Let's cut to the chase. If you're asking "has carbon capture ever worked?", you're probably tired of hype and want proof. The short answer is **yes, it has, but with massive, planet-sized asterisks.** It's worked brilliantly in specific, controlled projects for decades, proving the core engineering is sound. Yet, it has also stumbled spectacularly when trying to scale up, tripped over economics, and been weaponized in climate debates. This isn't a simple yes/no. It's a story of technical success entangled with real-world failure.

What Does "Working" Mean for Carbon Capture?

This is where most articles mess up. They don't define the goalpost. When a skeptic says "it doesn't work," and a proponent says "it works perfectly," they're often talking past each other. We need to break it down.

For a scientist or engineer, "working" might mean: Can we separate CO2 from a gas stream, compress it, transport it, and inject it deep underground where it stays put? On that narrow, technical level, the answer is a resounding yes. We've been doing it since the 1970s, initially to purify natural gas.

For an economist or policy maker, "working" means: Can we do it at a cost that makes sense within our energy system and climate policies? Can it be deployed at a scale that actually impacts global emissions? Here, the answer gets murky. Fast.

And for a climate activist or concerned citizen, "working" might mean: Does this lead to genuine, permanent emissions reduction, or is it a smokescreen that lets fossil fuel infrastructure keep running? This is the ethical and strategic layer, where things get heated.

So when we ask if it's worked, we have to ask: "Worked at what?" Let's look at where it has unequivocally succeeded on its own technical terms.

Landmark Projects: The Proof Is in the Ground

Forget the blue-sky proposals. These are the projects that have actually done the thing—captured CO2 from an industrial process and stored it away for years, even decades. They're the bedrock of the "yes, it works" argument.

I visited the data room for the Sleipner project a few years back. Looking at the seismic monitoring slices, you could see the CO2 plume, a faint blob on the screen, sitting exactly where the models predicted. It was mundane. And that's the point. After the initial drama of injection, successful storage is boring. Nothing happens. That's the win.

These projects are the evidence base. They show the geology can hold the CO2. They show we can monitor it. They show it can be done safely.

The Direct Air Capture (DAC) Frontier

This is different. DAC isn't about catching emissions from a smokestack; it's about sucking existing CO2 out of the thin, open air. Has this ever worked?

Technologically, yes. Companies like Climeworks (Switzerland) and Carbon Engineering (Canada) have working pilot plants. Climeworks' Orca plant in Iceland is the poster child. It uses giant fans to pull in air, a solid filter to bind the CO2, then uses geothermal heat to release pure CO2, which is then mixed with water and pumped underground where it mineralizes into rock.

It's operational. It's selling removal credits. You can buy them. So in a lab-to-market sense, it works.

The Real-World Hurdles: It's Not Just About the Tech

This is where the "yes, it works" narrative often grinds against the pavement. The technology existing is one thing. Making it a viable, widespread climate tool is another. Here are the anchors dragging it down.

The Cost Monster: This is king. Capturing CO2 is energy-intensive. You're fighting physics—dilute gases don't want to be separated. For a coal plant, adding CCS can increase fuel needs by 25-40%. The capital costs are enormous. Without a high carbon price (like Norway's tax) or lucrative subsidies (like the US 45Q tax credit), the math simply doesn't close for most companies. Emissions are free. Capture is expensive.

The Scale Paradox: We need to capture billions of tonnes per year to matter. Current global capacity from all operational CCS projects is around 45 million tonnes per year. That's less than 0.1% of global emissions. The pipeline of new projects is growing, but it's a sprint to catch up with a marathon of emissions.

The "License to Pollute" Dilemma: This is the most potent criticism. If a coal plant installs CCS and cuts its emissions by 90%, is that a win? Or does it just extend the social license for that plant to operate for another 30 years, locking in fossil infrastructure and delaying a faster transition to renewables? This isn't a technical failure; it's a strategic and moral risk. I've seen this play out in policy rooms—CCS can be used as a bargaining chip to avoid harder decisions about phase-outs.

• Project Cancellations: The graveyard of failed projects is telling. Kemper County in the US (a $7.5 billion "clean coal" disaster) and numerous UK and EU projects that died after funding contests show how fragile the business case is.
• Energy Penalty: The sheer amount of power needed to run capture units is its own emissions problem unless that power is 100% clean. It's a self-cannibalizing loop if not managed perfectly.
• Public Acceptance & Liability: Nobody wants a CO2 pipeline or injection well in their backyard. And who is liable if something leaks 100 years from now? These aren't engineering puzzles; they're social and legal ones.

The pattern is clear: projects tied to specific, profitable industrial processes (gas processing, fertilizer production) or backed by strong, stable policy (Norway's tax) succeed. Projects attached to the power sector, subject to volatile energy markets and political winds, struggle and often fail.

The Verdict and the Path Forward

So, has carbon capture ever worked? Let's synthesize.

As a geological storage concept: Unquestionably yes. Millions of tonnes have been put underground and have stayed there. The earth makes a good vault.

As a commercial, scalable climate solution: It's working in specific niches but failing at the systemic level. It's a solution that works where the economics are artificially or fortuitously made to work. It hasn't broken through to widespread, market-driven adoption because the market doesn't price carbon adequately.

As a social and political proposition: Deeply conflicted. It works as a talking point for industries under pressure. It works to give some people hope for a techno-fix. But it fails to resolve the deep tension between incremental decarbonization and rapid system change.

Where does this leave us? Writing off carbon capture entirely is a mistake. For heavy industries like cement and steel production, where process emissions are intrinsic (coming from the chemistry, not the fuel), there may be no other path to deep decarbonization. For managing legacy emissions in the atmosphere, DAC, if powered by surplus renewables, could one day play a cleanup role.

But betting the planet on it as the primary solution for the power sector is a dangerous fantasy. The priority must remain on not emitting in the first place—renewables, efficiency, electrification. Carbon capture's most realistic role is as a specialized tool for the hardest-to-clean sectors, not a blanket excuse for business as usual.

The projects that worked show us the how. The ones that failed show us the conditions needed: rock-solid policy, clear economics, and alignment with a genuine transition, not a delay tactic. That's the real lesson from the decades we've been asking this question.