Carbon Capture Economics: 12 Verified Interview Sources, Weighted Toward Cost Skeptics and Techno-Economists

Bottom line

I found 12 people whose public work on the economics of carbon capture I could confirm: 5 academics, 4 think-tank and NGO analysts, 2 industry and finance economists, and 1 policy voice from UK Parliament. Views run from IEEFA's finding that CCS struggles to pass ordinary commercial tests even with subsidies, to Clean Air Task Force's work on making CCS bankable in Europe, with modelling economists in between. For a first call I would try Stefan Reichelstein (University of Mannheim), whose 2026 working paper puts removal costs at $29 to $1,076 per tonne of CO2. I would also try Andrew Reid (IEEFA) for the sceptical case on subsidies, and Sheila Olmstead (Cornell) for how the US 45Q credit is designed. Government representation is thin: only one UK parliamentary voice is included, and no serving agency economist cleared verification.

Scope and interpretation

I read "carbon capture economics" as the cost, financing and subsidy case for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and related carbon removal, as a journalist would need it. Three sub-areas guided the search:

• Cost curves and technology cost: capture, transport and storage costs, and learning rates for direct air capture (DAC) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
• Policy and subsidy design: the US 45Q tax credit, UK consumer-funded subsidies, and carbon prices such as the EU Emissions Trading System.
• Project finance and bankability: whether projects earn returns, and who carries the risk.

The main fault line is whether CCS is a necessary tool for hard-to-abate sectors or a costly diversion of capital. Perspective summaries below are my inference from cited work, not the experts' own descriptions. I did not contact anyone. Contact routes are institutional pages only. I could not run a Retraction Watch check for each person in this session, so none of the verification notes below should be read as a retraction-clean finding.

Expert roster

Expert profiles

Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London

• Credentials: Professor of Future Energy Systems, Centre for Environmental Policy; ORCID 0000-0002-0207-2900.
• Recent work: He is one of eight Imperial professors who signed a commentary (undated on the page) on the extended 45Q credit. It notes that CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery could earn $85 per tonne, up from $60. A separate Imperial commentary on the 2025 Spending Review calls the missing funding detail disappointing. The same eight professors, including him, are listed as signatories on that piece.
• Perspective (inference): The group calls the credit a welcome boost but calls for guardrails to prevent greenwashing and describes the credit as not a silver bullet.
• Conflicts and caveats: Group commentary, not individual views. No funding disclosure checked.

Stefan Reichelstein, University of Mannheim

• Credentials: University of Mannheim researcher in the TRR 266 Accounting for Transparency programme, and, per the same page, Professor Emeritus and faculty research director at Stanford's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance.
• Recent work: With Philip Holler, a 2026 working paper (No. 249) comparing BiCRS, BECCS, enhanced rock weathering and DAC. It reports a levelized cost range of $29 to $1,076 per ton of CO2 in the current US market and regulatory setting.
• Perspective (inference): Neutral and framework-driven; stresses uncertainty by technology.
• Conflicts and caveats: The programme is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The paper is a working paper, not peer reviewed.

Bjarne Steffen, ETH Zurich

• Credentials: Prof. Dr., co-leads the Energy and Technology Policy Group; external faculty at MIT CEEPR; formerly at Boston Consulting Group.
• Recent work: Co-author of a March 2026 arXiv paper on the uncertain policy price of scaling DAC with Massimo Tavoni and others. His group's 2024 paper on projecting DAC costs (Sievert, Schmidt, Steffen) appeared in a search index; I did not open the journal page.
• Perspective (inference): Empirical and cost-focused, without a stated advocacy position.
• Conflicts and caveats: The prior consulting career is disclosed on his page. The arXiv paper is a preprint.

Massimo Tavoni, Politecnico di Milano

• Credentials: Professor of climate change economics and scientific director of the RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment.
• Recent work: Co-author of the March 2026 arXiv paper on DAC policy prices, listed with Politecnico di Milano and CMCC affiliations.
• Perspective (inference): Integrated-assessment modeller; frames carbon removal as a policy-cost question.
• Conflicts and caveats: Preprint status; no funding check.

Sheila Olmstead, Cornell University

• Credentials: Professor in the Cornell Brooks School of Public Policy and Cornell Atkinson Scholar; previously Dean Rusk Professor at UT Austin.
• Recent work: Lead author of a PNAS article of 16 July 2025, "How to design better incentives for carbon capture and storage in the United States" (co-authors include Emily Grubert). It argues that ongoing market intervention will be required to make CCS economically rational for most emitting firms.
• Perspective (inference): Economist who supports some subsidies but wants 45Q redesigned.
• Conflicts and caveats: None found; I did not check disclosures.

Andrew Reid, IEEFA

• Credentials: Energy Finance Analyst, Europe, and partner at NorthStone Advisers.
• Recent work: Author of the 16 July 2025 report on UK CCS subsidies, which estimates £408 billion needed by 2050 and more than £50 billion of subsidies earmarked for projects covering 8% of the 2050 target. He also wrote IEEFA's 11 June 2026 note on Europe's CCS pipeline, which IEEFA summarizes as 5.4 million tonnes of capture capacity cancelled in 2025 against 4.2 million tonnes reaching final investment decision (IEEFA, 11 August 2026).
• Perspective (inference): Sceptical; IEEFA says CCS should compete with other options for scarce capital.
• Conflicts and caveats: IEEFA is an advocacy-oriented think tank. NorthStone Advisers partnership should be disclosed.

Anika Juhn, IEEFA

• Credentials: Energy data analyst covering fossil-based hydrogen, carbon capture and long-term CO2 storage.
• Recent work: Headwinds sink Air Products/Yara blue hydrogen project, 29 July 2026, and Offshore CO2 storage is a risky business, 8 July 2026 (titles and dates from IEEFA's topic listing; I did not open these two articles).
• Perspective (inference): Sceptical, with emphasis on storage risk and blue hydrogen returns.
• Conflicts and caveats: Same IEEFA caveat as above.

Toby Lockwood, Clean Air Task Force

• Credentials: Director, Carbon Management Practice, London; nine years on carbon capture at the IEA Clean Coal Centre; co-chair of the Zero Emissions Platform Technology Committee.
• Recent work: Co-author of a 24 November 2025 CATF piece on a CO2 transport and storage cost tool. In the highest-cost scenario, transport and storage costs ran from €34 to €209 per tonne, median €106, and only 42% of cement and lime plants fell below €100 per tonne.
• Perspective (inference): Supports CCS where it is bankable; his work maps where costs are manageable.
• Conflicts and caveats: CATF is an advocacy organisation that supports carbon capture. Funders not checked.

Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh, Foundation for American Innovation

• Credentials: Non-resident senior fellow at FAI and Global Fellow at the Carbon Management Research Initiative; formerly led carbon management policy at Breakthrough Energy; served on the White House CCS task force.
• Recent work: Testified at the Senate EPW hearing of 12 February 2025 as Breakthrough Energy's carbon management policy manager (govinfo copy published later). He also wrote the FAI comment on the proposed repeal of the GHG Reporting Program, 27 October 2025.
• Perspective (inference): Pro-deployment; defends the data infrastructure that supports 45Q.
• Conflicts and caveats: Former Breakthrough Energy role is a prior affiliation, which I did not verify as ended beyond his FAI bio saying "previously".

Eric Williams, Global CCS Institute

• Credentials: Principal Economist leading economic analysis, over 20 years of experience; builds the GENZO model; formerly Senior Climate Advisor to the KAPSARC president.
• Recent work: The Institute launched its Global Status of CCS 2025 report on 9 October 2025. I did not confirm his authorship of it.
• Perspective (inference): Pro-CCS, as the Institute is a membership body for the industry.
• Conflicts and caveats: The Institute offers membership on its site; I did not verify its funding sources, so a reporter should check them.

Julián Cubero, BBVA Research

• Credentials: Lead economist for climate change economics at BBVA Research.
• Recent work: Co-author of the 24 October 2025 report on CCS costs and profitability, which finds CCS unprofitable at current EU ETS prices, with costs falling only slowly.
• Perspective (inference): Cautious; viability depends on carbon prices.
• Conflicts and caveats: BBVA is a bank; I did not check its CCS financing exposure.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, UK Public Accounts Committee

• Credentials: Chair of the Public Accounts Committee at the time of the report, per BBC News, 7 February 2025.
• Recent quote: "It is an unproven technology, certainly in this country. And we are concerned this policy is going to have a very significant effect on consumers' and industry's electricity bills" (BBC News, 7 February 2025).
• Perspective: Sceptical of how costs fall on bill payers.
• Caveats: I did not confirm he still chairs the committee as of October 2026. A politician, so a source on oversight, not technical economics. Contact page link is from search results and was not opened.

Balance and gaps

• Government is thin. I found no serving agency economist (for example from the US Department of Energy, the EIA or the IEA) with a verified, citable economics statement. The 12 February 2025 Senate hearing witnesses were an EERC assistant director for regulatory compliance and energy policy, the Ground Water Protection Council and Breakthrough Energy (govinfo), none of them agency economists. Next: CRS, GAO and NAO staff pages.
• Industry operators are missing. No project developer or oil major executive was verified. I left out Julio Friedmann, listed as Chief Scientist at the carbon management firm formerly called Carbon Direct, which now calls itself Relae. He is a plausible addition, but I did not finish verifying his recent economics work.
• Geography: Europe and the US dominate. China, India, the Middle East and Australia lack a voice, although IEEFA's pieces cover Australia and India.
• Verification limits: No Retraction Watch or lobbying-register check was completed. Academic perspectives rest on one or two documents each.

Sources

1. IEEFA: How carbon capture is failing the capital discipline test, IEEFA, 11 August 2026, accessed 5 October 2026
2. Imperial College: Extended 45Q commentary, Imperial College London, undated, accessed 5 October 2026
3. Imperial College: 2025 Spending Review commentary, Imperial College London, 2025, accessed 5 October 2026
4. Imperial profile: Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London, accessed 5 October 2026
5. Cost Comparisons for Emerging CDR Technologies (No. 249), TRR 266, 2026, accessed 5 October 2026
6. ETH profile: Bjarne Steffen, ETH Zurich, accessed 5 October 2026
7. The Uncertain Policy Price of Scaling Direct Air Capture, arXiv, 19 March 2026, accessed 5 October 2026
8. Considering technology characteristics to project future costs of DAC, Exa library index, March 2024 (listing only), accessed 5 October 2026
9. Polimi profile: Massimo Tavoni, Politecnico di Milano, accessed 5 October 2026
10. Cornell Atkinson profile: Sheila Olmstead, Cornell, accessed 5 October 2026
11. How to design better incentives for CCS in the United States, PNAS, 16 July 2025, accessed 5 October 2026
12. The runaway cost of UK CCS subsidies, IEEFA, 16 July 2025, accessed 5 October 2026
13. IEEFA: Europe's CCS pipeline losing steam, IEEFA, 11 June 2026, cited via item 1
14. IEEFA profile: Andrew Reid, IEEFA, accessed 5 October 2026
15. IEEFA profile: Anika Juhn, IEEFA, accessed 5 October 2026
16. IEEFA carbon capture and storage topic page, IEEFA, accessed 5 October 2026
17. CATF staff page: Toby Lockwood, Clean Air Task Force, accessed 5 October 2026
18. Key insights on EU CO2 transport and storage costs, Clean Air Task Force, 24 November 2025, accessed 5 October 2026
19. FAI profile: Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh, Foundation for American Innovation, accessed 5 October 2026
20. Senate Hearing 119-268, US Senate EPW Committee, hearing 12 February 2025, accessed 5 October 2026
21. Eric Williams, Global CCS Institute, Global CCS Institute, accessed 5 October 2026
22. Global Status of CCS 2025, Global CCS Institute, 9 October 2025 launch, accessed 5 October 2026
23. CCS: Costs, Opportunity Costs, and Profitability, BBVA Research, 24 October 2025, accessed 5 October 2026
24. £22bn for 'unproven' green tech could raise bills, MPs warn, BBC News, 7 February 2025, accessed 5 October 2026
25. PAC: Carbon capture news release, UK Parliament, search result only, not opened
26. Carbon Direct is now Relae, Relae, accessed 5 October 2026