Industrial carbon capture: which startup is ahead?
In our CCUS market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
Carbon Clean is the industrial carbon capture startup ahead today, with Svante close enough to make this a real two-company race.
Carbon Clean’s lead comes from operating evidence rather than the biggest factory or the boldest project pipeline. Around 50 technology references, more than three million accumulated operating hours and repeat activity with customers such as NTPC give it the deepest industrial track record in the startup field.
Svante is building for a market that does not fully exist yet. Its Redwood factory can theoretically supply filters for systems capturing ten million tonnes of CO₂ annually, but that manufacturing capacity still needs to turn into several large plants operating reliably at customer sites.
The top two are ahead in different ways. Carbon Clean has proved more of the complete system in the field, while Svante has built the stronger manufacturing base and the larger credible pipeline of projects above 100,000 tonnes per year.
The next group is much less settled. Mantel ranks third because its high-temperature process could return useful steam to industrial plants and its planned 60,000-tonne system is unusually ambitious, while Nuada has the broader collection of recent pilots and may reach a meaningful commercial installation sooner.
There is still no proven lowest-cost winner. Carbon Clean’s roughly $30-per-tonne claim carries more weight than most because it sits beside real operating experience, but customer-level costs covering capture, compression, maintenance, energy and financing remain private.
Different technologies may win on different exhaust streams rather than one design taking the whole market. Verdox has a clear niche in very dilute gases, Mantel is built around high-temperature heat integration, Revcoo favors more concentrated exhaust, and Nuada may suit sites with electricity but limited spare steam.
Funding alone is a poor guide to commercial maturity. Verdox has attracted more capital than several companies ranked above it, yet C-Capture and Revcoo currently show more complete industrial operating campaigns.
The most important commercial proof is repeat demand, not another partnership announcement. NTPC selecting Carbon Clean for a second project is therefore more valuable than a long list of early-stage studies, memoranda and engineering discussions.
Industrial carbon capture startups are unlikely to defeat incumbents through scale alone. Their best route is to supply smaller, more standardized or more energy-efficient systems through engineering partners that already know how to finance, build and maintain large industrial projects.
Svante is the only near-term challenger with a realistic path to first place. A few large installations operating near design capacity could outweigh Carbon Clean’s larger number of smaller references, but until that happens Carbon Clean remains the sharper answer.
Which industrial carbon capture startups should we compare?
The real industrial carbon capture startup field is narrower than it first appears: Carbon Clean, Svante, Mantel, Nuada, C-Capture, Revcoo and Verdox deserve the closest comparison, while Aqualung, CarbonOrO and RepAir form a smaller second group.
We include startups building equipment that captures CO₂ directly from cement, lime, steel, refining, chemicals, power, biomass and waste-treatment emissions. We exclude direct-air-capture specialists, storage developers, carbon-utilization companies without their own capture systems and established suppliers such as Air Liquide, Honeywell and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
That distinction quickly removes many companies that are often grouped together under the broad label of carbon management. A storage developer and a company producing capture equipment may work on the same project, but they face very different technical, commercial and operational challenges.
Carbon Clean and Svante are the only startups combining several hundred million dollars of capital access with serious industrial-scale ambitions. Mantel and Nuada are now trying to move from pilots into plants capturing tens of thousands of tonnes annually. C-Capture, Revcoo and Verdox have produced useful industrial evidence, although their commercial footprints remain much smaller.
Funding figures should be read as approximations. Carbon Clean officially reported $195 million raised after its Series C, while private databases place the total closer to $243 million. Svante says roughly C$800 million has been invested in the business over a decade, a wider definition that includes government-backed funding and strategic investment. Several smaller startups have never published a complete financing history.
| Startup | What it does | Approximate funding disclosed |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon Clean | Modular solvent-based capture for cement, steel, refining, chemicals, energy and marine applications | At least $195 million officially disclosed; private estimates are higher |
| Svante | Solid-sorbent filters for cement, refining, pulp, power and other large emitters | Approximately C$800 million invested over a decade |
| Mantel | High-temperature molten-borate capture using industrial heat for regeneration | At least $30 million from its disclosed Series A, excluding earlier financing |
| Nuada | Electrically regenerated metal-organic-framework adsorption systems | Approximately $13 million in private estimates, plus European grants |
| C-Capture | Non-amine solvent technology for waste, glass, cement, lime and bioenergy plants | Approximately $29 million estimated |
| Revcoo | Cryogenic equipment that freezes CO₂ out of industrial exhaust | Approximately €6 million initially raised, followed by plans for a larger round |
| Verdox | Electrochemical capture for dilute industrial gases and direct air capture | Around $80 million of committed capital, with some uncertainty over the total |
| Aqualung | Facilitated-transport membrane capture for industrial flue gas and gas processing | Undisclosed |
| CarbonOrO | Modular amine-based capture units assembled on container frames | Approximately $4.5 million estimated |
| RepAir Carbon | Electrochemical capture for low-concentration emissions and ambient air | At least $15 million in its latest disclosed financing |
Is there a clear leader in industrial carbon capture today?
Carbon Clean currently leads the industrial carbon capture startup field, while Svante has built enough manufacturing power and project ambition to make this a genuine two-company race.
Carbon Clean has the strongest evidence from equipment already operating in industrial settings. The company reports 50 technology references and more than three million accumulated operating hours across its portfolio. That history covers several generations of technology rather than 50 identical CycloneCC units, but no independent startup reports comparable depth.
Svante has followed a more aggressive industrialization strategy. Its 141,000-square-foot factory was designed to produce enough filters for systems capturing ten million tonnes of CO₂ annually. It is also involved in several projects targeting hundreds of thousands of tonnes per year.
Carbon Clean has more operating proof today. Svante has built the stronger platform for a future market with much larger projects.
The gap behind them remains considerable. Mantel is attempting the most ambitious scale-up among the younger companies, while Nuada has accumulated the broadest recent pilot activity.
| Competitive dimension | Current leader | Current position |
|---|---|---|
| Operating history | Carbon Clean | More than three million portfolio operating hours across approximately 50 references |
| Product maturity | Carbon Clean | CycloneCC has moved into an operating industrial deployment |
| Manufacturing readiness | Svante | Purpose-built filter factory with no close startup equivalent |
| Large-project ambition | Svante | Several projects targeting more than 100,000 tonnes annually |
| Recent challenger momentum | Nuada and Mantel | Nuada has more varied pilots; Mantel is attempting the larger scale jump |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest CCUS market report.
This market map, featured in our CCUS market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the CCUS market
Which industrial carbon capture startup has the most real operating experience?
On operating experience, Carbon Clean is currently in a different league from the rest of the industrial carbon capture startup field.
The company reports more than three million accumulated operating hours across around 50 technology references. Even after allowing for different products, plant sizes and operating conditions, that represents years of practical knowledge about solvents, corrosion, maintenance, contaminants and integration with working industrial sites.
CycloneCC’s first industrial installation accumulated roughly 4,000 operating hours during its first six months. Six months contain about 4,380 hours, so the equipment was running for close to 90% of the available time.
At NTPC’s Vindhyachal power station in India, a 20-tonne-per-day Carbon Clean system had been operating for two years when captured CO₂ was converted into methanol. NTPC later selected Carbon Clean for another project capturing 25 tonnes per day. A second purchase from the same customer carries more weight than another early-stage partnership announcement.
C-Capture has the strongest documented operating campaign among the smaller companies. Its recent work included more than 1,500 hours on energy-from-waste gas and a continuous 1,000-hour run at a Veolia site.
Nuada has built a wider collection of recent pilots across biomass, cement, lime and energy-from-waste sites. Revcoo has also moved beyond the laboratory with cryogenic equipment operating at an Eiffage lime plant.
Which industrial carbon capture startup has the most mature product and the best path to scale?
Carbon Clean currently has the most mature industrial carbon capture product, while Svante has built the strongest manufacturing system.
The first industrial CycloneCC installation arrived as ten prefabricated modules and was installed in less than a week. Carbon Clean says the design can reduce equipment height by roughly 70% and steel use by 35% compared with conventional capture columns.
Those reductions are useful in cement, steel, refining and chemical plants, where spare land is limited and major construction can interrupt production. Carbon Clean is also standardizing CycloneCC into configurations intended to capture as much as 100,000 tonnes annually.
Svante has reached a different kind of maturity. Its structured filters, rotary adsorption machinery and CALF-20 sorbent have passed through several demonstrations, while BASF has agreed to produce the sorbent commercially.
Its Redwood factory covers 141,000 square feet and required roughly $145 million to $150 million of investment. Svante designed the site to manufacture filters for systems capable of capturing ten million tonnes of CO₂ per year.
That figure describes possible factory output rather than CO₂ already captured or contracted. The 145,000-tonne Delek project would use only around 1.5% of the factory’s nominal capacity.
Carbon Clean has proved more of the complete product in the field. Svante can manufacture the central components at a scale that no other startup currently matches.
Nuada, C-Capture and Revcoo have reached integrated pilot or demonstration maturity. Mantel’s smaller demonstration system is moving into operation, while its larger commercial design remains under engineering work. Verdox sits earlier on the commercialization curve despite a technically useful aluminum-smelter trial.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest CCUS market report.
As this chart shows, and as featured in our CCUS market deck, search interest in carbon credits has grown significantly
Which industrial carbon capture startup has the strongest customers and pipeline?
Carbon Clean has the strongest current industrial customer base, while Svante has the largest credible future project pipeline.
Carbon Clean’s customers and partners include NTPC, Tata Steel, Fertiglobe, Samsung E&A, MODEC, BHP and JSW Steel. Some relationships remain at the study or engineering stage, so they should not all be treated as full commercial deployments.
The strongest evidence comes from customers moving beyond an initial test. NTPC operated a 20-tonne-per-day unit and later selected Carbon Clean for another installation. MODEC started with pilot planning and described a route toward a 100,000-tonne annual system, followed eventually by a 300,000-tonne project.
Svante has the more powerful strategic network. Chevron led its $318 million Series E, BASF manufactures its sorbent, and Delek is developing a 145,000-tonne annual refinery project.
That Delek project received a US Department of Energy award covering as much as 70% of eligible costs, up to $95 million. Svante has also discussed a pulp-and-paper opportunity exceeding 500,000 tonnes annually, along with projects involving Mercer and the North Star bioenergy development.
Microsoft agreed to buy 626,000 tonnes of removals over 15 years from North Star. The agreement is meaningful, although it concerns future removals from one project rather than a fleet of Svante systems already operating.
Mantel has the largest next project among the younger challengers. Its smaller D-1 system is designed to capture around 2,000 tonnes annually, while the planned M-10 targets 60,000 tonnes.
Nuada is attempting to move from one-tonne-per-day pilots to a 10,000-tonne annual French installation. Revcoo has also outlined a route from its current lime unit toward machines capturing tens of thousands of tonnes.
Which industrial carbon capture startup really has the lowest cost?
We still cannot name a proven lowest-cost industrial carbon capture startup because the companies use different assumptions, gas concentrations and system boundaries.
Carbon Clean has discussed capture costs near $30 per tonne and reductions of as much as 50% in capital and operating costs. Mantel projects costs below $50 per tonne at scale and says its process can recover enough high-pressure steam to remove most of the usual energy penalty.
Nuada reports energy use up to 90% below conventional capture in its pilot configuration. Verdox reports energy consumption near 1.5 gigajoules per tonne. RepAir targets roughly $70 to $80 per tonne for lower-concentration capture.
Capturing CO₂ from concentrated lime exhaust is easier than separating it from an aluminum stream containing around 1% CO₂. Small pilot estimates also omit some costs that appear when a customer builds a complete plant.
Flue-gas cleaning, electricity, steam, compression, dehydration, transport, storage, financing and maintenance can materially change the final cost.
Carbon Clean currently has the strongest economic case because its cost claims sit beside the most operating evidence and a prefabricated design intended to reduce construction work. Customer-level data showing what several plants actually paid per tonne over multiple years remains unavailable.
Mantel could move ahead at sites with high-temperature heat. Nuada may have an advantage where electricity is available but spare steam is not. Verdox and RepAir could prove more economical on very dilute gases.
| Startup | Main economic claim | Evidence available today |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon Clean | Capture near $30 per tonne and up to 50% lower capital and operating costs | Industrial modular system with thousands of operating hours; customer cost remains undisclosed |
| Mantel | Below $50 per tonne at scale with valuable steam recovery | Smaller demonstration moving into operation; larger economics are still projected |
| Nuada | Up to 90% lower energy use than conventional capture | One-tonne-per-day systems operating on several industrial gases |
| Verdox | Around 1.5 GJ of energy per tonne | Short industrial trial on very dilute aluminum-smelter gas |
| RepAir Carbon | Approximately $70 to $80 per tonne on low-concentration gas | Earlier-stage demonstration evidence, with more activity in direct air capture |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest CCUS market report.
This chart, included in our CCUS market deck, illustrates yearly VC funding for CCUS startups
Which industrial carbon capture startup handles difficult flue gas best?
Carbon Clean has the broadest evidence across different industrial exhausts, while Verdox currently owns the clearest niche in very dilute emissions.
Carbon Clean says its technology can treat gases containing roughly 3% to 25% CO₂ and produce a stream exceeding 99% purity. Its references cover power, fertilizer, steel, refining and other industrial processes.
Verdox tackled a more difficult concentration during its Hydro aluminum trial. Aluminum-smelter gas may contain only around 1% CO₂, far below typical cement or lime emissions. The two-month campaign reportedly found no measurable performance decline from contaminants in the untreated gas.
That gives Verdox a valuable position in industries where large volumes of air must be processed for each tonne of CO₂ captured, although the trial was too short to establish long-term durability.
C-Capture has tested its non-amine solvent on energy-from-waste, glass, lime and bioenergy gases. Nuada has moved between biomass, waste, cement and lime sites, while Revcoo is better suited to more concentrated industrial exhaust.
Mantel has the most distinctive position at high-temperature plants. Its molten-borate process is designed to use industrial heat and return valuable steam.
Carbon Clean leads on breadth, Verdox on very dilute industrial gas, Mantel on high-temperature integration and Revcoo on cryogenic separation at more concentrated sites.
Which industrial carbon capture startups are moving fastest right now?
Nuada and Mantel are currently gaining ground fastest among the younger industrial carbon capture startups, although both remain much smaller than Carbon Clean and Svante.
Nuada has built a steady sequence of projects rather than relying on one showcase pilot. Its equipment has been used with Buzzi in cement, at Ferrybridge in energy from waste, with MLC in lime and in a planned French installation with Idex.
The planned French project would raise Nuada’s disclosed unit scale from roughly one tonne per day to 10,000 tonnes annually.
Mantel is taking an even larger step in absolute size. Its D-1 project at Kruger’s Wayagamack pulp mill is designed to capture more than 2,000 tonnes annually while producing useful steam. Its planned M-10 project would capture around 60,000 tonnes.
Carbon Clean continues to add engineering work with MODEC, Samsung E&A, BHP and JSW Steel. Svante completed the biggest infrastructure move by opening its factory, but the next test is how quickly it can turn factory output into installed systems.
Revcoo is trying to increase the scale of its cryogenic equipment at the Eiffage site. Verdox has completed a useful industrial trial but follows a slower commercial timetable. C-Capture has returned to technical progress after its financing problems.
This chart, included in our CCUS market deck, shows why CarbonCure stands out in CCUS
Which industrial carbon capture startup has the strongest moat?
Svante has the hardest industrial carbon capture technology stack to copy, while Carbon Clean has built the deeper moat around operating knowledge and plant integration.
Svante combines proprietary structured filters, CALF-20 sorbent, specialized rotary adsorption equipment and a dedicated manufacturing facility. A rival would need more than a similar chemical material to reproduce the full system.
BASF’s role strengthens that position by providing commercial sorbent production. Replacement filters could also create recurring revenue if Svante installs a large fleet.
Carbon Clean reports 110 active patent assets across 18 patent families in roughly 30 countries. Its more important advantage may be the knowledge accumulated from installing and operating equipment across power, steel, fertilizer and refining.
Industrial capture depends on contaminants, corrosion, heat integration, shutdowns and maintenance as much as the solvent recipe. Several years of site experience are difficult to recreate quickly.
Mantel has the most unusual approach among the younger companies. Its molten-borate process operates at high temperature and aims to return valuable steam to the host plant.
Nuada’s metal-organic-framework materials, Verdox’s electrochemical cells, Revcoo’s cryogenic equipment and Aqualung’s membranes all offer patentable differences. Their moats will look stronger once they have long-term operating data and repeat customers.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest CCUS market report.
Can industrial carbon capture startups beat established suppliers?
Industrial carbon capture startups currently lead in a few specialized designs, but established suppliers still control the broader market through engineering scale, customer access and balance-sheet strength.
Air Liquide, SLB Capturi, Honeywell, Shell and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries already have relationships with the industrial groups that will build large capture plants. They can combine capture with compression, liquefaction, engineering, transport and long-term maintenance.
A large customer may prefer one supplier that can guarantee the whole project rather than coordinating several young companies.
Startups still have an opening because established technologies can be bulky, expensive and heavily customized. Carbon Clean is pushing smaller prefabricated solvent systems. Svante has industrialized structured solid-sorbent filters. Mantel aims to recover high-temperature steam, while Nuada and Verdox use electrically regenerated materials.
The market is likely to develop through partnerships, licensing and acquisitions rather than a clean victory by either startups or incumbents.
This chart, included in our CCUS market deck, illustrates yearly funding for CCUS startups
How reliable is the evidence behind the industrial carbon capture ranking?
The available evidence is strong enough to identify Carbon Clean as the current startup leader, but too uneven for a precise market-share or performance score.
Private companies rarely disclose audited revenue, customer prices, annual captured tonnage, uptime, maintenance costs, solvent replacement or project margins. We have therefore given more weight to named operating sites and repeat customers than to corporate targets.
The clearest evidence comes from equipment processing real exhaust at a named industrial plant, ideally with a disclosed capture rate and operating period. Carbon Clean’s NTPC system, C-Capture’s Veolia campaign, Nuada’s Ferrybridge project, Revcoo’s Eiffage unit and Verdox’s Hydro trial meet much of that standard.
Projects in feasibility, pre-FEED, FEED or formal engineering work still carry weight. Svante’s Delek project, Carbon Clean’s MODEC work, Mantel’s M-10 and Nuada’s Idex installation involve more commitment than a general partnership announcement. They should not yet be counted as operating capacity.
Factory nameplate capacity and projected capture costs require more caution. Svante’s factory shows that the company can manufacture at scale, but commercial value depends on customers ordering and operating the equipment.
Carbon Clean’s portfolio figures also cover several generations of technology. They show deep organizational experience, while the newer CycloneCC product has a shorter operating history of its own.
We are highly confident that Carbon Clean and Svante form the top two. The order among Mantel, Nuada, C-Capture and Revcoo remains easier to change.
What could change the industrial carbon capture ranking?
Svante is the only challenger with a realistic near-term path to first place, but it needs several large systems running reliably before it can overtake Carbon Clean.
A 500,000-tonne pulp-and-paper installation operating near design capacity would change the comparison immediately. Two or three large Svante plants could outweigh Carbon Clean’s smaller references when measured by annual captured volume.
Carbon Clean can defend first place by turning CycloneCC into a repeated fleet. Larger C1 installations, faster construction and second orders from existing customers would make the company much harder to catch.
MODEC has discussed a route from pilot work to a 100,000-tonne installation and eventually a 300,000-tonne system. Reaching either commercial stage would strengthen Carbon Clean’s answer to Svante’s large-project pipeline.
Mantel could rise sharply if its M-10 system works as promised. The planned plant would capture around 60,000 tonnes annually while producing high-pressure steam.
Nuada faces a similar test. Its planned 10,000-tonne installation must show that performance from small pilots survives a roughly 27-fold increase in unit scale.
Verdox needs to repeat its aluminum results at a larger site for much longer. Revcoo must prove that cryogenic capture remains economical as its machines become ten or more times larger. C-Capture needs a well-funded commercial project after demonstrating extended operation.
This chart, included in our CCUS market deck, compares the main business model options for carbon capture project developers
Which industrial carbon capture startups are actually ahead?
Carbon Clean is still the best answer to which industrial carbon capture startup is ahead, with Svante in second place and a meaningful gap behind the top two.
Carbon Clean wins on operating experience, product maturity, named industrial customers, follow-on activity and the ability to place modular equipment inside existing plants.
Svante leads on manufacturing infrastructure, funding strength, large-project ambition and technical defensibility. Its position could change quickly once several large customer systems move into routine operation.
Mantel ranks third because its high-temperature process could improve capture economics at heat-intensive plants, and its planned commercial-scale project is larger than the next installations disclosed by most young rivals.
Nuada sits close behind. It has more varied live pilot activity than Mantel and may reach meaningful commercial deployment sooner, although its next system is smaller.
C-Capture ranks fifth because its non-amine solvent has survived serious industrial campaigns across difficult exhaust streams. Financing instability and limited scale keep it below Mantel and Nuada.
Revcoo ranks sixth because it has already placed cryogenic equipment at an operating lime plant. The current unit remains small, and the larger versions still need to prove their economics.
Verdox ranks seventh despite having raised more money than several companies above it. Its aluminum-smelter trial gives it a valuable low-concentration niche, but the company remains earlier in commercial deployment.
Aqualung, CarbonOrO and RepAir have promising designs but disclose too little industrial operating data for a higher position.
| Rank | Startup | Why it holds this position |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carbon Clean | It combines around 50 technology references and more than three million portfolio operating hours with the most mature modular product and the strongest evidence of repeat industrial demand |
| 2 | Svante | Unmatched startup manufacturing capacity, deep funding and the largest credible project pipeline, but fewer mature customer systems operating today |
| 3 | Mantel | The strongest high-temperature challenger, with valuable steam recovery and a planned move toward a 60,000-tonne annual system |
| 4 | Nuada | Broad recent pilot activity across cement, lime, biomass and waste, followed by a planned move into a five-figure annual capture plant |
| 5 | C-Capture | Credible non-amine chemistry and extended industrial operating campaigns, offset by financial instability and limited deployment scale |
| 6 | Revcoo | A working cryogenic installation at a real lime plant, with much larger machines still to be demonstrated |
| 7 | Verdox | Strong evidence on very dilute aluminum emissions and substantial funding, but a slower route toward full commercial operation |
| 8 | Aqualung | Promising membrane technology and useful industrial partnerships, with limited public operating and commercial data |
| 9 | CarbonOrO | A practical containerized solvent approach, but few named operating installations have been disclosed |
| 10 | RepAir Carbon | Interesting electrochemical capture and fresh capital, though its strongest public activity still sits closer to carbon removal than industrial point-source deployment |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest CCUS market report.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis compares the industrial carbon capture startups developing equipment for point-source emissions from cement, lime, steel, refining, chemicals, power, biomass and waste-treatment plants. Direct-air-capture specialists, storage developers, utilization companies without their own capture systems and established industrial suppliers were excluded from the startup ranking.
We assessed leadership across operating experience, product maturity, manufacturing readiness, customer quality, project pipeline, cost evidence, ability to handle difficult flue gas, recent momentum and technical defensibility. No single metric decided the ranking.
We gave the most weight to equipment operating on live industrial exhaust at named sites, especially when companies disclosed capture rates, operating periods or repeat customer activity. A follow-on order counted more than a general partnership, and an operating plant counted more than a factory nameplate target or a projected commercial cost.
Projects in feasibility, pre-FEED, FEED and formal engineering work were treated as evidence of commercial progression, but not as operating capacity. Funding, strategic investors, manufacturing facilities and supply agreements were used to judge a company’s ability to scale, not as proof that its technology had already reached commercial operation.
Cost claims were compared cautiously because companies use different CO₂ concentrations, energy assumptions and system boundaries. We distinguished capture-only estimates from the wider cost of flue-gas cleaning, compression, dehydration, transport, storage, financing and long-term maintenance.
Funding totals are approximate. Private-company disclosures and market databases often combine equity, grants, government support, strategic investment and committed project capital differently, so the figures are used as indicators of capital access rather than audited totals.
Key sources used for Carbon Clean include its global project portfolio, technology and operating history, the first CycloneCC industrial operating milestone, the NTPC methanol project update, the MODEC scale-up program and its innovation-center and patent disclosure.
Key sources used for Svante include the Redwood factory announcement, Svante’s account of the factory’s investment and capacity, its disclosed capital investment and the US Department of Energy record for the Delek refinery project.
For the younger challengers, the main sources were Mantel’s project disclosures, Mantel’s newsroom, Nuada’s project announcements, C-Capture’s company and technology history, C-Capture’s Veolia operating update, Revcoo’s CarbonCloud technology page, Revcoo’s Eiffage demonstration update, Verdox’s technology disclosures, Verdox’s industrial announcements, RepAir’s technology page and RepAir’s industrial-emissions positioning.
We also used SLB Capturi’s operating history and capabilities and the formation of the SLB and Aker Carbon Capture joint venture to compare the startups with established suppliers.
This chart, featured in our CCUS market deck, illustrates revenue distribution by customer segment in the CCUS market
Related blog posts
