On-site CCU deployment is better than centralized carbon capture for most industrial facilities because it eliminates the need to transport, store, or pipe COâ‚‚ over long distances, converting emissions directly into usable feedstocks at the point of generation. This approach reduces infrastructure costs, avoids permanent storage risks, and turns COâ‚‚ from a liability into a productive input within the same production environment. The sections below unpack the specific advantages, limitations, and ideal use cases for both models.

What are the main drawbacks of centralized carbon capture infrastructure?

Centralized carbon capture infrastructure requires COâ‚‚ to be compressed, transported via pipeline or tanker, and injected into permanent geological storage sites, creating a long, costly, and operationally complex chain that adds risk at every step. For most industrial operators, this means significant capital expenditure on capture equipment, transport logistics, and storage licensing before a single tonne of COâ‚‚ is permanently sequestered.

The core problem with centralized carbon capture and storage (CCS) is that it treats COâ‚‚ as waste to be disposed of rather than a resource to be used. Once COâ‚‚ is stored underground, its value is gone permanently. Industrial operators absorb the full cost of capture and transport with no return on the carbon itself. In regions where geological storage sites are limited or politically contested, much of continental Europe, for instance, the infrastructure buildout required is enormous and slow.

There are also systemic vulnerabilities. Centralized infrastructure creates single points of failure: if a pipeline goes offline, a storage site reaches capacity, or regulatory conditions change, every facility connected to that system is affected simultaneously. For heavy industries operating under tightening EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) obligations, that kind of supply-chain dependency on carbon disposal is a strategic risk, not just an operational inconvenience.

Finally, centralized CCS does nothing to reduce fossil feedstock dependency. A steel plant or chemical facility still needs to purchase carbon monoxide, syngas, or other carbon-based inputs from conventional fossil sources, even after paying to capture and store its own COâ‚‚ emissions. The two processes remain entirely disconnected, which means the economics never close the carbon loop.

How does on-site CCU deployment work at an industrial facility?

On-site carbon capture and utilization (CCU) deployment works by capturing COâ‚‚-rich off-gases directly at an industrial facility and converting them into valuable feedstocks, such as carbon monoxide or syngas, within the same site, using modular conversion systems that integrate into existing infrastructure without requiring major plant modifications.

In practice, the process begins with the capture of COâ‚‚ or COâ‚‚-rich process gases from industrial emission points such as blast furnaces, chemical reactors, or biogas digesters. These captured streams are then fed into an on-site conversion unit, in D-CRBN’s case, a plasma-based conversion system that uses renewable electricity to break the carbon-oxygen bond and produce carbon monoxide or syngas. The resulting feedstock is immediately available for use within the facility’s own production processes.

What makes this model particularly practical is its plug-and-play design philosophy. D-CRBN’s modular SPARC reactor systems, for example, are containerized and designed to connect directly to existing gas handling infrastructure. There is no need to shut down production lines, write off existing assets, or build dedicated storage facilities. The system operates as an add-on to current industrial capacity, processing COâ‚‚ streams that would otherwise be vented or flared.

The technology is also robust enough to handle real-world industrial gas conditions. Plasma conversion operates effectively with diluted COâ‚‚ streams containing up to 50% nitrogen, and can tolerate contaminants such as hydrogen sulfide that are commonly present in steelmaking or biogas off-gases. This means facilities do not need to invest in high-purity COâ‚‚ separation before feeding gas into the conversion unit, a significant reduction in upstream complexity and cost.

What economic advantages does on-site CCU offer over centralized capture?

On-site CCU offers stronger economics than centralized carbon capture because it generates a revenue-generating output, carbon monoxide, syngas, or other feedstocks, rather than incurring pure disposal costs. Instead of paying to transport and store COâ‚‚, industrial operators produce a sellable or internally usable product from the same emissions stream, fundamentally changing the cost structure of decarbonization.

The financial case rests on several compounding advantages. First, on-site production eliminates transport and logistics costs entirely. COâ‚‚ does not need to be compressed for pipeline transport or loaded onto tankers, it is converted where it is generated. Second, the feedstock produced on-site replaces fossil-derived inputs that would otherwise need to be purchased on commodity markets. For facilities that consume large volumes of carbon monoxide or syngas, chemical producers, synthetic fuel manufacturers, steel plants, this substitution can represent substantial cost savings, particularly when fossil feedstock prices are volatile or geopolitically exposed.

Third, on-site CCU reduces exposure to the EU ETS. Converting COâ‚‚ into a product rather than emitting it lowers a facility’s reportable carbon footprint, which directly reduces the cost of compliance. As ETS carbon prices remain a significant operating cost for heavy industry, every tonne of COâ‚‚ recycled on-site rather than emitted represents a measurable financial benefit.

D-CRBN’s electrified CO production systems are designed specifically to be cost-competitive with fossil-derived carbon monoxide, not just environmentally preferable. The energy efficiency of the Plasma ARCâ„¢ platform, at approximately 1,100 kWh per tonne of COâ‚‚ processed, is a key enabler of this price competitiveness. Without that efficiency, the economics would not close against conventional fossil alternatives. With it, on-site CCU becomes a commercially rational choice rather than a premium green option.

Which industries benefit most from on-site carbon capture and utilization?

The industries that benefit most from on-site carbon capture and utilization are those that generate large volumes of COâ‚‚-rich process gases and simultaneously consume carbon-based feedstocks in their production, primarily steel, chemicals, petrochemicals, and synthetic fuel production. These sectors can close the carbon loop internally, converting their own emissions into inputs they would otherwise purchase from fossil sources.

Steel producers and metal manufacturers

Steel plants are among the most natural candidates for on-site CCU. Blast furnaces emit COâ‚‚-rich off-gases continuously and at scale, while steelmaking simultaneously requires carbon monoxide as an iron ore reducing agent. Converting captured blast furnace gas into CO on-site creates a direct internal feedstock loop, replacing coke-derived carbon inputs with recycled CO produced from the plant’s own emissions. This is precisely the model validated at ArcelorMittal Gent, the first steel plant in the world to trial plasma-based COâ‚‚ conversion at industrial scale.

Chemical and petrochemical producers

Chemical manufacturers that use carbon monoxide as a building block, in the production of acetic acid, polycarbonates, and other derivatives, can replace fossil-sourced CO with on-site recycled CO from their own process emissions. Similarly, petrochemical operators seeking low-carbon syngas for synthetic fuel or methanol production can benefit from D-CRBN’s electrified syngas systems, which convert COâ‚‚ and methane into syngas without requiring hydrogen or fossil-based reforming.

Biogas and wastewater operators

Biogas producers, including wastewater treatment facilities that generate methane-rich gas from sludge digestion, represent an emerging application. Rather than flaring or upgrading biogas for grid injection, these operators can convert it directly into green syngas on-site, which downstream chemical producers can then use as a feedstock for green methanol or other sustainable chemicals. This model covers the full value chain from biological waste to circular carbon feedstock.

Can on-site CCU systems run on intermittent renewable energy?

Yes, on-site CCU systems built on plasma technology can run on intermittent renewable energy, and this is one of their most strategically valuable characteristics. Plasma reactors can be switched on and off rapidly in response to electricity availability, meaning they can consume surplus solar or wind power that would otherwise be curtailed, effectively storing that energy as carbon monoxide or syngas.

This flexibility is not incidental, it is a core design feature of plasma-based conversion. Unlike conventional chemical processes that require continuous steady-state operation and cannot tolerate frequent start-stop cycles, plasma reactors reach operating conditions quickly and can modulate output in near real time. With AI-assisted energy management, a facility can automatically ramp conversion activity up when renewable electricity prices are low or negative, and scale back during peak price periods.

The practical implication is significant for industrial operators with access to on-site or contracted renewable generation. Rather than paying grid prices for electricity around the clock, they can time the bulk of their COâ‚‚ conversion activity to coincide with periods of energy surplus, reducing the effective energy cost per tonne of CO produced and improving the overall economics of the system. Excess renewable energy that would otherwise be wasted is instead captured in the form of circular carbon feedstock.

This capability also supports grid stability objectives. As renewable penetration increases across European power systems, the ability of industrial loads to flex in response to generation variability becomes increasingly valuable, both to grid operators and to the industrial facilities themselves. On-site CCU systems that can absorb variable renewable electricity and convert it into storable chemical feedstocks function, in effect, as distributed energy storage assets.

When does centralized carbon capture still make sense?

Centralized carbon capture still makes sense for emission sources where COâ‚‚ cannot be economically converted into a usable product on-site, particularly diffuse or low-concentration sources, facilities without access to renewable electricity, or industries where the volumes of COâ‚‚ generated exceed what can realistically be utilized within a single site’s production processes.

There are specific scenarios where the CCS model retains a legitimate role. Very large point sources, certain cement kilns or power plants, for example, may generate COâ‚‚ at volumes that outpace on-site utilization capacity, making geological storage a necessary complement to partial utilization. In these cases, a hybrid approach combining on-site CCU for the portion of emissions that can be productively converted, and centralized storage for the remainder, may represent the most practical near-term pathway.

Centralized infrastructure also makes more sense in regions where geological storage is abundant, politically supported, and economically accessible, conditions that apply more readily in parts of the North Sea basin than in most of continental Europe. For operators located near existing COâ‚‚ transport and storage infrastructure, the marginal cost of connecting to a centralized system may be lower than building out on-site conversion capacity.

The key distinction is whether COâ‚‚ can be converted into something valuable at the point of emission. Where it can, and for most heavy industrial facilities generating COâ‚‚-rich off-gases, it can, on-site carbon capture and utilization delivers better economics, greater supply chain resilience, and a more circular outcome than permanent storage. Where it cannot, centralized CCS remains a necessary tool in the decarbonization toolkit.

For industrial operators evaluating which model fits their operations, the starting point is understanding what feedstocks they currently purchase and whether their COâ‚‚ streams are compatible with on-site conversion. D-CRBN’s team works directly with industrial sites to assess feedstock compatibility, system sizing, and deployment pathways, helping facilities move from carbon liability to circular feedstock production without disrupting existing operations. Reach out to explore what on-site COâ‚‚ recycling could look like at your facility.

Related Articles

• What is the future of carbon capture utilisation in European industry?
• What is syngas and how is it produced from CO2?
• How efficient is plasma technology for CO2 splitting?
• What does a circular carbon economy mean for steel producers?
• What are the key performance indicators for evaluating CCU technology?