Review assesses CO2 storage feasibility in the Czech Republic, highlighting optimal sites and challenges.
Greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), drive anthropogenic climate change; although greenhouse gases such as methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) have higher global warming potentials, CO 2 dominates due to its high emission volume and long atmospheric lifetime, posing indirect risks to human health and the global climate. Among carbon capture and storage (CCS) approaches, geological CO 2 storage is a promising solution for mitigating atmospheric concentrations by injecting CO 2 into suitable subsurface formations and ensuring long-term stability. This paper presents a comprehensive review of CCS strategies focusing on the Czech Republic, synthesizing current knowledge on CO 2 reduction principles, storage mechanisms, and geological suitability. While previous studies examined individual storage sites, this review provides a national-scale assessment by systematically linking global CCS knowledge with geological conditions of the Czech Republic, enabling identification of the most promising regions and previously investigated storage sites. Based on literature and recent projects, saline aquifers in the Central Bohemian Basin exhibit the largest storage capacity, whereas depleted oil and gas reservoirs in the Vienna Basin offer more reliable containment due to well-characterized structures. Coal seams in the Upper Silesian Basin represent a more constrained option due to low permeability and injectivity limitations. Furthermore, the paper presents a structured framework for evaluating CO 2 storage resources, integrating geological, technical, and techno-economic factors to assess storage feasibility in the Czech Republic. By consolidating fragmented studies and site-specific investigations, this review provides a national-scale perspective on CO 2 storage potential, enabling identification of the most promising regions and key limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sidiq et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: