Honestly, if you’ve been following the climate conversation lately, it feels like every other headline is about a new multi-billion-dollar "solution" that involves sucking carbon out of the sky. It sounds like science fiction. Or maybe just a really expensive vacuum cleaner.
But when you dig into the actual carbon capture and storage news coming out this week in early 2026, the reality is a lot messier than the brochures suggest. We are seeing a weird tug-of-war. On one side, companies like Microsoft are signing massive deals—like their recent agreement with Varaha in India to remove 2 million tonnes of $CO_2$ through biochar. On the other, legendary projects like Chevron’s Gorgon in Australia are still struggling to hit even half of their original capture targets.
🔗 Read more: ESP32 Task Watchdog Delete: Why Your Code Keeps Crashing
It’s a bizarre time for the industry. We’re finally seeing big money move, but the tech is still tripping over its own feet.
The Big Projects Hitting the Dirt (and the Sea)
Right now, the "hubs" are the name of the game. Instead of one factory trying to do everything alone, we’re seeing clusters. In Alberta, Bison Low Carbon Ventures just finished commissioning Phase 1 of their Meadowbrook facility. It’s basically a giant underground hotel for carbon. They’re licensed to pump about 500,000 tonnes of $CO_2$ into the ground every year.
Then you have the Europeans. They love a good offshore project. Norway’s Northern Lights project is basically the gold standard right now. They’ve got the Brevik cement plant actually capturing emissions at a commercial scale. It’s the first time we’ve seen the whole "value chain"—capture, transport by ship, and storage under the North Sea—actually work without a major meltdown.
But don't let the success stories fool you. Most people don't realize that about 80% of CCS projects over the last decade have failed or underperformed. Look at the Sleipner field in Norway. It was the poster child for CCS for years. Recent investigations found they might have been over-reporting their captured $CO_2$ by nearly 28% because of buggy sensors. That's a huge deal. If we can't trust the math, the whole system collapses.
Why Direct Air Capture is the New Favorite Child
If you look at the latest carbon capture and storage news, Direct Air Capture (DAC) is getting all the hype. Unlike traditional CCS that sits on top of a smoky chimney, DAC just pulls carbon from thin air.
- Climeworks: Their "Mammoth" plant in Iceland is now aiming for 36,000 tonnes a year.
- Carbon Engineering: Their Stratos plant in Texas is the real monster. We’re talking nearly 1 million tonnes of capacity.
- The Price Tag: This is the kicker. It still costs between $600 and $800 to pull a single tonne of $CO_2$ from the air. For context, most experts say we need that under $100 to actually save the planet without going broke.
The IRS Just Made Things Interesting
In a move that surprised basically no one in Washington but everyone else, the IRS just dropped Notice 2026-01. This is a "safe harbor" rule for the 45Q tax credit. Basically, if the EPA's reporting tools are broken (which they sort of are), companies can get a private engineer to certify their carbon storage so they can still get their tax breaks.
It sounds boring, but it’s the only reason these projects are getting built. Without the 45Q credits, almost none of these facilities would make a dime. They’re effectively government-subsidized science experiments at this stage.
What Most People Get Wrong About Storage
There is this persistent myth that we’re just blowing bubbles into big underground caves. That’s not how it works.
Basically, the $CO_2$ is compressed until it’s "supercritical"—sort of a liquid-gas hybrid—and then shoved into the tiny pores of rocks, usually miles underground. We’re talking deep saline aquifers or old oil fields. The big worry in 2026 isn't the carbon "popping" back up like a balloon. It’s the chemistry.
👉 See also: Why Every Pilot Black Hawk Helicopter Mission is Harder Than It Looks
When $CO_2$ hits water, it forms carbonic acid ($H_2CO_3$). That stuff is corrosive. It eats through the very steel pipes meant to hold it. It can even degrade the concrete seals of the wells. If a project in 2026 fails, it’s probably because of a plumbing leak, not a geological explosion.
Is This Just "Greenwashing" for Oil Companies?
You can't talk about carbon capture and storage news without mentioning the elephant in the room. A lot of this captured carbon is used for "Enhanced Oil Recovery" (EOR).
Essentially, they pump $CO_2$ into old oil wells to loosen up the last bit of crude. Critics—rightfully—point out that using carbon capture to produce more oil feels a bit like trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun filled with gasoline.
However, the tide is shifting. New regulations are starting to favor "dedicated storage" (just burying it) over EOR. In the US, the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" (the successor to the IRA) has created more parity between the two, so companies are finally incentivized to just leave the carbon in the ground.
Actionable Insights: What This Means for You
If you're an investor, a business owner, or just a concerned human, here is the ground reality of CCS in 2026:
- Watch the "Hubs," not the stand-alones. The most successful projects are the ones where multiple companies share the same pipeline and storage site. It spreads the risk.
- Verify the data. If a company claims they are "Net Zero" because of carbon credits from a CCS project, look for third-party verification. The Sleipner scandal showed that self-reporting is a mess.
- Cost is still king. Until we see capture costs for heavy industry (cement and steel) drop below $50 per tonne, this technology will remain a niche tool rather than a global savior.
- Permitting is the bottleneck. Even if you have the money and the tech, getting a "Class VI" well permit in the US takes years.
Next Steps for Moving Forward
To get a real sense of where this is headed, keep a close eye on the Carbon Capture Global Summit 2026 happening this summer. That's where we'll see if the "design one, build many" approach of companies like Carbon Engineering actually starts to bring the costs down.
If you're looking to get involved or invest, prioritize companies focusing on "hard-to-abate" sectors like cement. We already have solar and wind for electricity, but we don't have a good way to make green cement without CCS. That's where the real long-term value lies.
Check the local regulatory landscape in your region. In the US, states like North Dakota and Wyoming now have "primacy" over their own carbon wells, meaning projects there move twice as fast as projects in states waiting on the federal EPA. Efficiency in paperwork is currently more important than efficiency in chemistry.