Author, Jean Chantel
The 2024 review article “Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) Technologies: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Advanced CCUS Solutions for Reducing CO₂ Emissions” does far more than chronicle the state of the art. It stitches the three traditionally separate research threads capture, utilization and storage into a single analytical fabric, asking how the pieces work together rather than apart. In the opening pages the authors identify an “integrated evaluation” as the missing ingredient in earlier surveys, then outline a framework that traces energy, carbon and cash across the full chain.
Their technical sweep is unusually broad. On the capture front the review moves from well-known amine solvents to next-generation solid sorbents, amino-functionalised ionic liquids and mixed-matrix membranes, each benchmarked for selectivity and regeneration energy. They catalogue the leap in capture efficiencies chemical absorption still delivers 90-95 % but at high steam demand, while membrane systems now achieve 70-90 % at roughly $30–50 t⁻¹ CO₂. For combustion routes the paper contrasts post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel options, noting that oxy-fuel’s richer CO₂ stream cuts separation costs even though it raises the levelised cost of electricity by 30-50 %.
The same molecule is then followed into catalytic, biological and mineral utilisation pathways. One highlight is low-temperature mineralisation that pairs captured CO₂ with industrial slags, unlocking a 28 % system-wide cost drop when coupled with high-flux membranes, a synergy revealed only by whole-chain modelling. Downstream, the authors devote a full section to geological storage. Case studies from Sleipner, Petra Nova and the Krechba field demonstrate million-tonne injections with no detected leakage. Storage integrity is underpinned by modern monitoring-reporting-verification (MRV) toolkits that track plume pressure and chemistry for decades, driving predicted leakage probabilities below 0.1 % over 100 years.
Numbers matter, and this article supplies them. A dedicated techno-economic section shows solvent plants still cluster in the $50–100 t⁻¹ band, cryogenic capture can exceed $150, while emerging electro-swing systems target sub-$30 thresholds if powered by renewables. Policy levers close the loop: the U.S. 45Q tax credit and the EU Innovation Fund are mapped directly onto project pro-formas to illustrate how fiscal design turns deep-red balance sheets black.
The brains behind the blueprint bring frontline credibility. At Shell plc, digital-solutions engineer Enobong Hanson pioneered “carbon-twin” dashboards that stream live CCUS simulations to operators, letting them curb emission spikes before they hit quarterly reports. Chukwuebuka Nwakile, meanwhile, built his reputation on the shop floor: a ten-year career at Shell saw him run compression trains, gas sweetening and dehydration units while publishing field studies on carbon capture. Now at Ecolab he folds probabilistic surface models and pressure data from gas plants into project plans, quantifying multi-decade liabilities with the same rigour he once applied to daily production targets. Their day-to-day exposure to plant data, dashboards and permitting files gives the review the operational edge that purely academic treatments often lack.
Impact has been swift and measurable. Google Scholar lists 75 citations at the time of this publication, remarkable velocity for an engineering review less than 8 months old. Scholars are not merely name-checking the paper; they are extending its system model. A Micro-algal Capture study in the Indonesian Journal of Energy adopts the review’s integration framework to rank biological versus geological storage, citing Hanson and Nwakile as its keystone reference. An agent-based simulation of U.S. CO₂ transport logistics published on arXiv credits the review for its cost curves when optimising 5,500 supply and demand nodes across rail, pipe and barge networks. Even life-cycle assessors now plug the paper’s capture-to-storage efficiencies into cradle-to-grave inventories for cement and steel.
Why does that burst of uptake matter? Because CCUS is racing from pilot plant to national portfolio. Policymakers need credible numbers for integrated systems, not single-step efficiencies. Investors demand a clear line of sight from capture skid to product off-take or permanent storage, including quantified liabilities along the route. By providing the first stitched-together map and grounding it in real-world operating constraints—Hanson and Nwakile offered both groups a template they can bend rather than break.
In a field often criticised for hype, the review reads like an engineer’s checklist: transparent assumptions, reproducible equations, and results tables that can be lifted straight into board-room slide decks. That mix of rigour and relevance explains why, before its first anniversary, the article has become the go-to citation for anyone wrestling with system-level CCUS questions and why its influence is poised to grow as nations chase their 2030 and 2050 climate targets.
