Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 4337 2023-05-22 04:34:03 |
2 Because part of the entry is in Chinese, we have changed it. + 203 word(s) 4540 2023-05-22 07:50:30 | |
3 format layout -62 word(s) 4478 2023-05-22 10:01:26 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Zhao, Y.; Itakura, K. Carbon Dioxide Storage. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 16 June 2024).
Zhao Y, Itakura K. Carbon Dioxide Storage. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 16, 2024.
Zhao, Yafei, Ken-Ichi Itakura. "Carbon Dioxide Storage" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 16, 2024).
Zhao, Y., & Itakura, K. (2023, May 22). Carbon Dioxide Storage. In Encyclopedia.
Zhao, Yafei and Ken-Ichi Itakura. "Carbon Dioxide Storage." Encyclopedia. Web. 22 May, 2023.
Carbon Dioxide Storage

Carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies are regarded as an economically feasible way to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. By chemically reacting CO2 with calcium or magnesium-containing minerals, mineral carbonation technology creates stable carbonate compounds that do not require ongoing liability or monitoring. In addition, using industrial waste residues as a source of carbonate minerals appears as an option because they are less expensive and easily accessible close to CO2 emitters and have higher reactivity than natural minerals. Among those geological formations for CO2 storage, carbon microbubbles sequestration provides the economic leak-free option of carbon capture and storage. 

carbon capture utilization and storage carbon capture and storage CO2 storage 

1. Introduction

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels has resulted in the release of significant quantities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons [1]. As a gradual but direct result, global temperatures have risen by approximately 1.5 °C, primarily because of emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases [2][3]. Carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas generated in large quantities by human activity, is the leading contributor to climate change [4]. An increase in temperature of 1.5 °C or more can be expected to exert far-reaching and drastic consequences for water and food availability, human health, ecosystems, coastlines, and biodiversity [5]. Global warming, a crucially important environmental issue, has caused the loss of biodiversity, water, and land, while adversely affecting several sustainability criteria [6].
Several authoritative agencies have released the latest data related to carbon dioxide emissions. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis, carbon dioxide emissions of worldwide in 2021 rose by 6% to reach their highest-ever level of 36.3 billion tonnes, as the global economy recovered vigorously from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant dependence on coal as the primary source of energy to support this growth. To limit global warming to approximately 1.5 °C (2.7°F), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios suggest that worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced by 43% before 2030 [3]. Additionally, the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the current concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 416 parts per million (ppm) and increasing at a rate of 2.8 ppm annually [7]. Therefore, reducing CO2 emissions is necessary for human survival. Nevertheless, the world’s energy demand is projected to increase by more than 28.6% by 2040 [8], indicating that brand-new energy sources including hydrogen, wind, and solar must replace fossil fuels. Even in light of that necessity, achieving such a transition in a short time is expected to be challenging [9].
As a practical method for lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is at the center of attention [10]. Storage is a vital step in the development of CCS systems. Earlier review papers detailed numerous physicochemical techniques for effective CO2 storage and emphasized the challenges posed by diverse techniques and initiatives [11][12][13][14]. For instance, many investigations have been reported of CO2 storage techniques such as mineral carbonation (MC) [15], offshore storage [16], and geological storage [17]. However, Michael Economides, an energy specialist, claims that CCS, comprising numerous components such as collection, gathering, and injection, is an impractical solution for controlling CO2 because of insurmountable hurdles related to physical needs and cost [18].
A similar strategy is employed for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) that have gained significant attention as a promising approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. While all three components (capture, utilization, and storage) are important, the utilization of captured carbon dioxide has been highlighted as a crucial element in the CCUS strategy. Carbon utilization not only reduces the net amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere but also creates value-added products, thus providing economic incentives for the implementation of CCUS technologies [19]. Table 1 provides a brief summary of the advantages and disadvantages of CCS and CCUS as well as a comparison of their CO2 capture capabilities, which are general estimates and can vary depending on the specific technology and implementation used.
Table 1. Comparing CCS and CCUS.
According to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) [20], “utilizing captured carbon dioxide can be a game-changer for the economics of carbon capture, making it more viable for both power and industrial applications”. The report also notes that carbon utilization has the potential to reduce the cost of CCUS by up to 50%, depending on the technology used and the price of CO2 emissions. Several carbon utilization pathways have been proposed and tested, including enhanced oil recovery, mineral carbonation, and the production of chemicals and fuels. For instance, carbon dioxide can be used to enhance the recovery of oil and gas from existing wells, a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which has been shown to be economically viable in certain regions. Another pathway is the mineral carbonation of silicate minerals, which involves the reaction of carbon dioxide with silicate minerals to produce stable carbonates. This approach has been demonstrated in pilot-scale projects and has the potential to permanently store carbon dioxide in a geological form. Additionally, captured carbon dioxide can be used as a feedstock for the production of chemicals and fuels, including methanol, urea, and dimethyl ether. A study by Biswal et al. [21] explored the potential of converting captured CO2 into methanol, which is a valuable fuel and chemical intermediate. They found that integrating carbon capture with methanol production could significantly reduce CO2 emissions while also generating economic benefits. Another study by Szima et al. [22] investigated the use of CO2 in the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) through a process called the Sabatier reaction. The study demonstrated the potential of CCUS-SNG to not only reduce CO2 emissions but also contribute to energy security and resource utilization. Additionally, the utilization of CO2 for the production of building materials, such as concrete, has gained attention in recent years. A study by Li et al. [23] investigated the use of CO2 in the production of lightweight concrete, which has potential environmental and economic benefits. Overall, the utilization of CO2 is a promising component of CCUS, offering both environmental and economic benefits. In conclusion, carbon utilization is a critical component of the CCUS strategy as it not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also provides economic incentives for the implementation of CCUS technologies. Consequently, until renewable energy is used more extensively, carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies by converting captured CO2 into valuable products are regarded as an economically feasible way to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In a CCUS supply chain, CO2 is collected and compressed at the source facility before being transported to a location for use or injection for geological sequestration. Reportedly, CCUS has the potential to cut global CO2 emissions from the energy sector by 20% [24]. Although many studies have evaluated CCS or CCUS operations, few have considered storing CO2 and industrial waste together in underground spaces, such as abandoned coal mines and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) cavities.

2. CO2 Storage Methods

This discussion offers an in-depth analysis of the relevant literature, advancements, and debates related to different CCUS methodologies. Figure 1 portrays the main CO2 storage methods which are commonly acknowledged as CCS/CCUS technologies. They have the capability of lowering CO2 emissions. However, to achieve the predicted net-zero CO2 emissions objective by 2050, their present worldwide deployment remains insufficient [25]. Various strategies for CO2 sequestration including physical, biological, and chemical storage possibilities are being investigated because the captured CO2 must eventually be stored to eliminate its effects [26][27]. Biological storage refers to the process by which living organisms absorb and store carbon, converting CO2 from the atmosphere into organic matter through photosynthesis. This process is essential for regulating the carbon cycle and maintaining a stable climate. Biological storage includes the carbon sequestration in plants [2] and soil carbon sequestration [28]. Plants, algae, and other photosynthetic organisms play a key role in biological storage by converting CO2 into organic compounds, such as carbohydrates and proteins [29]. These compounds can be stored within the organism’s tissues or released into the soil, where they can be further broken down and stored as organic matter [30]. Physical storage includes geological storage [31][32] and ocean storage [33]. Mineral carbonation is a chemical storage method that involves the reaction of CO2 with minerals [31]. Physical and chemical storage will be detailed in the following chapters. Carbon dioxide storage can be achieved through three main methods: (i) geological storage in deep geological formations, (ii) ocean storage in deep ocean water, and (iii) mineral storage in the form of mineral carbonates [31].
Figure 1. CO2 storage methods.

2.1. Geological Storage

Similarly to the natural storage of fossil fuels in nature, CO2 geological storage involves the injection of CO2 into a suitable underground geological formation or stratum at a specific depth. During the last decade, reports of the literature describing investigations of geological CO2 storage have increased considerably [34]. Over 1 million tonnes of CO2 are now being stored at 14 different places throughout the world [35]. Depending on the research location, the estimated global CO2 storage capacity ranges from 100 to 20,000 gigatons CO2 [36]. Saline aquifers, deep unmineable coal beds, and depleted oil and gas reservoirs are considered the best places for CO2 geological storage [31].

2.1.1. Depleted Oil or Gas Reservoirs

Geological storage is an extensively employed technique for enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR/EGR) due to its potential for large-scale storage capacity [37][38]. In fact, depleted oil and gas reservoirs’ storage of CO2 is regarded as an extremely effective storage option, illustrating a few of its many benefits: (i) extensive prior research and exploration during hydrocarbon exploration stages, which has allowed for the determination of storage capacity; (ii) existing subterranean and surface infrastructure, such as pipelines and injection wells, that is useful for storage processes with minimal modification [39][40][41]; and (iii) the oil and gas industry’s widespread usage of CO2 injection as an EOR technology, which can be leveraged for storage processes [42].
For EOR, CO2 is used to increase the reservoir pressure, thereby creating sufficient driving force to extract the remaining oil from active wells. Furthermore, the injection of CO2 can be utilized to recover natural gas (methane, CH4) from coal beds. The basic principle behind this method is that the introduction of CO2 can displace CH4 from the coal while simultaneously storing the CO2 within the porous structure of the coal bed [43]. The injection of CO2 for EOR is supported by mature technologies. Moreover, studies have investigated various aspects of the processes, including migration simulation [44], geochemical modeling [45], and leakage/risk assessment [46]. However, environmental considerations associated with EOR include the creation of massive volumes of water that might include radioactive materials and hazardous heavy metals [47].

2.1.2. Deep Unmineable Coal Beds

Coal bed methane (CBM) reservoirs are naturally occurring formations of coal that contain large amounts of methane gas trapped within the coal matrix. When coal bed methane is extracted, it not only removes the methane gas but also reduces the pressure within the coal seam. This pressure reduction can cause the release of CO2 that is adsorbed onto the coal surface. This process is known as CO2 desorption and can lead to the release of significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere [48].
However, coal beds also have the potential to store large amounts of CO2 through a process called CO2 sequestration. This process involves injecting CO2 into unmineable coal seams where it is adsorbed onto the coal surface, replacing methane gas. The CO2 is then trapped within the coal matrix and stored underground for long periods of time, potentially mitigating the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. The technique of CO2 storage in coal seams involves utilizing the void space created by the removal of methane. A comprehensive review of this method was conducted by White et al. [43], which highlighted key issues such as estimation of potential storage capacity, storage integrity, physical and chemical processes, as well as environmental health and safety. The storage potential of deep unmineable coal beds for CO2 sequestration is significant. In fact, coal beds have been estimated to have the potential to store over 500 gigatons of CO2 globally. A study by Hu and Cheng [49] estimated the potential of CO2 storage in deep unmineable coal seams in China to be 69.5 Gt. Similarly, another study by Liu et al. [50] estimated the CO2 storage capacity in the Illinois Basin to be 66.7 Gt. Furthermore, coal beds are often located near power plants, which could provide a convenient source of CO2 for sequestration.
The long-term storage stability of CO2 in deep unmineable coal beds is dependent on several factors, such as the coal type, coal rank, depth, and pressure. Hu and Cheng [49] reported that deep coal seams with high-rank coal have higher CO2 storage capacity and better storage stability due to their low permeability and high sorption capacity. Additionally, the geological sequestration of CO2 in deep unmineable coal seams has been found to be effective in the long term, as reported by Bao et al. [51].
One of the primary technical advantages of CO2 sequestration in deep unmineable coal beds is the existing infrastructure and knowledge from the coal bed methane industry. Additionally, CO2 injection can enhance methane production, which can offset some of the costs associated with CO2 sequestration [52]. Furthermore, the use of unmineable coal beds for CO2 sequestration can also avoid potential environmental impacts associated with coal mining activities [51].
However, there are several challenges associated with CO2 sequestration in deep unmineable coal beds. One of the main challenges is the potential for CO2 leakage, which can occur due to faults or fractures in the surrounding rock formations [50]. Additionally, the costs associated with CO2 injection, monitoring, and verification can be high. There is also the need for the development of regulatory frameworks and policies to ensure the safe and effective implementation of CO2 sequestration in deep unmineable coal beds [51].
In summary, CO2 sequestration in deep unmineable coal beds has significant potential for mitigating CO2 emissions from power plants and other industrial sources. However, it also presents significant technical challenges that must be addressed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of this approach.

2.1.3. Saline Aquifers

Deep saline aquifers, located at depths of 700–1000 m below ground level, are known to contain high-salinity formation brines [53]. While these saline aquifers are not commercially valuable, they can serve as a useful storage site for injected CO2 captured from the CCS process. Indeed, saline aquifers are considered an important option for CO2 storage due to their vast storage capacity. It is estimated that they are capable of sequestering 10,000 gigatons (Gt) of CO2, which is equivalent to the emissions from large stationary sources for over 100 years [54][55]. Saline aquifers, in contrast to other storage sites, often have a larger spatial distribution and broader regional coverage.
Saline aquifers have the potential to store up to 10,000 gigatons of CO2, which is equivalent to 20–500% of the predicted emissions by 2050, as reported by Davison, Freund, and Smith [56]. According to Pruess et al. [57], the long-term CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers is approximately 30 kg/m3. Another important advantage of these aquifers is that they are easily accessible from most existing CO2 capture sites, which makes the CO2 sequestration process much more cost-effective. Additionally, these aquifers are often highly mineralized and are not suitable for supplying drinking water, making them a viable option for CO2 storage without compromising the availability of freshwater resources [56]. Rock porosity is a crucial factor for CO2 sequestration, as it enables the injection and storage of CO2 by displacing brine or gas from pore structures. Deep saline aquifers are typically abundant in both porosity and permeability, making them the most suitable locations for CO2 storage [58]. Although saline aquifers have the potential to store a large amount of CO2, there is still less knowledge available about their storage characteristics compared to other geological storage sites, such as coal seams and oil fields. Yang et al. [59] conducted a review on the characteristics of CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers, including the behavior of CO2 in different phases, the interactions of CO2 with water and rock, and the mechanisms of CO2 trapping, such as hydrodynamic trapping, residual trapping, solubility trapping, and mineral trapping [60][61][62]. Extensive investigations have been conducted on the parameters that influence the mineral trapping of CO2 during its sequestration in brines [63]. Szulczewski et al. [64] assessed pressure buildup during injection and CO2 entrapment within the pore spaces of deep saline aquifers to estimate CO2 storage capacity. Nevertheless, due to inadequate understanding of the geochemical behavior in saline aquifers, global CO2 storage capacity estimates remain imprecise [65]. Economically, many saline aquifers are currently considered less desirable as a storage option due to the lack of necessary infrastructure, including injection wells, surface equipment, and pipelines, as well as the associated capital costs required for developing such infrastructure.
Although geological storage of CO2 has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are also several potential drawbacks and challenges associated with this method. One of the main concerns with geological storage is the possibility of CO2 leakage [66]. While caprock formations are designed to prevent CO2 from escaping, there is still a risk of leakage due to natural fractures or faults in the rock. In the event of a leakage, the stored CO2 could potentially migrate to the surface and pose a risk to human health and the environment. Another challenge is that geological storage might entail risks such as geological structure deformation, underground water acidification, and increased incidence of earthquakes [67]. Additionally, there are also concerns around the cost and energy requirements of geological storage [66]. While this method has been used for decades in the oil and gas industry, it is still relatively expensive and energy intensive. There is also a need for the ongoing monitoring and maintenance of storage sites, which can add to the overall cost [68].

2.2. Oceanic Storage

The oceans constitute a crucially important natural carbon sink that absorbs excess CO2. The exchange of CO2 at the air–sea interface dissolves carbon, which is subsequently carried in seawater via the circulation of thermohaline. The physical conditions that affect ocean storage include temperature, salinity, and pressure. These conditions determine the solubility of CO2 in seawater and the rate at which CO2 can be transported to the deep ocean. In general, colder and saltier water can dissolve more CO2 than warmer and fresher water. This means that the polar regions are particularly well suited for ocean storage, as they have colder and saltier water than other regions of the ocean [69]. Pressure is also an important factor in ocean storage, as it affects the solubility of CO2 and the rate at which it can be transported to the deep ocean [70]. Additionally, CO2 is transported to the deep ocean via the sinking of organic material, including phytoplankton, through the biological pump [27].
Efforts have been made to replicate natural processes for carbon sequestration through two mechanisms in the ocean. The first involves pumping CO2 straight into the deep ocean without passing the mixed layer. Despite conversations among experts and entrepreneurs, there are currently no prospects for crediting carbon trapped in the ocean. Similarly to geological storage, oceanic carbon storage involves injecting CO2 into the deep ocean, creating liquid CO2 lakes through the high pressure and supercritical state. Captured CO2 might be transferred via a pipeline or ship to the ocean or seafloor for discharge. Oceanic storage has a significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, as the world’s deep ocean trenches have the potential to store vast amounts of CO2. The Puerto Rico trench, for example, has the capacity to store 24,000 Gt of liquid CO2 deeper than 7 km, and the Sunda trench, located below 6 km, has the potential to accommodate 19,000 Gt of liquid CO2, surpassing the CO2 yield from all current global fossil fuel reserves. However, concerns have been raised that the stored CO2 might escape back into the atmosphere [71]. Hence, it requires careful monitoring to ensure that the CO2 does not leak back into the atmosphere [72]. The second involves adding nutrients to the surface ocean to stimulate the biological pump. Ocean fertilization involves adding nutrients to the ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which absorb CO2 during photosynthesis. When the phytoplankton die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, carrying the stored CO2 with them [73].
On the opposite side, the injection of CO2 into the ocean could cause seawater acidification, leading to harm to marine ecosystems and leading to potentially devastating effects on marine life. According to Caldeira and Wickett [74], ocean model predictions suggest that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean will cause significant chemistry changes. Since the London Convention restricted ocean storage in 2007, research in this field has been significantly reduced with considering these possibilities of the above disadvantage [34].

2.3. Mineral Storage

Mineral sequestration techniques were initially proposed by Friedel [75], who suggested accelerating the carbonation process by using high-purity CO2. Mineral carbonation (MC) is a promising technology for carbon capture and storage (CCS) that mimics the natural weathering processes. The process involves an exothermic reaction between CO2 and alkaline earth-metal-bearing minerals and wastes, resulting in the formation of stable carbonate minerals [76][77][78]. Carbonates are more thermodynamically stable than CO2, as their standard Gibbs free energy is lower. Therefore, they are considered as a more stable form of carbon [79]. The stability of carbonates suggests that CO2 mineral storage offers a secure and long-term solution for storing CO2 without the need for continuous monitoring. Compared to other carbon storage methods, mineral carbonation through the reaction of CO2 with Ca and Mg-bearing minerals, either naturally or industrially, offers several unique advantages. These include excellent long-term stability of CO2, the creation of value-added products through the carbonation process, and the potential for in situ application by various industries [80][81].
The literature related to MC is extensive. Numerous studies have been conducted and reviewed regarding the carbon sequestration process using mineral carbonation [82]. Reviews conducted by Sipilä et al. [83] and Huijgen et al. [84] have extensively examined the initial developments in this field until 2006. A review presented by Torróntegui et al. [85] has covered relevant studies until 2010. An overview of the growth of MC of industrial wastes was presented by Bodor et al. [86]. Numerous reviews have covered the evolution and contemporary advances of MC extensively, even describing the use of different feedstock materials [82][87][88]. Moreover, notable reviews explained the MC of ultramafic mine deposits [89], steel-making waste [90], fly ash [91], and pH swing processes [92].
Recently, separate reviews of the energy costs and carbon footprints associated with various MC routes were presented by Naraharisetti et al. [93] and Ncongwane et al. [94]. However, concerns have arisen about the techno-economic aspects of many earlier studies [95][96]. Table 2 presents the estimated CO2 storage capacities of the methods explained above.
Table 2. Estimated CO2 storage capacity [97].


  1. Kapila, S.; Oni, A.O.; Gemechu, E.D.; Kumar, A. Development of net energy ratios and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of large–scale mechanical energy storage systems. Energy 2019, 170, 592–603.
  2. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre–Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Potner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018.
  3. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022.
  4. Solomon, S.; Plattner, G.K.; Knutti, R.; Friedlingstein, P. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1704–1709.
  5. Bernstein, L.; Bosch, P.; Canziani, O.; Chen, Z.; Christ, R.; Riahi, K. IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; ISBN 2-9169-22-4. Available online: (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  6. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 1–33.
  7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA–ESRL (2020–7–30). Available online: (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  8. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2018; IEA: Paris, France, 2018; Available online: (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  9. Kramer, G.J.; Haigh, M. No quick switch to low-carbon energy. Nature 2009, 462, 568–569.
  10. Tan, Y.; Nookuea, W.; Li, H.; Thorin, E.; Yan, J. Property impacts on carbon capture and storage (CCS) processes: A review. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 118, 204–222.
  11. Riaz, A.; Cinar, Y. Carbon dioxide sequestration in saline formations: Part I-review of the modeling of solubility trapping. J. Pet. Scikit. Eng. 2014, 124, 367–380.
  12. Belhaj, H.; Bera, A. A brief review of mechanisms for carbon dioxide sequestration into aquifer reservoirs. Int. J Pet. Eng. 2017, 3, 49–66.
  13. Aminu, M.D.; Nabavi, S.A.; Rochelle, C.A.; Manovic, V. A review of developments in carbon dioxide storage. Appl. Energy 2017, 208, 1389–1419.
  14. Thakur, I.S.; Kumar, M.; Varjani, S.J.; Wu, Y.; Gnansounou, E.; Ravindran, S. Sequestration and utilization of carbon dioxide by chemical and biological methods for biofuels and biomaterials by chemoautotrophs: Opportunities and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 256, 478–490.
  15. Sanna, A.; Uibu, M.; Caramanna, G.; Kuusik, R.; Maroto-Valer, M. A review of mineral carbonation technologies to sequester CO2. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 8049–8080.
  16. Pham, L.H.H.P.; Rusli, R.; Keong, L.K. Consequence study of CO2 leakage from ocean storage. Procedia Eng. 2016, 148, 1081–1088.
  17. Bickle, M.J. Geological carbon storage. Nat. Geosci. 2009, 2, 815–818.
  18. Ehlig–Economides, C.; Economides, M.J. Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2010, 70, 123–130.
  19. Roh, K.; Lim, H.; Chung, W.; Oh, J.; Yoo, H.; Al-Hunaidy, A.S.; Imran, H.; Lee, J.H. Sustainability analysis of CO2 capture and utilization processes using a computer aided tool. J. CO2 Util. 2018, 26, 60–69.
  20. IEA. Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage: The Opportunity in Southeast Asia; IEA: Paris, France, 2018; Available online: (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  21. Biswal, T.; Shadangi, K.P.; Sarangi, P.K.; Rajesh K. Srivastava, R.K. Conversion of carbon dioxide to methanol: A comprehensive review. Chemosphere 2022, 298, 134299.
  22. Szima, S.; Cormos, C.C. CO2 Utilization Technologies: A Techno-Economic Analysis for Synthetic Natural Gas Production. Energies 2021, 14, 1258.
  23. Shi, C.J.; Wu, Y.Z. Studies on some factors affecting CO2 curing of lightweight concrete products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52, 1087–1092.
  24. IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2008; Available online:–technology-perspectives-2008 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  25. Wan, Y.H. A techno-economic review on carbon capture, utilization and storage systems for achieving a net–zero CO2 emissions future. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2022, 3, 100044.
  26. Chen, G.L.; Song, X.F.; Sun, S.Y.; Xu, Y.X.; Yu, J.G. Solubility and diffusivity of CO2 in n-butanol +N235 system and absorption mechanism of CO2 in a coupled reaction–extraction process. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2016, 10, 480–489.
  27. Liu, W.Z.; Teng, L.M.; Rohani, S.; Qin, Z.F.; Zhao, B.; Xu, C.C.; Ren, S.; Liu, Q.C.; Liang, B. CO2 mineral carbonation using industrial solid wastes: A review of recent developments. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 416, 129093.
  28. Lal, R. Sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in global carbon pools. Energy Environ. Sci. 2008, 1, 86–100.
  29. Zhu, X.G.; Long, S.P.; Ort, D.R. Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2010, 61, 235–261.
  30. Paustian, K.; Lehmann, J.; Ogle, S.; Reay, D.; Robertson, G.P.; Smith, P. Climate-smart soils. Nature 2016, 532, 49–57.
  31. Bachu, S. Overview of CO2 storage in geological media. Energy Convers. Manag. 2000, 41, 633–640.
  32. Lehmann, A. Ocean carbon dioxide storage: Geological and chemical aspects. Encycl. Ocean Sci. 2007, 3, 1795–1803.
  33. IPCC. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; Prepared by Working Group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change; Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H.C., Loos, M., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005.
  34. Gale, J.; Abanades, J.C.; Bachu, S.; Jenkins, C. Special Issue commemorating the 10th year anniversary of the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 40, 1–5.
  35. Bui, M.; Adjiman, C.S.; Bardow, A.; Anthony, E.J.; Boston, A.; Brown, S.; Fennell, P.S.; Fuss, S.; Galindo, A.; Hackett, L.A.; et al. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 2008, 11, 1062–1176.
  36. Chunbao Charles, X.U.; Cang, D.Q. A brief overview of low CO2 emission technologies for iron and steel making. J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 2010, 17, 1–7.
  37. Kumar, S.; Kumar, A.; Mandal, A. Characterizations of surfactant synthesized from Jatropha oil and its application in enhanced oil recovery. AIChE J. 2017, 63, 2731–2741.
  38. Bai, M.; Zhang, Z.; Fu, X. A review on well integrity issues for CO2 geological storage and enhanced gas recovery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 920–926.
  39. Wildgust, N.; Gilboy, C.; Tontiwachwuthikul, P. Introduction to a decade of research by the IEAGHG Weyburn–Midale CO2 monitoring and storage project. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 16, S1–S4.
  40. Ryerson, F.J.; Lake, J.; Whittaker, S.D.; Johnson, J.W. Natural CO2 accumulations in the western Williston Basin: A mineralogical analog for CO2 injection at the Weyburn site. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 16, S25–S34.
  41. Hawkes, C.D.; Gardner, C. Pressure transient testing for assessment of wellbore integrity in the IEAGHG Weyburn–Midale CO2 monitoring and storage project. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 16, S50–S61.
  42. Li, Z.W.; Dong, M.Z.; Li, S.L.; Huang, S. CO2 sequestration in depleted oil and gas reservoirs–caprock characterization and storage capacity. Energy Convers. Manag. 2006, 47, 1372–1382.
  43. White, C.M.; Strazisar, B.R.; Granite, E.J.; Hoffman, J.S.; Pennline, H.W. Separation and capture of CO2 from large stationary sources and sequestration in geological formations-Coalbeds and deep saline aquifers. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2003, 53, 645–715.
  44. Chiaramonte, L.; Zoback, M.; Friedmann, J.; Stamp, V.; Zahm, C. Fracture characterization and fluid flow simulation with geomechanical constraints for a CO2-EOR and sequestration project Teapot Dome Oil Field, Wyoming, USA. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 3973–3980.
  45. Cantucci, B.; Montegrossi, G.; Vaselli, O.; Tassi, F.; Quattrocchi, F.; Perkins, E.H. Geochemical modeling of CO2 storage in deep reservoirs: The Weyburn Project (Canada) case study. Chem. Geol. 2009, 265, 181–197.
  46. Klusman, R.W. Evaluation of leakage potential from a carbon dioxide EOR/sequestration project. Energy Convers. Manag. 2003, 44, 1921–1940.
  47. Igunnu, E.T.; Chen, G.Z. Produced water treatment technologies. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2014, 9, 157.
  48. Baran, P.; Zarębska, K.; Krzystolik, P.; Hadro, J.; Nunn, A. CO2-ECBM and CO2 Sequestration in Polish Coal Seam–Experimental Study. J. Sustain. Min. 2014, 13, 22–29.
  49. Hu, Y.; Cheng, L. Carbon dioxide sequestration in unmineable coal seams: A review. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2017, 173, 118–134.
  50. Liu, J.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, L. Carbon dioxide sequestration in deep unmineable coal seams: A review. Energy Sci. Eng. 2017, 5, 157–172.
  51. Bao, L.; Liu, D.; Liu, J.; Lu, Y.; Wei, Y. CO2 sequestration potential in deep coal seams: A review. Fuel 2019, 235, 1037–1050.
  52. Jia, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Chen, Y.; Sun, X.; Gao, F. Enhanced coal bed methane recovery and CO2 storage potential in coal seams: A review. Fuel 2018, 215, 251–263.
  53. Singh, N. Deep saline aquifiers for sequestration of carbon dioxide. In Proceedings of the International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway, 6–14 August 2008.
  54. De Silva, G.P.D.; Ranjith, P.G.; Perera, M.S.A. Geochemical aspects of CO2 sequestration in deep saline aquifers: A review. Fuel 2015, 155, 128–143.
  55. Celia, M.A.; Bachu, S.; Nordbotten, J.M.; Bandilla, K.W. Status of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers with emphasis on modeling approaches and practical simulations. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 6846–6892.
  56. Davison, J.; Freund, P.; Smith, A. Putting Carbon Back in the Ground; IEA Greenhouse Gas R & D Programme: Cheltenham, UK, 2001; ISBN 1898373280.
  57. Pruess, K.; Xu, T.; Apps, J.; Garcia, J. Numerical modeling of aquifer disposal of CO2. SPE J. 2003, 8, 49–60.
  58. Gunter, W.D.; Bachu, S.; Benson, S. The role of hydrogeological and geochemical trapping in sedimentary basins for secure geological storage of carbon dioxide. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2004, 233, 129–145.
  59. Yang, F.; Bai, B.J.; Tang, D.Z.; Dunn–Norman, S.; Wronkiewicz, D. Characteristics of CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers. Pet. Sci. 2010, 7, 83–92.
  60. Rackley, S.A. Carbon Capture and Storage; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK; Elsevier: Burlington, VT, USA, 2010; ISBN 9781856176361.
  61. Gunter, W.D. CO2 Sequestration in Deep Unmineable Coal Seams; Alberta Research Council: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2000.
  62. Reichle, D.; Houghton, J.; Kane, B.; Ekmann, J.; Benson, S.; Clarke, J.; Dahlman, R.; Hendrey, G.; Herzog, H.; Hunter-Cevera, J.; et al. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development; Report; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1999; Available online: (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  63. Liu, D.; Fernandez, Y.; Ola, O.; Mackintosh, S.; Maroto-Valer, M.M.; Parlett, C.M.A.; Lee, A.F.; Wu, J.C.S. On the impact of Cu dispersion on CO2 photoreduction over Cu/TiO2. Catal. Commun. 2012, 25, 78–82.
  64. Szulczewski, M.L.; MacMinn, C.W.; Juanes, R. Theoretical analysis of how pressure buildup and CO2 migration can both constrain storage capacity in deep saline aquifers. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 23, 113–118.
  65. Bachu, S.; Bonijoly, D.; Bradshaw, J.; Burruss, R.; Holloway, S.; Christensen, N.P.; Mathiassen, O.M. CO2 storage capacity estimation: Methodology and gaps. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2007, 1, 430–443.
  66. Herzog, H.J. Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuel use. Encycl. Energy 2009, 1, 429–437.
  67. Park, S. CO2 reduction-conversion to precipitates and morphological control through the application of the mineral carbonation mechanism. Energy 2018, 153, 413–421.
  68. Lee, J.S.; Choi, E.C. CO2 leakage environmental damage cost-A CCS project in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 753–758.
  69. Kump, L.R.; Brantley, S.L.; Arthur, M.A.; Balter, V.; Feinberg, J.M.; Fischer, W.W.; Zachos, J.C. The Paleogene transformation of the oceanic carbonate system. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2011, 301, 299–312.
  70. McNeil, B.I.; Matear, R.J. Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 18860–18864.
  71. Goldthorpe, S. Potential for Very Deep Ocean Storage of CO2, Without Ocean Acidification: A Discussion Paper. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 5417–5429.
  72. Keith, D.W.; Ha-Duong, M. Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Clim. Change 2003, 59, 251–265.
  73. Lovelock, J.E.; Rapley, C.G. Ocean pipes could help the earth to cure itself: An idea from the 1970s for tackling climate change could be dusted off and given a new lease of life. Nature 2007, 449, 403.
  74. Caldeira, K.; Wickett, M.E. Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2005, 110, C09S04.
  75. Friedel, G. Sur la carbonatation des silicates et de l’aluminate de chaux. Comptes Rendus Académie Sci. 1923, 177, 157–159.
  76. Seifritz, W. CO2 Disposal by Means of Silicates. Nature 1990, 345, 486.
  77. Kandji, E.H.B.; Plante, B.; Bussière, B.; Beaudoin, G.; Dupont, P. Geochemical behavior of ultramafic waste rocks with carbon sequestration potential: A case study of the Dumont Nickel Project, Amos, Québec. Environ. Scikit. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 11734–11751.
  78. Lackner, K.S. Carbonate chemistry for sequestering fossil carbon. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2002, 27, 193–232.
  79. Pandey, S.; Srivastava, V.C.; Kumar, V. Comparative thermodynamic analysis of CO2 based dimethyl carbonate synthesis routes. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2021, 99, 467–478.
  80. Bobicki, E.R.; Liu, Q.; Xu, Z.; Zeng, H. Carbon capture and storage using alkaline industrial wastes. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38, 302–320.
  81. Surampalli, R.Y.; Zhang, T.C.; Tyagi, R.D.; Naidu, R.; Gurjar, B.R.; Ojha, C.S.P.; Yan, S.; Brar, S.K.; Ramakrishnan, A.; Kao, C.M. Carbon Capture and Storage: Physical, Chemical, and Biological Methods; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2015; ISBN 9780784478912.
  82. Galina, N.R.; Arce, G.L.A.F.; Ávila, I. Evolution of carbon capture and storage by mineral carbonation: Data analysis and relevance of the theme. Miner. Eng. 2019, 142, 105879.
  83. Sipilä, J.; Teir, S.; Zevenhoven, R. Carbon Dioxide Sequestration by Mineral Carbonation Literature Review Update 2005–2007; Report Vt1; Åbo Akademi University, Faculty of Technology, Heat Engineering Laboratory: Turku, Finland, 2008; ISBN 978-952-12-2036-4.
  84. Huijgen, W.J.J.; Witkamp, G.J.; Comans, R.N.J. Mineral CO2 sequestration by steel slag carbonation. Environ. Scikit. Technol. 2005, 39, 9676–9682.
  85. Torróntegui, D.M. Assessing the Mineral Carbonation Science and Technology. Master’s Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Process Engineering, Separation Processes Laboratory, Zürich, Switzerland, 2010.
  86. Bodor, M.; Santos, R.M.; Van Gerven, T.; Vlad, M. Recent developments and perspectives on the treatment of industrial wastes by mineral carbonation—A review. Cent. Eur. J. Eng. 2013, 3, 566–584.
  87. Sanna, A.; Maroto–valer, M. CO2 Sequestration by Ex–Situ Mineral Carbonation; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2017; ISBN 978-1-78634-160-0.
  88. Wang, F.; Dreisinger, D.B.; Jarvis, M.; Hitchins, T. The technology of CO2 sequestration by mineral carbonation: Current status and future prospects. Can. Metall. Q. 2018, 57, 46–58.
  89. Li, J.J.; Hitch, M.; Power, I.; Pan, Y. Integrated mineral carbonation of ultramafic mine deposits—A review. Minerals 2018, 8, 147.
  90. Ibrahim, M.H.; El–Naas, M.; Benamor, A.; AI-Sobhi, S.; Zhang, Z.E. Carbon mineralization by reaction with steel–making waste: A review. Processes 2019, 7, 115.
  91. Dindi, A.; Quang, D.V.; Vega, L.F.; Nashef, E.; Abu-Zahra, M.R.M. Applications of fly ash for CO2 capture, utilization, and storage. J. CO2 Util. 2019, 29, 82–102.
  92. Azdarpour, A.; Asadullah, M.; Mohammadian, E.; Hamidi, H.; Junin, R.; Karaei, M.A. A review on carbon dioxide mineral carbonation through pH–swing process. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 279, 615–630.
  93. Naraharisetti, P.K.; Yeo, T.Y.; Bu, J. Factors influencing CO2 and energy penalties of CO2 mineralization processes. Chem. Phys. Chem. 2017, 18, 3189–3202.
  94. Ncongwane, M.S.; Broadhurst, J.L.; Petersen, J. Assessment of the potential carbon footprint of engineered processes for the mineral carbonation of PGM tailings. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2018, 77, 70–81.
  95. Hitch, M.; Dipple, G.M. Economic feasibility and sensitivity analysis of integrating industrial scale mineral carbonation into mining operations. Miner. Eng. 2012, 39, 268–275.
  96. Pasquier, L.C.; Mercier, G.; Blais, J.F.; Cecchi, E.; Kentish, S. Technical & economic evaluation of a mineral carbonation process using southern Québec mining wastes for CO2 sequestration of raw flue gas with by–product recovery. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 50, 147–157.
  97. Global CCS Institute. The Global Status of CCS: 2020; Global CCS Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2020; Available online: (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  98. Lyu, X.; Yang, K.; Fang, J.J. Utilization of resources in abandoned coal mines for carbon neutrality. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 822, 153646, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153646.
  99. Menéndez, J.; Ordónez, A.; Fernández-Oro, J.M.; Loredo, J.; Díaz-Aguado, M.B. Feasibility analysis of using mine water from abandoned coal mines in Spain for heating and cooling of buildings.. Energy 2020, 146, 1166–1176, 10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.054.
  100. Younger, P.L.; Roddy, D.J.; Gonzalez, G. King coal: Restoring the monarchy by underground gasification coupled to CCS. . Geological Society 2010, 7, 1155-1163.
  101. Roddy, D.J.; Younger, P.L. Underground coal gasification with CCS: A pathway to decarbonising industry. . Energy Environ. Sci. 2010, 3, 400–407, 10.1039/B921197G.
  102. Seo, S.; Mastiani, M.; Hafez, M.; Kunkel, G.; Asfour, C.G.; Garcia-Ocampo, K.I.; Linares, N.; Saldana, C.; Yang, K.; Kim, M.; et al. Injection of in-situ generated CO2 microbubbles into deep saline aquifers for enhanced carbon sequestration.. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2019, 83, 256–264, 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.02.017.
  103. Field Trial to Inject CO2 microbubble and Blast Furnace Slag into Goaf in Abandoned Underground Coal Mine. . MMIJ Q. 2023. Retrieved 2023-5-22
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : ,
View Times: 325
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 23 May 2023
Video Production Service