Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Too late for CCS and hydrogen

Nature Chemical Engineering volume 3, pages 26–33 (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Fifty years after carbon capture and storage (CCS) was commercialized, global capacity has reached just 0.09% of global emissions; even if installation rates immediately expand 10-fold, this will make no quantitatively important contribution to climate mitigation by 2050. Deployment of emission-free electricity generation is also constrained, so there will be no quantitatively important supply of hydrogen or negative-emission technologies by 2050 either, and climate policy must turn to other more achievable options. The bulk materials must be produced without process emissions, powered solely by emission-free electricity, within a constrained global electricity budget. Primary production of steel and paper can be fully electrified, although the electrical intensity of green hydrogen will constrain new steel processes. However, steel, aluminum, glass, plastic and potentially cement can all be recycled without emissions and with high efficiency. This reality should direct research toward improving the quality of recycled production, making better use of less material, and should be central to any advice given by academics to the policy community.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: History of the supply of the key resources required for climate mitigation since 1970.
Fig. 2: Feasible range of zero-emission bulk material production in 2050, accounting for credible deployment rates of emission-free electricity and carbon storage.
Fig. 3: The contrast between delivery and discussion of new technologies in climate mitigation.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crippa M. et al. GHG Emissions of All World Countries Report JRC138862 (JRC/IEA, 2024).

  2. Bezner Kerr, R. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds H.-O. Pörtner et al.) 713–906 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  3. Annual Global Production of Steel (World Steel, 2024); https://worldsteel.org/data/annual-production-steel-data

  4. Meijer, K., Zeilstra, C., Teerhuis, C., Ouwehand, M. & Van Der Stel, J. Developments in alternative ironmaking. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 66, 475–481 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ren, L., Zhou, S., Peng, T., & Ou, X. A review of CO2 emissions reduction technologies and low-carbon development in the iron and steel industry focusing on China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 143, 110846 (2021).

  6. Pei, M., Petäjäniemi, M., Regnell, A. & Wijk, O. Toward a fossil free future with HYBRIT: development of iron and steelmaking technology in Sweden and Finland. Metals 10, 972 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vallejo, V., Nguyen, Q., & Ravikumar, A. P. Geospatial variation in carbon accounting of hydrogen production and implications for the US Inflation Reduction Act. Nat. Energy 9, 1571–1582 (2024).

  8. Worrell, E., Price, L. & Martin, N. Energy efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions reduction opportunities in the US iron and steel sector. Energy 26, 513–536 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Key facts. Global Cement and Concrete Association https://gccassociation.org/key-facts (2024).

  10. Cao, Z., Masanet, E., Tiwari, A. & Akolawala, S. Decarbonizing Concrete: Deep Decarbonization Pathways for the Cement and Concrete Cycle in the United States, India, and China (Industrial Sustainability Analysis Laboratory–ClimateWorks Foundation, 2021).

  11. Aker Solutions awarded contract for the Brevik carbon capture project. Aker https://www.akersolutions.com/news/news-archive/2020/aker-solutions-awarded-contract-for-the-brevik-carbon-capture-project (2020).

  12. Lothenbach, B., Scrivener, K. & Hooton, R. D. Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 41, 1244–1256 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Scrivener, K., Martirena, F., Bishnoi, S. & Maity, S. Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3). Cem. Concr. Res. 114, 49–56 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gartner, E. & Sui, T. Alternative cement clinkers. Cem. Concr. Res. 114, 27–39 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Majcher, K. What happened to green concrete? MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/03/19/73210/what-happened-to-green-concrete/ (2015).

  16. Dunant, C. F., Joseph, S., Prajapati, R., & Allwood, J. M. Electric recycling of Portland cement at scale. Nature 629, 1055–1061 (2024).

  17. Aluminium sector greenhouse gas pathways to 2050. International Aluminium https://international-aluminium.org/resource/aluminium-sector-greenhouse-gas-pathways-to-2050-2021 (2021).

  18. Primary aluminium production. International Aluminium https://international-aluminium.org/statistics/primary-aluminium-production (2024).

  19. Deng, S., Zhu, Y., Cooper, D. R. & Sutherland, J. W. A dynamic material flow model for risk-informed decision making in decarbonizing global aluminum manufacturing. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 146, 110904 (2024).

  20. Haraldsson, J. & Johansson, M. T. Review of measures for improved energy efficiency in production-related processes in the aluminium industry—from electrolysis to recycling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 525–548 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 (OECD, 2022).

  22. Levi, P. G. & Cullen, J. M. Mapping global flows of chemicals: from fossil fuel feedstocks to chemical products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1725–1734 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dai, L. et al. Pyrolysis technology for plastic waste recycling: a state-of-the-art review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 93, 101021 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Meys, R. et al. Towards a circular economy for plastic packaging wastes—the environmental potential of chemical recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162, 105010 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jeswani, H. et al. Life cycle environmental impacts of chemical recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste in comparison with mechanical recycling and energy recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 769, 144483 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. The Future of Petrochemicals (IEA, 2018); https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-petrochemicals

  27. Saygin, D. & Gielen, D. Zero-emission pathway for the global chemical and petrochemical sector. Energies 14, 3772 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pulp production and paper usage. FAO https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9d8515bc-827d-45dd-a087-e7965757188a/content/forest-products-statistics-2023/pulp-production-and-paper-usage.html (2024).

  29. Worrell, E., Price, L., Neelis, M., Galitsky, C. & Nan, Z. World Best Practice Energy Intensity Values for Selected Industrial Sectors 51 (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2007).

  30. Rogers, J. G., Cooper, S. J. & Norman, J. B. Uses of industrial energy benchmarking with reference to the pulp and paper industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 95, 23–37 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Van Ewijk, S., Stegemann, J. A. & Ekins, P. Limited climate benefits of global recycling of pulp and paper. Nat. Sustain. 4, 180–187 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Laurijssen, J., Marsidi, M., Westenbroek, A., Worrell, E. & Faaij, A. Paper and biomass for energy?: The impact of paper recycling on energy and CO2 emissions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 1208–1218 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Obrist, M. D., Kannan, R., Schmidt, T. J. & Kober, T. Long-term energy efficiency and decarbonization trajectories for the Swiss pulp and paper industry. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 52, 101937 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Westbroek, C. D., Bitting, J., Craglia, M., Azevedo, J. M. & Cullen, J. M. Global material flow analysis of glass: from raw materials to end of life. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 333–343 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Zier, M., Stenzel, P., Kotzur, L. & Stolten, D. A review of decarbonization options for the glass industry. Energy Convers. Manag. X 10, 100083 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Schmitz, A., Kamiński, J., Scalet, B. M. & Soria, A. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions of the European glass industry. Energy Policy 39, 142–155 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Krivtsov, V. et al. Analysis of energy footprints associated with recycling of glass and plastic—case studies for industrial ecology. Ecol. Model. 174, 175–189 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Scalet, B. M., Garcia Muñoz, M., Sissa Aivi, Q., Roudier, S. & Luis, D. S. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Manufacture of Glass: Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) (Publications Office of the European Union, 2013).

  39. Nigro, R. CCS Reality Check: the Case for a Targeted Use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (European Environmental Bureau, 2024); https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CCS-reality-check-The-case-for-a-targeted-use-of-CCS-EEB.pdf

  40. Climate Pledges Explorer (IEA, 2025); https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/climate-pledges-explorer

  41. Allwood, J. M. & Davison, A. P. Promise the Earth: A Safe Climate in Good Faith (in the press).

  42. World Energy Balances (IEA, 2025); https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview

  43. A Worldwide Database of CCUS Projects (IEA, 2025); https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/ccus-projects-database

  44. IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 (OECD, 2010); https://doi.org/10.1787/energy_tech-2010-en

  45. Hawkin, J. L. Do Net-Zero Plans Add Up? PhD thesis, Univ. Cambridge (2025).

  46. Robertson, B., & Mousavian, M. The Carbon Crux: Lessons Learned (Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2022); https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/The%20Carbon%20Capture%20Crux.pdf

  47. Sleipner fact sheet: carbon dioxide capture and storage project. Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies at MIT https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/sleipner.html (2021).

  48. Smyth, J. & Sheppard, D. Monster problem: Gorgon project is a test case for carbon capture. Financial Times (26 July 2021).

  49. Locked Away—Geological Carbon Storage (Royal Society, 2022); https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/geological-carbon-storage/geological-carbon-storage_briefing.pdf

  50. Zhou, C., Elshkaki, A. & Graedel, T. E. Global human appropriation of net primary production and associated resource decoupling: 2010–2050. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1208–1215 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. MacKay, D. J. Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air (Bloomsbury, 2016).

  52. Birol, F. The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities Report prepared for the G20 (IEA, 2019); https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen

  53. IEA The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions (OECD, 2023).

  54. Climate Change Act 2008 c27. legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27 (2008).

  55. Global Hydrogen Review 2024 (IEA, 2024).

  56. Hydrogen Production and Infrastructure Projects Database (IEA, 2025); https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-production-and-infrastructure-projects-database

  57. Smil, V. The long slow rise of solar and wind. Sci. Am. 310, 52–57 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Fouquet, R. Historical energy transitions: speed, prices and system transformation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22, 7–12 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gross, R., Hanna, R., Gambhir, A., Heptonstall, P. & Speirs, J. How long does innovation and commercialisation in the energy sectors take? Historical case studies of the timescale from invention to widespread commercialisation in energy supply and end use technology. Energy Policy 123, 682–699 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Nelson, S. & Allwood, J. M. The technological and social timelines of climate mitigation: lessons from 12 past transitions. Energy Policy 152, 112155 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Reiner, D. M. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nat. Energy 1, 15011 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Flyvbjerg, B. in The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management (ed. Flyvbjerg, B.) Ch. 1 (Oxford Academic, 2017).

  63. Wang, N., Akimoto, K. & Nemet, G. F. What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects. Energy Policy 158, 112546 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kazlou, T., Cherp, A. & Jewell, J. Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of targets. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 1047–1055 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Dunant, C. F., Shah, T., Drewniok, M. P., Craglia, M. & Cullen, J. M. A new method to estimate the lifetime of long-life product categories. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 321–332 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Parson, E. A. & Fisher-Vanden, A. K. Integrated assessment models of global climate change. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 22, 589–628 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Riahi, K. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 3 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  68. McLaren, D. & Markusson, N. The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 392–397 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Allwood, J. M. & Cullen, J. Sustainable Materials: with Both Eyes Open (UIT Cambridge, 2012).

  70. Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F., Gutowski, T. G. & Worrell, E. Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 362–381 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Neumann, J. E. et al. Climate damage functions for estimating the economic impacts of climate change in the United States. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 14, 25–43 (2020).

  72. Coronese, M., Lamperti, F., Keller, K., Chiaromonte, F. & Roventini, A. Evidence for sharp increase in the economic damages of extreme natural disasters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 21450–21455 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against. Nature 575, 592–595 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. National Engineering Policy Centre Net Zero Review: Submission from the National Engineering Policy Centre (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2022); https://www.icheme.org/media/19298/skidmore-review-of-net-zero-national-engineering-policy-centre-submission-final.pdf

  75. Bacon, F. in The Works of Francis Bacon (eds Spedding, J. et al.) 70–366 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  76. Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 2002).

  77. Ritchie, H. Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from? OurWorldinData.org https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector (2020).

  78. Romanello, M. et al. The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action. Lancet 404, 1847–1896 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Julian M. Allwood

Authors
  1. Julian M. Allwood
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian M. Allwood.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author is a shareholder in the company Reclinker Ltd, which aims to commercialize an electrically driven cement recycling technology.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Chemical Engineering thanks Edward Anthony, Dabo Guan, Fanran Meng, Raymond Tan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allwood, J.M. Too late for CCS and hydrogen. Nat Chem Eng 3, 26–33 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44286-025-00344-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44286-025-00344-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing