Let’s cut to the chase: No, achieving 100% carbon capture and storage (CCS) from industrial sources is not technically or economically feasible with today's technology, and it likely never will be in a pure, absolute sense. The dream of a magic filter that catches every single CO2 molecule from a smokestack is just that—a dream. It clashes with fundamental laws of physics, practical engineering limits, and brutal economics.

But that's not the whole story. The real, more nuanced conversation is about what level of capture is possible, what it costs, and whether getting to 90%, 95%, or 99% is good enough to make a serious dent in climate change. Chasing the last 1% might be the most expensive and energy-wasting endeavor of all.

What Does ‘100% Carbon Capture’ Even Mean?

First, we have to define our terms. “100% carbon capture” is thrown around in two very different contexts, and mixing them up causes a lot of confusion.

For a single facility: This means capturing every single molecule of CO2 emitted from a specific point source, like a cement plant's chimney or a natural gas processing unit. This is what most people imagine. It's also where the concept runs into a wall.

For a global carbon budget: Sometimes policymakers talk about needing “carbon capture” to balance remaining emissions and achieve net-zero. Here, “100%” might refer to capturing an amount of CO2 equal to all our hard-to-eliminate emissions. This is a systems-level goal that could involve a mix of technologies, not perfection at every single source.

I’ve seen this confusion sink projects. A company promises “carbon neutral” operations based on a theoretical 100% capture rate for one part of their process, while ignoring the massive “fugitive” emissions from their supply chain or the energy needed to run the capture plant itself.

The Immovable Physics: Why Perfection is Theoretically Elusive

The laws of thermodynamics aren't suggestions. They’re the ultimate buzzkill for any “100%” claim in chemical separation processes.

Capturing CO2 isn't like straining pasta. You're trying to separate a specific gas (CO2) from a mix of other gases (mostly nitrogen, water vapor, oxygen) after combustion. The most common method uses liquid solvents (amines) that bind to CO2. The CO2-rich solvent is then heated to release pure CO2 for storage.

Furthermore, real-world systems aren't perfect. There are start-up and shut-down cycles, fluctuations in the flue gas composition, solvent degradation, and mechanical hiccups. Designing a system to handle 100% capture under all variable conditions would be astronomically complex and expensive compared to one designed for a robust, high (but not perfect) capture rate.

The Three Big Hurdles: Tech, Cost, and Scale

Let’s break down why the 100% target is a mirage by looking at the three concrete walls we hit.

The Energy Penalty: A Self-Defeating Loop?

Current amine-based CCS systems at power plants require about 15-30% of the plant’s own energy output just to run. That means you have to burn 15-30% more fuel to produce the same net electricity, creating more emissions to capture. For that last 5% of CO2, studies suggest the penalty could double. You end up in a bizarre race where you’re chasing your own tail, consuming vast amounts of energy (and land for renewables if you power it cleanly) for diminishing returns.

The Cost Conundrum: Who Pays for Perfection?

Cost doesn't scale linearly. Capturing the first 90% of CO2 might cost $60-$80 per ton. Capturing the next 9% might push it to $150 per ton. That final 1%? It could be $500+ per ton or more. No carbon tax or market price is near that level. This money would be wildly more effective if spent on other decarbonization efforts—energy efficiency, electrification, or direct air capture for legacy emissions.

The Scale & Integration Nightmare

Let’s assume we magically solve the tech and cost for one plant. Now scale it to every cement kiln, steel blast furnace, and gas-fired power plant globally. The infrastructure needed—pipelines, compression stations, monitoring networks, and geological storage sites—is staggering. The volume of CO2 we’re talking about is comparable to the current global volume of oil transported. Building this from scratch in 20-30 years while also overhauling our energy system is a Herculean task. Aiming for 100% capture makes this impossible task infinitely harder.

Where Are We Today? A Reality Check on Current Projects

Look at the flagship projects often cited in the news. The Boundary Dam CCS project in Canada, one of the world's first at a coal plant, has struggled to hit its 90% capture target consistently, often operating closer to 50-70% due to technical and economic optimizations. The Petra Nova plant in Texas (now idled) was designed for about 90% capture from a slipstream of flue gas, not the entire plant.

These aren't failures. They're proof-of-concept for high, but not total, capture. The Gorgon CCS project in Australia, one of the world's largest, injects CO2 from natural gas processing. Its target capture rate is around 80% of the reservoir CO2, and it has faced significant technical challenges in ramping up.

The pattern is clear: even with billions in investment, hitting and sustaining the 90-95% range is the state-of-the-art challenge. The industry isn't even close to worrying about the last 5%, because the first 90% is hard enough to make economical.

So, What's the Path Forward? Pragmatism Over Perfection

Abandoning the 100% unicorn frees us to focus on a brutally pragmatic strategy that might actually work.

First, optimize for 90-95% capture from large, stationary point sources. This is the sweet spot where technology is proven, costs are (relatively) manageable, and emission reductions are enormous. Cement and steel simply don't have other ready options.

Second, radically reduce the “capture burden” by not creating emissions in the first place. This means aggressive electrification, efficiency, and renewable energy deployment. The less CO2 we produce, the less we have to chase down and bury.

Third, use Direct Air Capture (DAC) and natural solutions for the residual. Instead of spending infinite energy trying to get the last 5% from a smokestack, accept a 95% capture rate and use other tools to pull an equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. DAC is energy-hungry, but it’s indifferent to the source of the CO2. It can clean up the diffuse, leftover emissions from aviation, agriculture, and that last bit from industry. It's a more elegant systems solution.

Finally, policy must reflect reality. Subsidies and regulations should incentivize high capture rates (e.g., 95%+), not impossible ones. The 45Q tax credit in the US is a step in this direction. We need to stop the “all-or-nothing” rhetoric that gives climate deniers an easy target (“See, it’s not perfect, so it’s useless”) and empowers greenwashing (“We’re aiming for 100%” as a future fantasy with no accountability).

The goal isn't purity. It's net-zero. A portfolio of solutions—deep emission cuts, high-rate CCS for industry, and carbon removal for the rest—is the only realistic map we have.

FAQs: Your Carbon Capture Questions, Answered