
• NETL: "Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the separation and capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the emissions of industrial processes prior to release into the atmosphere"[6]
• UNECE: "Carbon capture, use, and storage (CCUS) is the process of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil power generation and industrial processes ...[7]
• World Resources Institute: "... is a way to reduce CO2 from emissions sources (such as power plants or industrial facilities) using different technologies that separate CO2 from the other gases coming out of a facility."[8]
• National Grid Group: "...capturing the CO2 produced by power generation or industrial activity, such as hydrogen production, steel or cement making"[9]

So I think taking "flue gas" out of the article altogether would improve understanding. How about if in the hatnote I change "This article is about removing CO₂ from industrial flue gas'" to "This article is about capturing CO₂ directly from industrial facilities and power plants"? and then replace "flue gas" throughout the article along similar lines? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks for digging up the sources and sorry for being a pedant ;) SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

No need to apologize at all - I think you've helped to make things quite a bit clearer. Thank you! I've reworded all instances of "flue gas". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Answer to minor point - Economist articles don’t usually name the authors. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to note I've been keeping an eye on the discussion here. My GA review concerns/suggestions have been addressed, and I'll be happy to promote once @Smartse: indicates that's he's satisfied with your proposed solution to the flue gas/scope issue. Esculenta (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I think our work here is done! Thanks SmartSE for your helpful comments. Promoting the article now. Esculenta (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for the fine teamwork! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

1.5 degrees of warming

I'm planning to undo this removal that was explained with "1.5 degrees is now impossible". First, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees - which is defined as an average of 1.5 degrees as measured over decades rather than a single year - is not impossible.[10] Second, even if 1.5 degrees were out of reach, there is still a valuable takeaway that oil and gas investment is too high. I don't see how removing this information helps the reader better understand the issues.

Much of the climate literature is framed in terms of whether a given policy or practice (in this case oil and gas investment) is compatible with 1.5 degrees. Before we start treating that literature as wrong or irrelevant, I'd like to see a discussion at WikiProject Climate Change.

Regarding the sourcing, the original source is an IEA report and I'll cite that. I used a Fatih Birol tweet as I thought it explains things in a more accessible way. But Esculenta's question (Who is Fatih Birol?) makes me wonder if readers will give a tweet as much credence as a report. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clayoquot @Esculenta Fatih Birol is my hero and one of the best products of my adopted country! I certainly agree with you that this article needs to emphasise that even with the fullest rollout of CCS only a small fraction of the emissions from burning fossil fuels as we do today would be captured (we drove a petrol car and cooked on a gas stove today). But I don’t think oil and gas investment is relevant to this article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The relevance is explained in one of Birol's tweets: "Continuing with business-as-usual for oil & gas while hoping a vast deployment of carbon capture will cut the emissions is fantasy." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What percentage of CO2 from cement manufacture could be captured?

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/cement-and-concrete-companies-leading-the-net-zero-transition/ says “ Meanwhile, some working facilities have turned to carbon capture and storage (CCS) to capture up to 100 percent of their emissions in the next decade …. ” but is it a reliable source? https://www.ramboll.com/decarbonisation/carbon-capture-for-cement-production claims 60% presumably with current tech. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I would not use this source for scientific claims. 100% capture is thermodynamically impossible. The Center for American Progress is a think tank/advocacy group that doesn't seem to have much WP:USEBYOTHERS in the area of CCS. One of the plants they say can do 100% capture describes itsellf as aiming for 95% capture.[11]. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent addition from primary source

Regarding the following addition:

However, recent research suggests that Carbon Capture and storage still hold potential if implemented strategically. A 2024 study published in Global Environment change introduces a model framework that evaluates CCS’s contribution to carbon neutrality, using China as a case study. It demonstrated that when integrated with national energy planning and efficient management, CCS can significantly reduce emissions and refine climate mitigation strategies globally.

This point of view that CCS can hold potential if implemented strategically is already stated at length in the article. That is the whole point of the "Priority uses" section. Wikipedia policy is that articles should use secondary sources as guideposts for the level of acceptance for claims such as these. We do not take a paper about a single study - particularly a modeling study for a single country - and give it undue weight. I'm planning to remove the addition. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)