Energy Gang Podcast Summary
Episode: Carbon capture could be an important tool for tackling climate change. Can we find productive ways to use that carbon?
Date: September 22, 2025
Host: Ed Crooks (A)
Guests:
- John Ferrier (B), Senior Research Analyst at Wood Mackenzie
- Sarah Lamaison (C), CEO and Co-founder of Dioxycle
- Tim Vandenberg (D), Climate Tech Innovation Lead at the World Economic Forum
Overview
In this episode, Energy Gang explores the current and future potential of Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) as part of the global toolkit for climate change mitigation. The discussion delves into how CCU differs from Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the sectors where CCU offers the greatest potential, associated policy and regulatory landscapes, economic challenges, and prospects for scaling up investment and impact. A special focus is placed on using captured carbon to create chemicals and fuels, and on the barriers standing in the way of wider deployment.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
1. What Is CCU and Where Does It Fit In?
[01:01–03:21]
- Sarah Lamaison (C) introduces Dioxycle and succinctly outlines CCU’s promise: “We have developed a novel technology that turns carbon emissions – CO, CO₂ – into clean essential chemicals like ethylene … using just electricity and water.”
- The difference between CCU and CCS is highlighted: CCU converts captured emissions into valuable products, whereas CCS focuses on permanent storage (“in essence inherently non-productive” – B, [09:28]).
Notable Quote:
“CCU provides a dual decarbonization opportunity… you’re avoiding [CO₂] emissions from producing a chemical, and you’re also using emissions from elsewhere. Your total potential decarbonization opportunity is like 4 to 5 [tons per ton of product].”
— Sarah Lamaison, [04:07]
2. Sectoral Focus: Strengths and Limits of CCU
[03:21–06:25]
- Chemicals sector: CCU is especially important where direct electrification or other low-carbon alternatives are not practical. For instance, chemicals are “the industry of carbon,” so CCU can enable decarbonization that CCS alone cannot.
- Hard-to-abate sectors like aviation fuel and building materials are natural CCU candidates, as highlighted by Tim Vandenberg (D): “It allows for substitution of virgin fossil carbon, hopefully at scale, creating a circular carbon economy.” [06:25]
Notable Quote:
“For industries that are still… dependent on carbon feedstocks, what CCU does is allow us to substitute captured carbon for virgin fossil carbon.”
— Tim Vandenberg, [06:33]
3. Policy Landscape – Europe vs. US
[10:42–17:38]
- Policy support is greater for CCS than for CCU almost everywhere (B, [10:54]), because emissions reductions are easier to measure and align directly with targets.
- In the EU, existing frameworks can perversely disadvantage CCU:
“A CCU plant… is paying for the emission as if they had emitted it, which means the CCU industry is put at a disadvantage versus fossil. I don’t think that was ever the intention.”
— Sarah Lamaison, [12:55] - The US offers robust support through the 45Q tax credit, which raised incentives for carbon utilization projects ($85/ton for CO₂ or CO used) ([15:54]).
- Policy uncertainty, especially in Europe, deters new CCU projects and makes investor decisions riskier.
Notable Quote:
"We are healthily cynical… we never bet on any policy support. But it would of course change a lot of things."
— Sarah Lamaison, [13:47]
4. Measuring and Valuing Climate Benefits
[19:04–23:47]
- CCU’s climate impact is harder to measure and model than CCS, especially considering the ultimate fate of carbon in products.
- Debates around “cradle-to-gate” vs. “gate-to-grave” emissions accounting:
"If you are taking the emission from a steel mill and converting it into plastic, you’ve just emitted less – you've divided by two the emissions. We need people to understand this benefit."
— Sarah Lamaison, [21:15] - Need for clearer, technology-agnostic policy incentives and standardized lifecycle assessments.
Notable Quote:
"Policies should be technology agnostic… so the market can decide which technology proves themselves, then all credible routes will have a chance."
— Tim Vandenberg, [17:56]
5. Economics of CCU Projects
[24:04–32:16]
- Project viability varies hugely by feedstock (biogenic, atmospheric, fossil-derived) and end product.
- Building materials: Some CCU applications are already near cost-competitive (1–2x conventional).
- Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF): 3–10x costlier than fossil jet fuel, largely due to green hydrogen costs ([25:25]).
- Chemicals (e.g., ethylene): Greater potential for cost parity, thanks to process simplification and possible lower energy inputs.
Notable Quotes:
"Fuel is dirt cheap as a feedstock. It’s extremely hard to compete … chemicals are different because chemicals are hard to make, there’s complexity, there’s opportunity to undercut."
— Sarah Lamaison, [27:13]
"By working through carbon monoxide electrolysis… we believe we can reach, for example, recycled polyethylene type of level in terms of pricing in the short term, and then we have a path to cost parity."
— Sarah Lamaison, [31:12]
6. Scaling Up, Investor Appetite, and Market Signals
[34:02–39:16]
- Investor appetite is fragile, particularly amid broader headwinds for decarbonization tech.
- Valley of death: Many CCU startups rely on grants, but transitioning to venture capital remains a major obstacle. “Patient capital” with longer timelines and risk appetite is critical.
- Diversification in potential revenue streams and flexibility in business models attract investors in an uncertain regulatory environment ([36:35]).
- Initiatives like the World Economic Forum’s Uplink CCU Challenge help build ecosystems that connect innovators, industrial partners, and policymakers.
Notable Quote:
"Patient capital—where there’s a longer investment timeline and higher risk appetite—is uniquely important for CCU."
— Tim Vandenberg, [35:35]
7. Final Thoughts & What’s Needed Next
[39:16–42:16]
- Tim Vandenberg: A narrative shift is needed to rally more players:
“Every ton of CO₂ reused is a ton of fossil carbon that doesn’t need to be extracted… that’s a very powerful license to operate.” [39:27]
- John Ferrier: Backing CCU to provide learning, scale, and downstream benefits—without overburdening with well-intended obstacles ([40:29]).
- Sarah Lamaison: Focus on ruthlessly pragmatic application; maximize impact per energy and dollar spent and avoid misallocation that could damage sector credibility.
“Be obsessed by two metrics: megawatt-hour per ton CO₂ abated and dollar per ton CO₂ abated… apply the tech that has the highest potential for each sector.” [41:15]
Notable Quotes — Quick Reference
- "CCU provides a dual decarbonization opportunity…" — Sarah Lamaison, [04:07]
- "For industries dependent on carbon feedstocks, CCU allows substitution for fossil carbon." — Tim Vandenberg, [06:33]
- "CCS is inherently non-productive; CCU can supplement revenue streams…" — John Ferrier, [09:28]
- "A CCU plant is put at a disadvantage versus fossil." — Sarah Lamaison, [12:55]
- "Policies should be technology agnostic…" — Tim Vandenberg, [17:56]
- "If you are taking the emission from a steel mill and converting it into plastic, you’ve just emitted less…" — Sarah Lamaison, [21:15]
- "Patient capital is uniquely important for CCU." — Tim Vandenberg, [35:35]
- "Be obsessed by: megawatt-hour per ton CO₂ abated and dollar per ton CO₂ abated." — Sarah Lamaison, [41:15]
Key Timestamps
- 00:04 – Introduction and guest intros
- 01:12 – What Dioxycle does & the basics of CCU
- 03:21 – Where CCU fits into decarbonization
- 05:39 – Why CCU vs. CCS; sectoral advantages
- 10:42 – Policy landscape: CCS vs. CCU support
- 12:55 – Europe’s policy disadvantage for CCU
- 15:54 – U.S. 45Q tax credit, incentives
- 19:04 – Challenges in measuring & valuing CCU climate benefits
- 24:04 – Economics: project costs and competitiveness
- 34:02 – Investment appetite and pathways
- 39:16 – Final thoughts & crucial next steps
Tone and Takeaway
The discussion is highly pragmatic and measured, weaving optimism about technical progress with deep realism about market, policy, and economic challenges. While citing hope and recent breakthroughs, the guests repeatedly urge a focus on hard data, segment-specific solutions, and greater policy and financial alignment to realize CCU’s promise.
For listeners seeking a strategic overview of CCU’s future—and frank, well-informed perspectives on policy, economics, and practical deployment—this episode delivers a comprehensive and nuanced analysis.