Improve District Heating: Industry

Image
Image
A district heating facility
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Improving district heating for industry involves using low-carbon alternatives, such as biomass, electric boilers, heat pumps, and waste heat from other industries, to provide heat to industries for their operations. Currently, most district heating for industry relies heavily on fossil fuels to generate heat. Low-carbon alternatives have the potential to make a significant dent in the global emissions from industry, but such projects are also challenging to implement due to their scale and complexity, and there is currently a lack of publicly available data that would allow for a deeper analysis. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Description for Social and Search
Improving district heating for industry by integrating low-carbon heat sources has the potential to significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, improving district heating for industry by integrating low-carbon heat sources has the potential to significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels and the emissions they generate. However, the lack of data, combined with the complexity of such projects and the growing interest in alternative decarbonization pathways, makes this a potential solution to “Keep Watching.”

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? No
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? Yes
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it?

District heating systems consist of a network of underground pipes that distribute heat to a large number of buildings, including industrial buildings. In the industrial sector, district heating is used by light industries and for processes such as drying, paper making, food processing, as well as space heating and even heat-driven chillers for refrigeration. Industry is well-suited to district heating because it typically has steady and predictable heat demand throughout the year. Current district heating systems rely heavily on coal and natural gas for heat generation, often as part of combined heat and power generation. Low-carbon alternatives for district heating can include burning biomass, electric heat pumps, solar thermal, deep geothermal, and even waste heat from other industries. 

Does it work?

Shifting district heating for industry from conventional heat sources to low-carbon heat sources will significantly reduce emissions. Our analysis for district heating use by commercial and residential buildings shows that significant emissions can be avoided by shifting to electric boilers, heat pumps, biomass boilers, and the use of waste heat (see Improve District Heating: Buildings). Similar outcomes are likely possible for industrial district heating use, and emissions reductions will increase as more renewables are integrated into the electricity systems used to power electric boilers and heat pumps. 

Why are we excited?

District heating for industry currently produces significant emissions. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), district heating for all applications accounted for 4% of global emissions in 2022, and roughly 40% of the heat energy from district heating was delivered to industry. China is a major adopter of district heating for industries, with the combustion of coal supplying much of that heat. The shift to renewable heat sources is likely to increase because both China and the EU have policies targeting the adoption of renewables in district heating. Because district heating systems serve multiple buildings, a single project to replace fossil fuels with renewables can have a large impact. Such projects also have the benefit of reducing local air pollution. 

Why are we concerned?

Although simple on paper, replacing fossil fuel systems with lower-carbon alternatives in district heating systems can be an extended undertaking involving many stakeholders and years of planning. Some low-carbon options may not be suitable for industrial processes that require higher temperatures than those needed for space heating. There is also a significant lack of publicly available data about how industry currently uses district heating and the opportunities and challenges involved in shifting to renewables. In the meantime, industrial heat pumps with higher temperature outputs (100–200°C) are increasingly available and could become a low-carbon competitor to the use of a conventional district heating system.

Solution in Action

Bellevrat, E., & West, K. (2018). Clean and efficient heat for industry. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/clean-and-efficient-heat-for-industry  

Difs, K., Danestig, M., & Trygg, L. (2009). Increased use of district heating in industrial processes – Impacts on heat load duration. Applied Energy86(11), 2327–2334. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.03.011  

European Commission. (2022). Implementing the repower EU action plan: Investment needs, hydrogen accelerator and achieving the bio-methane targets. Link to source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0230  

Gouy, A., Mooney, E., & Voswinkel, F. (2023). Light Industry. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/industry/light-industry  

IEA. (2025). District heating. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/district-heating#programmes  

IRENA, IEA, & REN21. (2020). Renewable energy policies in a time of transition: Heating and cooling. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Nov/IRENA_IEA_REN21_Policies_Heating_Cooling_2020.pdf  

Lake, A., Rezaie, B., & Beyerlein, S. (2017). Review of district heating and cooling systems for a sustainable future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews67, 417–425. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.061  

Werner, S. (2017). International review of district heating and cooling. Energy137, 617–631. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.045  

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
District Heating: Industry
Classification
Keep Watching
Lawmakers and Policymakers
Practitioners
Business Leaders
Nonprofit Leaders
Investors
Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
Thought Leaders
Technologists and Researchers
Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date

Increase Decentralized Composting

Image
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
Increase Decentralized Composting
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Decentralized Composting
Classification
Worthwhile
Lawmakers and Policymakers
Practitioners
Business Leaders
Nonprofit Leaders
Investors
Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
Thought Leaders
Technologists and Researchers
Communities, Households, and Individuals

Improve Fishing Vessel Efficiency

Image
Image
An image of the stern of a fishing boat
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Improving fishing vessel efficiency cuts CO₂ emissions in wild capture fisheries by lowering fuel use through vessel, gear, or operational modifications. Advantages include the long-term cost savings from fuel use reductions, the ability to implement many of these improvements without reducing fishing effort, and the potential additional benefits for air quality and marine ecosystems. Disadvantages include its limited climate impact due to the sector's overall small contribution to global GHG emissions and the possibly high up-front costs associated with vessel or gear upgrades. We conclude that, despite its modest emissions impact, Improve Fishing Vessel Efficiency is “Worthwhile,” with likely ecosystem and economic benefits.

Description for Social and Search
Improving fishing vessel efficiency cuts CO2 emissions in wild capture fisheries by lowering fuel use through vessel, gear, or operational modifications.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, we find that fishing vessel efficiency improvements are ready to deploy and feasible, but probably have limited climate impact because the wild capture fisheries sector contributes a relatively small share of global GHG emissions. These improvements will likely provide long-term cost savings and added benefits for ecosystems and air quality. We conclude this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? ?

What is it?

Improving fishing vessel efficiency reduces CO₂ emissions by using gear, vessel, or operational changes that lower fuel use in wild capture fisheries. Vessel upgrades include propulsion-related changes, such as installation of more efficient engines, and non-propulsion-related alterations, such as modified bows and hulls that reduce drag. Changing to low-fuel-use gear to catch fish, when and where possible, can also reduce COemissions. Operational changes, such as speed reductions or route optimization, can likewise lead to more efficient fuel use.

Does it work?

Vessel efficiency improvements are expected to deliver substantial fuel savings. An estimated 60–90% of emissions in wild capture fisheries, which emit roughly 0.18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in total, likely result from fuel consumption. Speed reductions alone can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Vessel modifications could provide fuel savings of up to 20% in small fishing vessels, which comprise roughly 86% of all motorized fishing vessels globally. Upgrading engines and other propulsion-related equipment can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Gear switching, when viable, can also be highly effective at improving fuel use efficiency, particularly if the target species are typically caught using methods such as trawling, which has a high carbon footprint

Why are we excited?

The average emissions per ton of landed fish in wild capture fisheries have grown by over 20% since 1990, highlighting the need for efficiency improvements. Many of these improvements can be implemented without sacrificing fishing effort or opportunities, and some operational changes, such as reducing vessel speed, can be done without any new equipment. All changes reduce fuel use, saving fishers money over time and likely resulting in fewer emissions of harmful air pollutants, such as sulfur oxides and black carbon. Some upgrades could deliver additional benefits to air quality and ocean ecosystems. Cleaner engines can further reduce air pollution through more complete combustion of fuel, and gear changes could benefit seafloor ecosystems, which can be damaged from bottom fishing practices, such as trawling and dredging. Additionally, some fishing gear has high bycatch rates, and switching to gear that allows for more exclusive capture of target species can reduce waste.

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, efficiency improvements that reduce fuel use are unlikely to have a major climate impact. Efficiency improvements could also inadvertently encourage increases in fishing effort, which would increase fuel use and offset emissions cuts. Initial costs to upgrade can be highly variable, but might be high in some cases and therefore not feasible for some fishers. Gear switching can result in lower fish catches, as some methods might not be as efficient. Some operational changes, such as reducing speeds, could lead to fishers arriving at fishing grounds late.

Solution in Action

Althaus, F., Williams, A., Schlacher, T. A., Kloser, R. J., Green, M. A., Barker, B. A., ... & Schlacher-Hoenlinger, M. A. (2009). Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 397, 279–294. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08248

Bastardie, F., Hornborg, S., Ziegler, F., Gislason, H., & Eigaard, O. R. (2022). Reducing the fuel use intensity of fisheries: through efficient fishing techniques and recovered fish stocks. Frontiers in Marine Science9, 817335. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.817335

Bastardie, F., Feary, D. A., Kell, L., Brunel, T. P. A., Metz, S., Döring, R., ... & van Hoof, L. J. W. (2022). Climate change and the Common Fisheries Policy: adaptation and building resilience to the effects of climate change on fisheries and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from fishing. European Commission. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2926/155626

Gilman, E., Perez Roda, A., Huntington, T., Kennelly, S. J., Suuronen, P., Chaloupka, M., & Medley, P. A. H. (2020). Benchmarking global fisheries discards. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 14017. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71021-x

Gulbrandsen, O. (2012). Fuel savings for small fishing vessels. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/i2461e/i2461e.pdf

Gray, C. A., & Kennelly, S. J. (2018). Bycatches of endangered, threatened and protected species in marine fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 28(3), 521–541. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-018-9520-7

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i9540en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, 12(4), 628-635. Link to source: https://fao.org/3/i9705en/i9705en.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 – Blue Transformation in action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd0683en

Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R., Collie, J., Hiddink, J. G., Kaiser, M. J., Mazor, T., ... & Suuronen, P. (2023). Evaluating the sustainability and environmental impacts of trawling compared to other food production systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science80(6), 1567–1579. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad115

Parker, R. W., Blanchard, J. L., Gardner, C., Green, B. S., Hartmann, K., Tyedmers, P. H., & Watson, R. A. (2018). Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nature Climate Change8(4), 333–337. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0117-x

United Nations Global Compact and World Wildlife Fund. (2022). Setting science-based targets in the seafood sector: Best practices to date. Link to source: https://unglobalcompact.org/library/6050

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2024). Energy Transition of Fishing Fleets: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries (UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2023/5). Geneva: UNCTAD. Link to source: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditcted2023d5_en.pdf

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Fishing Vessel Efficiency
Classification
Worthwhile
Lawmakers and Policymakers
Practitioners
Business Leaders
Nonprofit Leaders
Investors
Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
Thought Leaders
Technologists and Researchers
Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date

Improve Aquaculture

Image
Image
An image of an aquaculture facility
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Improving aquaculture involves reducing CO₂ and other GHG emissions during the production of farmed fish and other aquatic animals through better feed efficiency and the decarbonization of on-farm energy use. Advantages include reduced demand for feedstocks produced from both wild capture fisheries and terrestrial sources, which benefits marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Disadvantages include the costs of transitioning to fossil-free energy sources. While these interventions are unlikely to lead to globally meaningful emissions reductions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), we consider Improve Aquaculture as “Worthwhile” given the rapid and ongoing expansion of the industry, its potential to replace higher-emission protein sources, and the ecosystem benefits of reducing feedstock demand.

Description for Social and Search
Improving aquaculture involves reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions during the production of farmed fish and other aquatic animals through better feed efficiency and the decarbonization of on-farm energy use.
Overview

What is our assessment?

While Improve Aquaculture is unlikely to have a major climate impact, our assessment concludes that it is “Worthwhile” due to its ability to reduce pressure on wild fish stocks and terrestrial biomass, and because efficiency improvements made now are likely to scale into greater climate impact as the sector continues to expand.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? ?

What is it?

GHG emissions from aquaculture can be reduced by increasing the feed conversion efficiency of the cultured animals and decarbonizing on-farm energy use. Aquaculture – farming aquatic animals or plants for food or other purposes – is rapidly growing and now accounts for over half of the global production of aquatic animals, exceeding wild capture fisheries. Over 7% of human-consumed protein is aquaculture-produced. As this sector has grown, it has become increasingly reliant on external feed sources, with the share of non-fed aquaculture (e.g., bivalves that feed from the water column) dropping from nearly 40% in 2000 to 27% in 2022. Improving feed conversion ratios (FCR) – the amount of feed it takes to produce a given amount of biomass – can lower feed demand and reduce CO₂ and other GHG emissions tied to feed production and transport. FCRs can be improved by feed formulations that increase digestibility, genetic or breeding modifications to improve digestive efficiency in the cultured animal, species-specific feed formulations, and optimizing ration size and feeding frequency. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use can help reduce CO₂ emissions from common equipment, such as aerators and water pumps.

Does it work?

Interventions to improve feed and energy efficiency can reduce CO₂ emissions from aquaculture operations, although the potential achievable climate impact of these actions is currently unlikely to be globally meaningful (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Total annual emissions from aquaculture were estimated to be 0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in 2017, with nearly 60% of that attributed to feed production. Improving FCR is both plausible and effective, since it directly reduces the amount of food needed to cultivate fish and other species, thereby lowering emissions tied to feed production and transport. Between 1995 and 2007, improvements in FCR have ranged between 5 to 15% for a variety of species, including shrimp, salmon, carp, and tilapia.

Decarbonizing on-farm energy use can reduce equipment-related emissions, particularly in intensive systems that use energy for automated feeding systems, water temperature control, and circulation and aeration systems. In general, the potential impact of decarbonizing varies widely because on-farm energy use differs significantly across species and production systems. For instance, shrimp and prawn farming use nearly 20,000 MJ/t of live weight (LW), with over 75% from electricity, while bivalve production uses around 3,000 MJ/t of LW supplied largely by diesel.

Why are we excited?

Improving feed efficiency in aquaculture reduces demand for captured wild fish used in feed, reducing pressure on overfished stocks. It also lowers reliance on terrestrial biomass, such as soy, wheat, and rice, which come with additional land-use and emission costs. More efficient feeding can help reduce nutrient pollution, which can be responsible for high methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in some inland aquaculture systems. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use might ultimately lead to lower long-term operating costs and improved energy reliability.

Why are we concerned?

There are relatively few drawbacks associated with improving aquaculture. In the case of decarbonizing on-farm energy use, upfront costs could be high. For instance, installing solar panels or upgrading pumps can be financially challenging for small-scale operations. Energy use on farms can also vary throughout the day and night, which might not always align with renewable energy sources, like solar, without storage. 

Solution in Action

Badiola, M., Basurko, O. C., Piedrahita, R., Hundley, P., & Mendiola, D. (2018). Energy use in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS): a review. Aquacultural Engineering, 81, 57-70. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.03.003

Boyd, C. E., McNevin, A. A., & Davis, R. P. (2022). The contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to the global protein supply. Food Security, 14(3), 805-827, Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01246-9

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i9540en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 – Blue Transformation in action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd0683en

Henriksson, P. J. G., Troell, M., Banks, L. K., Belton, B., Beveridge, M. C. M., Klinger, D. H., ... & Tran, N. (2021). Interventions for improving the productivity and environmental performance of global aquaculture for future food security. One Earth, 4(9), 1220–1232. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.009

Jones, A. R., Alleway, H. K., McAfee, D., Reis-Santos, P., Theuerkauf, S. J., & Jones, R. C. (2022). Climate-friendly seafood: the potential for emissions reduction and carbon capture in marine aquaculture. BioScience, 72(2), 123–143. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab126

MacLeod, M. J., Hasan, M. R., Robb, D. H., & Mamun-Ur-Rashid, M. (2020). Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 11679. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68231-8

Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Bureau, D. P., Chiu, A., Elliott, M., Farrell, A. P., ... & Nichols, P. D. (2009). Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106(36), 15103–15110. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905235106

Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Buschmann, A. H., Bush, S. R., Cao, L., Klinger, D. H., ... & Troell, M. (2021). A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature, 591(7851), 551–563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6

Scroggins, R. E., Fry, J. P., Brown, M. T., Neff, R. A., Asche, F., Anderson, J. L., & Love, D. C. (2022). Renewable energy in fisheries and aquaculture: Case studies from the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 376, 134153. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134153

Shen, L., Wu, L., Wei, W., Yang, Y., MacLeod, M. J., Lin, J., ... & Zhuang, M. (2024). Marine aquaculture can deliver 40% lower carbon footprints than freshwater aquaculture based on feed, energy and biogeochemical cycles. Nature Food, 5(7), 615–624. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01004-y

Stentiford, G. D., Bateman, I. J., Hinchliffe, S. J., Bass, D. 1., Hartnell, R., Santos, E. M., ... & Tyler, C. R. (2020). Sustainable aquaculture through the One Health lens. Nature Food, 1(8), 468–474. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0127-5

Tacon, A. G., & Metian, M. (2008). Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture, 285(1-4), 146–158. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015

Vo, T. T. E., Ko, H., Huh, J. H., & Park, N. (2021). Overview of solar energy for aquaculture: The potential and future trends. Energies, 14(21), 6923. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14216923

Zhang, Z., Liu, H., Jin, J., Zhu, X., Han, D., & Xie, S. (2024). Towards a low-carbon footprint: Current status and prospects for aquaculture. Water Biology and Security, 3(4), 100290. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watbs.2024.100290

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Aquaculture
Classification
Worthwhile
Lawmakers and Policymakers
Practitioners
Business Leaders
Nonprofit Leaders
Investors
Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
Thought Leaders
Technologists and Researchers
Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date

Produce Blue Hydrogen

Image
Image
An image of a large, metal hydrogen storage tank that says 'H2 Hydrogen' on the side
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Blue hydrogen production involves making hydrogen (H2) from fossil fuel feedstocks while using carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce CO₂ emissions from the production process. The captured CO₂ is concentrated, compressed, and permanently stored underground. Blue hydrogen is more expensive than grey hydrogen, the predominant hydrogen production method, but less expensive than zero-emissions green hydrogen. Blue hydrogen production could facilitate the expansion of hydrogen infrastructure and the development of the global hydrogen economy. However, current adoption is low, its effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions is variable, and it could compete with technologies that offer greater climate benefits. Because of its reliance on fossil fuels for both feedstock and energy, the expansion of blue hydrogen production would perpetuate and potentially expand the use of fossil fuels. Based on this risk, we conclude that producing blue hydrogen is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

Description for Social and Search
Blue hydrogen is hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, with some of the GHGs captured and stored to prevent their release. This hydrogen, considered a low-carbon fuel or feedstock, is an alternative to hydrogen produced from fossil fuels without carbon capture (gray hydrogen).
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, blue hydrogen is feasible and ready to deploy, but there is little real-world evidence for its effectiveness or ability to scale. The expansion of this technology to replace current grey hydrogen production or to support the transition to a global hydrogen economy will perpetuate and possibly expand the use of fossil fuels. Because of this risk, we conclude that producing blue hydrogen is “Not Recommended”.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Limited
Effective Does it consistently work? No
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? Yes
Cost Is it cheap? Yes

What is it?

Blue hydrogen production is an industrial process that produces hydrogen (H2) from fossil fuels – either natural gas or coal – combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to reduce CO₂ emissions produced during the process. Today, most hydrogen is grey hydrogen made from natural gas without any CCS. The addition of CCS prevents the release of some of the CO₂ generated during the hydrogen production process; capturing, concentrating, and then storing it permanently underground. 

Does it work?

The technologies for making hydrogen from natural gas, predominantly steam methane reformation (SMR), are well-established and have been used to produce hydrogen for close to a century. CCS technology is also available and currently deployed in multiple industrial and power generation applications. The SMR hydrogen production process generates GHG emissions from two sources: methane leaks from the gas used as feedstock and fuel used to power the production process, and GHG emissions from both the SMR process and combustion of gas (or other fuels) for energy, including CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, and black carbon. CCS can be applied to capture CO₂ produced during the SMR process, for post-combustion capture of CO₂ from the plant’s energy use, or for both. Incorporating CCS to capture emissions from the H2 production process adds costs and increases energy use, but it could theoretically reduce CO₂ emissions by more than 90%. However, current adoption of blue hydrogen is very low – less than 1% of global hydrogen production – and there is little real-world evidence to support its effectiveness and scalability. The few commercial facilities currently in operation capture only about 60% or less of the emitted CO₂. Because CCS is energy-intensive, it requires more fuel to power the blue hydrogen production plant. This can also increase fugitive methane leaks due to increased gas-powered energy consumption. If implemented adequately, carbon storage can be permanent. The captured CO₂ can also be used as a chemical precursor for the manufacture of other products or for enhanced oil recovery; however, these post-capture uses of CO₂ emit GHGs, thereby reducing or eliminating the emissions reduction efficacy of CCS. Currently, only ~8% of CO₂ captured from blue hydrogen production is injected into dedicated geological storage, with the rest used in industry, enhanced oil recovery, and other applications. 

Why are we excited?

Hydrogen can be combusted as a zero-emissions fuel, used to store energy to produce electricity, or deployed as a feedstock in industrial, transportation, and energy systems. The production of any hydrogen type – blue, grey, or green hydrogen – could facilitate the expansion of hydrogen infrastructure and the development of the global hydrogen economy, which is an important step in scaling hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is more technologically ready and cheaper than green hydrogen, which is made from water using electrolysis powered by renewable energy. Blue hydrogen is more expensive to produce than grey hydrogen, but the cost per ton of CO₂ removed could be relatively low. Estimates range from US$60–110/t CO₂, although these costs are uncertain and, with lower CCS effectiveness, they could increase to ~US$260/t CO₂. If implemented with low fugitive methane emissions and high CCS efficiencies, blue hydrogen could substantially reduce emissions compared to current grey hydrogen production. The climate impact of scaling blue hydrogen could be high. Estimates and targets for blue hydrogen production by 2050 range from ~30–85 Mt H2. At that scale, even modest emissions savings relative to grey hydrogen would have a climate impact above 0.09 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr by 2050. However, achieving this depends on the quality of the infrastructure and rate of technology scaling, both of which are unproven. 

Why are we concerned?

Currently, 6% of the world’s natural gas and 2% of its coal are used to make hydrogen. As hydrogen production ramps up, blue hydrogen – even though it reduces production emissions compared to grey hydrogen – would perpetuate and could even increase the global market for fossil fuels. If the future implementation of green hydrogen is delayed, blue hydrogen could create a long-term dependency on fossil fuels. Furthermore, any hydrogen produced from natural gas leads to methane leaks, regardless of whether CO₂ is captured. Methane is a potent short-lived GHG, meaning its impact on climate warming is stronger in the near-term. This is why reducing methane emissions is an urgent emergency brake climate action. Building and expanding a new industry that relies on natural gas as both a feedstock and fuel, and which inevitably leaks methane, is counterproductive to solving the climate crisis. 

If and when there is a transition to a global hydrogen economy, blue hydrogen is a less effective climate solution than green hydrogen. Although this technology could be a transitional solution between grey and green hydrogen, blue hydrogen risks diverting resources away from green hydrogen development or ready-to-deploy renewable energy technologies, such as onshore wind or distributed solar PV. There are mixed expert opinions about the realistic level of avoided emissions that blue hydrogen may reach. Additionally, there is uncertainty around whether CCS can meet its technical potential at a reasonable cost.

Solution in Action

Ajanovic, A., Sayer, M., & Haas, R. (2022). The economics and the environmental benignity of different colors of hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy47(57), 24136–24154. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.094 

Arcos, J. M. M., & Santos, D. M. F. (2023). The hydrogen color spectrum: Techno-economic analysis of the available technologies for hydrogen production. Gases3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/gases3010002

Bauer, C., Treyer, K., Antonini, C., Bergerson, J., Gazzani, M., Gencer, E., Gibbins, J., Mazzotti, M., McCoy, S. T., McKenna, R., Pietzcker, R., Ravikumar, A. P., Romano, M. C., Ueckerdt, F., Vente, J., & Spek, M. van der. (2021). On the climate impacts of blue hydrogen production. Sustainable Energy & Fuels6(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SE01508G

Blank, T. K., Molloy, P., Ramirez, K., Wall, A., & Weiss, T. (2022, April 13). Clean energy 101: The colors of hydrogen. RMI. https://rmi.org/clean-energy-101-hydrogen/

Collodi, G., Azzaro, G., Ferrari, N., & Santos, S. (2017). Techno-economic Evaluation of Deploying CCS in SMR Based Merchant H2 Production with NG as Feedstock and Fuel. Energy Procedia114, 2690–2712. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1533

Gorski, J., Jutt, T., & Wu, K. T. (2021). Carbon intensity of blue hydrogen production. https://www.pembina.org/reports/carbon-intensity-of-blue-hydrogen-revised.pdf

Hossain Bhuiyan, M. M., & Siddique, Z. (2025). Hydrogen as an alternative fuel: A comprehensive review of challenges and opportunities in production, storage, and transportation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy102, 1026–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.01.033

Howarth, R. W., & Jacobson, M. Z. (2021). How green is blue hydrogen? Energy Science & Engineering9(10), 1676–1687. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.956

IEA. (2019). The future of hydrogen. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/9e3a3493-b9a6-4b7d-b499-7ca48e357561/The_Future_of_Hydrogen.pdf 

IEA. (2023). Hydrogen: Net zero emissions guide. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/hydrogen-2156#overview

IEA. (2023). Net zero roadmap: A global pathway to keep the 1.5 °C goal in reach. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach

IEA. (2024). Global hydrogen review 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2024

IEA. (2025, February). HydrogenLink to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/low-emission-fuels/hydrogen 

Ighalo, J. O., & Amama, P. B. (2024). Recent advances in the catalysis of steam reforming of methane (SRM). International Journal of Hydrogen Energy51, 688–700. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.10.177 

Incer-Valverde, J., Korayem, A., Tsatsaronis, G., & Morosuk, T. (2023). “Colors” of hydrogen: Definitions and carbon intensity. Energy Conversion and Management291, 117294. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117294

Lewis, E., McNaul, S., Jamieson, M., Henriksen, M. S., Matthews, H. S., White, J., Walsh, L., Grove, J., Shultz, T., Skone, T. J., & Stevens, R. (2022). Comparison of commercial, state-of-the-art, fossil-based hydrogen production technologies. https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/ComparisonofCommercialStateofArtFossilBasedHydrogenProductionTechnologies_041222.pdf

Massarweh, O., Al-khuzaei, M., Al-Shafi, M., Bicer, Y., & Abushaikha, A. S. (2023). Blue hydrogen production from natural gas reservoirs: A review of application and feasibility. Journal of CO2 Utilization70, Article 102438. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2023.102438 

Massarweh, O., Bicer, Y., & Abushaikha, A. (2025). Technoeconomic analysis of hydrogen versus natural gas considering safety hazards and energy efficiency indicators. Scientific Reports15, Article 29601. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-14686-6 

Pettersen, J., Steeneveldt, R., Grainger, D., Scott, T., Holst, L.-M., & Hamborg, E. S. (2022). Blue hydrogen must be done properly. Energy Science & Engineering10(9), 3220–3236. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.1232

Romano, M. C., Antonini, C., Bardow, A., Bertsch, V., Brandon, N. P., Brouwer, J., Campanari, S., Crema, L., Dodds, P. E., Gardarsdottir, S., Gazzani, M., Jan Kramer, G., Lund, P. D., Mac Dowell, N., Martelli, E., Mastropasqua, L., McKenna, R. C., Monteiro, J. G. M.-S., Paltrinieri, N., … Wiley, D. (2022). Comment on “How green is blue hydrogen?” Energy Science & Engineering10(7), 1944–1954. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.1126

Roy, R., Antonini, G., Hayibo, K. S., Rahman, M. M., Khan, S., Tian, W., Boutilier, M. S. H., Zhang, W., Zheng, Y., Bassi, A., & Pearce, J. M. (2025). Comparative techno-environmental analysis of grey, blue, green/yellow and pale-blue hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy116, 200–210. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.03.104 

Sun, T., Shrestha, E., Hamburg, S. P., Kupers, R., & Ocko, I. B. (2024). Climate impacts of hydrogen and methane emissions can considerably reduce the climate benefits across key hydrogen use cases and time scales. Environmental Science & Technology58(12), 5299–5309. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09030

Udemu, C., & Font-Palma, C. (2024). Potential cost savings of large-scale blue hydrogen production via sorption-enhanced steam reforming process. Energy Conversion and Management302, 118132. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118132

Vallejo, V., Nguyen, Q., & Ravikumar, A. P. (2024). Geospatial variation in carbon accounting of hydrogen production and implications for the US Inflation Reduction Act. Nature Energy9(12), 1571–1582. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01653-0

Wu, W., Zhai, H., & Holubnyak, E. (2024). Technological evolution of large-scale blue hydrogen production toward the U.S. Hydrogen Energy Earthshot. Nature Communications15(1), 5684. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50090-w

Credits

Lead Fellow 

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

Contributor

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • Heather Jones, Ph.D.
  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Produce
Solution Title
Blue Hydrogen
Classification
Not Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
Practitioners
Business Leaders
Nonprofit Leaders
Investors
Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
Thought Leaders
Technologists and Researchers
Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date

Deploy Vertical Farms

Image
Image
An image of a vertical farm featuring rows of vegetables
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, vertically stacking multiple layers of plants and providing controlled conditions using artificial light, indoor heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and advanced automation systems. In theory, vertical farms could reduce the need to clear more agricultural land and the distance food travels to market. However, because vertical farms are so energy and material intensive, and food transportation emissions are a small fraction of the overall carbon footprint of food, vertical farms do not reduce emissions overall. We conclude that vertical farms are “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.

Description for Social and Search
Because vertical farms are so energy and material intensive, and food transportation emissions are a small fraction of the overall carbon footprint of food, vertical farms do not reduce emissions overall. We conclude that vertical farms are “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, vertical farms are not an effective climate solution. The tremendous energy use and embodied emissions of vertical farm operations outweigh any potential savings of reducing food miles or land expansion. Moreover, the ability of vertical farms to truly scale to be a meaningful part of the global food system is extremely limited. We therefore classify this as “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.

Plausible Could it work? No
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? No
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it?

Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, with multiple layers of plants stacked on top of each other, using artificial lights, large heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and complex building automation systems. In principle, vertical farms can dramatically shrink the land “footprint” of agriculture, and this could help reduce the need for agricultural land. Moreover, by growing crops closer to urban centers, vertical farms could potentially reduce “food miles” and the emissions related to food transport.

Does it work? 

The technology of growing some kinds of crops – especially greens and herbs – in indoor facilities is well developed, but there is no evidence to show that doing so can reduce GHG emissions compared to growing the same food on traditional farms. Theoretically, vertical farms could reduce emissions associated with agricultural land expansion and food transportation. However, the operation and construction of vertical farms require enormous amounts of energy and materials, all of which cause significant emissions. Vertical farms require artificial lighting (even with efficient LEDs, this is a considerable energy cost), heating, cooling, humidity control, air circulation, and water pumping – all of which require energy. Vertical farms could be powered by renewable sources; however, this is an inefficient method for reducing GHG emissions compared to using that renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation. Growing food closer to urban centers also does not meaningfully reduce emissions because emissions from “food miles” are only a small fraction of the life cycle emissions for most farmed foods. Recent research has found that the carbon footprint of lettuce grown in vertical farms can be 5.6 to 16.7 times greater than that of lettuce grown with traditional methods.

Why are we excited?

While vertical farms are not an effective strategy for reducing emissions, they may have some value for climate resilience and adaptation. Vertical farms offer a protected environment for crop growth and well-managed water use, and they can potentially shield plants from pests, diseases, and natural disasters. Moreover, the controlled environment can be adjusted to adapt to changing climate conditions, helping ensure continuous production and lowering the risks of crop loss.

Why are we concerned?

Vertical farms use enormous amounts of energy and material to grow a limited array of food, all at significant cost. That energy and material have a significant carbon emissions cost, no matter how efficient the technology becomes. On the whole, vertical farms appear to emit far more GHGs than traditional farms do. Moreover, vertical farms are expensive to build and operate, and are unlikely to play a major role in the world’s food system. At present, they are mainly used to grow high-priced greens, vegetables, herbs, and cannabis, which do not address the tremendous pressure points in the global food system to feed the world sustainably. There are also concerns about the future of the vertical farming business. While early efforts were funded by venture capital, vertical farming has struggled to become profitable, putting its future in doubt.
 

Solution in Action

Blom, T. et al.., (2022). The embodied carbon emissions of lettuce production in vertical farming, greenhouse horticulture, and open-field farming in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 377, 134443. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262204015X 

Cornell Chronicle, (2014). Indoor urban farms called wasteful, “pie in the sky.” Link to source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/02/indoor-urban-farms-called-wasteful-pie-sky

Cox, S., (2012). The vertical farming scam, Counterpunch. Link to source: https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/11/the-vertical-farming-scam/ 

Cox, S., (2016). Enough with the vertical farming fantasies: There are still too many unanswered questions about the trendy practice, Salon. Link to source: https://www.salon.com/2016/02/17/enough_with_the_vertical_farming_partner/ 

Foley, J.A. et al., (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet, Nature. Link to source: http://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

Foley, J.A., (2018). No, vertical farms won’t feed the world, Medium. Link to source: https://globalecoguy.org/no-vertical-farms-wont-feed-the-world-5313e3e961c0 

Hamm, M., (2015). The buzz around indoor farms and artificial lighting makes no sense. The Guardian. Link to source: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/10/indoor-farming-makes-no-economic-environmental-sense 

Peters, A., (2023). The vertical farming bubble is finally popping, Fast Company. Link to source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90824702/vertical-farming-failing-profitable-appharvest-aerofarms-bowery

Ritchie, H., (2022). Eating local is still not a good way to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, Sustainability by the numbers. Link to source: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/food-miles 

Tabibi, A. (2024). Vertical farms: A tool for climate change adaptation, Green.org. January 30, 2024. Link to source: https://green.org/2024/01/30/vertical-farms-a-tool-for-climate-change-adaptation/   

Credits

Lead Author

  • Jonathan Foley, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Vertical Farms
Classification
Not Recommended
Updated Date

Use Corn-Based Ethanol

Cluster
Fuel Switching
Image
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
The Use Corn-Based Ethanol solution is coming soon.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Corn-Based Ethanol
Classification
Not Recommended
Updated Date

Deploy Waste to Energy

Image
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
The Use Waste to Energy solution is coming soon.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Waste to Energy
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date

Use Carbon Capture & Storage on Fossil Fuel Power Plants

Sector
Electricity
Image
Image
Power plant emissions
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) reduces the operational GHG emissions from fossil fuel power plants by selectively capturing CO₂ from the plant’s exhaust flue, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. The captured CO₂ is then concentrated, compressed, and permanently stored underground. The carbon capture technology is effective and available, but it is expensive and energy-intensive. Globally, emissions from coal and gas power plants are still increasing, potentially making retrofitting newer plants with CCS an appealing emissions reduction strategy. However, despite 30 years of pilot and commercial projects, most power plant CCS projects have failed. While CCS can cut CO₂ emissions, large-scale deployment of this technology on fossil-fueled power plants will likely drive continued production and use of coal and gas. Based on this risk, as well as the availability of cheaper, clean energy alternatives for power generation, we conclude that using CCS on fossil fuel power plants is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

Description for Social and Search
Using carbon capture and storage on fossil fuel power plants is not recommended for myriad reasons, including costs and risks.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Using CCS on fossil-fueled power plants will reduce electricity production emissions, but it is more expensive, more energy-intensive, and more polluting than readily available, cheaper, and cleaner alternatives like wind, solar, and geothermal. Based on this, and the risk that large-scale deployment of CCS on fossil-fueled power plants could drive continued production and use of coal and gas, we conclude that using CCS on fossil fuel power plants is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? No
Impact Is it big enough to matter? Yes
Risk Is it risky or harmful? Yes
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that reduces GHG emissions from fossil fuel-powered electricity generation facilities by selectively capturing CO₂ from the power plant’s exhaust flue, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. The captured CO₂ is then concentrated, compressed, and permanently stored underground. There are other commercially available CCS technologies, such as pre-combustion capture and oxy-fuel combustion, but these are used almost exclusively for industrial processes like gas processing and cannot be readily retrofitted to existing power plants. CCS can also be applied to capture CO₂ from other industrial facilities that generate emissions from fuel combustion or production processes, like cement or ethanol production plants, or from biomass energy power plants. Instead of permanent storage, captured CO₂ can also be used as a chemical precursor for the manufacture of other products or for enhanced oil recovery, but, compared to geologic storage, these post-capture uses of CO₂ emit GHGs, thereby reducing or eliminating the emissions reduction efficacy of CCS. 

Does it work?

The technology and chemistry for the selective capture of CO₂ from the exhaust of a power plant are effective. There are numerous chemical, membrane, and cryogenic methods for capturing CO₂, but monoethanolamine (MEA) is the predominant commercially available chemical absorbent currently in use in power plants with CCS. CO₂ capture efficiency varies with the type of reactive absorbent material and plant operations. Most CCS installations target 90% CO₂ capture rates, although actual capture rates are usually lower. CCS infrastructure is large, and the process of capturing CO₂ from power plant exhaust is complex, expensive, and energy-intensive. CCS requires the flue gas to be pumped to different parts of the power plant, the CO₂ to be captured and then separated from the sorbent material, and the concentrated CO₂ to be compressed for transport and storage. Energy for all these processes comes from the power plant. Various studies estimate CCS consumes at least 15–25% of the plant’s total generation capacity, with most of the energy used to separate the CO₂ and regenerate the sorbent material. 

CCS has been used in pilot studies and commercial operations in a few dozen coal and natural gas power plants since the late 1990s. Despite the functional effectiveness of the technology, use of CCS to reduce power plant emissions has not been broadly adopted, and most CCS projects initiated in the past three decades have failed or been discontinued. Based on various assessments and projections, deployment of CCS on power plants has consistently lagged behind its expected contribution to emissions reduction. There are currently only four power plants with CCS in operation in the world, less than 0.05% of the global fossil fuel power plant fleet. According to a 2021 study, only 10% of proposed CCS projects for power plants have actually been implemented. Based on another study, 78% of all power plant and industrial manufacturing CCS pilot and demonstration plants with a project size greater than 0.3 Mt CO₂ /yr have been cancelled or put on hold. 

Why are we excited?

Globally, emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants are still increasing, primarily in China and India, where large numbers of new thermal power plants have been built in the last two decades. Given the typical 30- to 45-year operational lifespan for coal and gas power plants, retrofitting these newer plants with CCS could substantially reduce their operational emissions while also allowing plant owners and investors to recover their investments. Installation of CCS to reduce emissions can also be prioritized for power plants located near places with geologic storage and where alternative electricity generation options are limited. There is a large amount of active research underway to develop and test alternative carbon capture technologies, most aimed at increasing carbon capture efficiencies and reducing energy demands and costs. Other research on the factors contributing to the failure of most CCS projects to date may lead to the development of regulations and policies that require or incentivize the use of CCS for power plants, which could increase the current low implementation and success rates for this emissions reduction technology. 

Why are we concerned? 

While CCS can reduce the operational CO₂ emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, large-scale deployment of this technology will likely drive continued production and use of coal and gas. Even before fossil fuels are burned, extraction, transport, and processing generate substantial GHG emissions, particularly for gas. Therefore, in addition to perpetuating the fossil fuel industry, even 90% efficient CCS reduces only a fraction of the life cycle emissions from coal and gas. 

Widespread deployment of CCS in the electricity sector could also delay or crowd out deployment of wind, solar, and geothermal energy, slowing the clean energy transition that is already underway. Beyond these risks, the three-decade-long failure of power plant CCS to make the transition from pilot-scale science and technology to large-scale commercial deployment reflects its systemic problems and limitations. Unlike wind and solar energy, which have seen costs decline rapidly with development and deployment, CCS on power plants shows little evidence of a learning curve. It remains very expensive and very energy-intensive. A large-scale CCS demonstration project can cost more than US$1 billion to build and, in addition to its operational costs, CCS consumes at least 15–25% of the energy that the plant could otherwise sell to customers. CCS-related energy requirements could mean that a power company would need to build an additional power plant to compensate for reduced electricity deliveries from every four of its power plants equipped with CCS. 

 

Due to these high project risks and costs, as well as the lack of regulations and policies to require or support CCS on power plants, public and private investments in the technology have been falling. Despite all this, recent research shows that the vast majority of lobbying spending for government support of CCS comes from fossil fuel interests, which have publicly stated that they view the technology as a strategy to extend society’s use of fossil fuels. Finally, in contrast to most other climate solutions that provide other benefits to natural systems or human well-being, CCS on power plants does nothing to address or alleviate the current harm from toxic air pollution produced by fossil-fueled power plants.

Solution in Action

Abdulla, A., Hanna, R., Schell, K. R., Babacan, O., & Victor, D. G. (2020). Explaining successful and failed investments in US carbon capture and storage using empirical and expert assessments. Environmental Research Letters16(1), 014036. Link to source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd19e?trk=public_post_comment-text

Caesary, D., Kim, H., & Nam, M. J. (2025). Cost effectiveness of carbon capture and storage based on probability estimation of social cost of carbon. Applied Energy, 377, 124542. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261924019251

Corcuera, E. G. T., & Petrakopoulou, F. (2025). Evaluating the impact of CO2 capture and storage on total efficiency: A lifecycle analysis. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 101002. Evaluating the impact of CO2 capture and storage on total efficiency: A lifecycle analysis - ScienceDirect

Dabbs, B., Anchondo, C., & Marshall, C. (2023) The complete guide to CCS and the EPA power plant rule. Energywire, E&E News, May 10, 2023. The complete guide to CCS and the EPA power plant rule - E&E News by POLITICO

Drugman, D. (2023) Big Oil’s Been Secretly Validating Critics’ Concerns about Carbon Capture. DeSmog. Big Oil’s Been Secretly Validating Critics’ Concerns about Carbon Capture - DeSmog 

Durmaz, T. (2018). The economics of CCS: Why have CCS technologies not had an international breakthrough?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews95, 328-340. The economics of CCS: Why have CCS technologies not had an international breakthrough? - ScienceDirect

Gibbons, B. (2024) In Illinois, a massive taxpayer-funded carbon capture project fails to capture about 90 percent of plant’s emissions. Oil and Gas Watch, Environmental Integrity Project. Link to source: https://news.oilandgaswatch.org/post/in-illinois-a-massive-taxpayer-funded-carbon-capture-project-fails-to-capture-about-90-percent-of-plants-emissions 

Gonzales, V., Krupnick, A. and Dunlap, L. (2020) Carbon Capture and Storage 101. Resources for the Future. Link to source: https://media.rff.org/documents/CCS_101.pdf

Grubert, E., & Sawyer, F. (2023). US power sector carbon capture and storage under the Inflation Reduction Act could be costly with limited or negative abatement potential. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability3(1), 015008. Link to source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/acbed9

Gulden, L. E., & Harvey, C. (2025). Tracing sources of funds used to lobby the US government about carbon capture, use, and storage. Environmental Science & Policy, 171, 104171. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290112500187X

Guo, J. X., & Huang, C. (2020). Feasible roadmap for CCS retrofit of coal-based power plants to reduce Chinese carbon emissions by 2050. Applied Energy, 259, 114112. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261919317994

Herzog, H. & Krol, A. (2025) Carbon Capture. MIT Climate Portal.  “Carbon Capture” Carbon Capture | MIT Climate Portal 

Herzog, H. & MIT Climate Portal Writing Team. (2024) If a fossil fuel power plant uses carbon capture and storage, what percent of the energy it makes goes to the CCS equipment? MIT Climate Portal. If a fossil fuel power plant uses carbon capture and storage, what percent of the energy it makes goes to the CCS equipment? | MIT Climate Portal

Hiar. C. (2023) Oil companies want to remove carbon from the air — using taxpayer dollars. Climatewire, E&E News, July, 13, 2023. Oil companies want to remove carbon from the air — using taxpayer dollars - E&E News by POLITICO

International Energy Agency (2020) The role of CCUS in low-carbon power systemsThe role of CCUS in low-carbon power systems. subsection How carbon capture technologies support the power transition – The role of CCUS in low-carbon power systems – Analysis - IEA

International Energy Agency (2023). Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations in Net Zero Transitions: A World Energy Outlook Special Report on the Oil and Gas Industry and COP28. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/2f65984e-73ee-40ba-a4d5-bb2e2c94cecb/EmissionsfromOilandGasOperationinNetZeroTransitions.pdf

International Energy Agency (2025) Global Energy Review 2025: CO2 EmissionsCO2 Emissions – Global Energy Review 2025 – Analysis - IEA

Jacobson, M. Z., Fu, D., Sambor, D. J., & Muhlbauer, A. (2025). Energy, health, and climate costs of carbon-capture and direct-air-capture versus 100%-wind-water-solar climate policies in 149 countries. Environmental Science & Technology59(6), 3034-3045. Energy, Health, and Climate Costs of Carbon-Capture and Direct-Air-Capture versus 100%-Wind-Water-Solar Climate Policies in 149 Countries | Environmental Science & Technology 

Jacobson, M. Z. (2019). The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture. Energy & Environmental Science12(12), 3567-3574. The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture

Liu, S., Li, H., Zhang, K., & Lau, H. C. (2022). Techno-economic analysis of using carbon capture and storage (CCS) in decarbonizing China's coal-fired power plants. Journal of Cleaner Production351, 131384. Techno-economic analysis of using carbon capture and storage (CCS) in decarbonizing China's coal-fired power plants - ScienceDirect

Loria, P., & Bright, M. B. (2021). Lessons captured from 50 years of CCS projects. The Electricity Journal, 34(7), 106998. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040619021000890

Ma, J., Li, L., Wang, H., Du, Y., Ma, J., Zhang, X., & Wang, Z. (2022). Carbon capture and storage: history and the road ahead. Engineering14, 33-43. Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead - ScienceDirect

Mackler, S., Fishman, X., & Broberg, D. (2021). A policy agenda for gigaton-scale carbon management. The Electricity Journal34(7), 106999. A policy agenda for gigaton-scale carbon management - ScienceDirect

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2018). Carbon Capture and Storage Database (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy). Link to source: https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/worldwide-ccs-database

Osman, A. I., Hefny, M., Abdel Maksoud, M. I. A., Elgarahy, A. M., & Rooney, D. W. (2021). Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters19(2), 797-849. Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review

Patel, S. (2024) Capturing Progress: The State of CCS in the Power Sector. POWER Magazine. Link to source: https://www.powermag.com/capturing-progress-the-state-of-ccs-in-the-power-sector/

Peridas, G., & Schmidt, B. M. (2021). The role of carbon capture and storage in the race to carbon neutrality. The Electricity Journal, 34(7), 106996. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619021000877

Rathi, A. K. A., & Rathi, J. A. (2025). CO2 capture: a concise, comprehensive overview of recent research trends. Academia Environmental Sciences and Sustainability2(2). Rathi and Rathi 2025 CO2_capture_a_concise_comprehensive_overview.pdf

Scott, M. & Slavin, T. (2023)  Fossil-fuel industry embrace raises alarm bells over direct air capture. Reuters, October 10, 2023. Fossil-fuel industry embrace raises alarm bells over direct air capture | Reuters

Singh, S. P., Ku, A. Y., Macdowell, N., & Cao, C. (2022). Profitability and the use of flexible CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in the transition to decarbonized electricity systems. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control120, 103767. Profitability and the use of flexible CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in the transition to decarbonized electricity systems - ScienceDirect

Stephens, J. C. (2014). Time to stop investing in carbon capture and storage and reduce government subsidies of fossil‐fuels. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change5(2), 169-173. Time to stop investing in carbon capture and storage and reduce government subsidies of fossil‐fuels - Stephens - 2014 - WIREs Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

Wang, N., Akimoto, K., & Nemet, G. F. (2021). What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects. Energy Policy158, 112546. What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects - ScienceDirect

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Carbon Capture & Storage on Fossil Fuel Power Plants
Classification
Not Recommended
Updated Date

Advance Cultivated Meat

Image
Image
Fried chicken sandwich
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Cultivated meat is produced from a sample of animal cells, rather than by slaughtering animals. This technology shows promise for reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but its climate impact depends on the energy source used during production. Research and development are still in early stages, and whether the products can scale depends on continued investments, consumer approval, technological growth, and regulatory acceptance. While cultivated meat shows potential, evidence about its emissions reduction potential is limited, and the high costs of production may restrain its scalability. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Description for Social and Search
Cultivated meat is produced from a sample of animal cells, rather than by slaughtering animals. This technology shows promise for reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but its climate impact depends on the energy source used during production.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, cultivated meat is promising in its ability to reduce emissions from meat production, but the impact on a large scale remains unclear. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Limited
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? ?
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it?

Cultivated meat (also called lab-grown or cultured meat) is a cellular agriculture product that, when used to replace meat from livestock, can reduce emissions. Cultivated meat is developed through bioengineering. Its production uses sample cells from an animal, in addition to a medium that supports cell growth in a bioreactor. Energy is required to produce the ingredients for the growth medium and to run the bioreactor (e.g., for temperature control, the mixing processes, aeration).

Does it work? 

Since the development of cultivated meat is still in its infancy, there is limited evidence on its emissions savings potential from large-scale production. Preliminary estimates differ by an order of magnitude, depending on the energy source used in the lab environment. Using fossil energy sources, emissions generated from the production of 1 kg of cultivated meat could reach 25 kg CO₂‑eq. If renewable energy is used, emissions could be about 2 kg CO₂‑eq/kg of cultivated meat. By comparison, producing a kilogram of beef from livestock generates 80–100 kilograms CO₂‑eq, on average. Almost half of those emissions from livestock beef are in the form of methane. Producing pig meat and poultry meat generates about 12 kg and 10 kg CO₂‑eq, respectively. Based on these estimates, cultivated meat could substantially reduce the emissions of beef. Compared to pork and chicken, however, its emissions depend on the source of energy used during production.

Why are we excited?

The cultivated meat industry is fairly new but growing rapidly. The first cell-cultivated meat product was developed in 2013. In 2024, there were 155 companies involved in the industry, located across six continents, mostly based in the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Agriculture is responsible for about 22% of global GHG emissions, and raising livestock, especially beef, is particularly emissions-intensive. Therefore, cultivated meat has great potential to reduce related emissions as demand for meat continues to grow across the world. Cultivated meat enables the production of a large amount of meat from a single stem cell. This means that far fewer animals will be needed for meat production. Cultivated meat is also more efficient at converting feed into meat than chickens, which reduces emissions associated with feed production and demand for land.

Why are we concerned?

Concerns about cultivated meat include scalability, cost, and consumer acceptance. Because cultivated meat is still an emerging area of food science, the cost of production may be prohibitive at a large scale. Although cell culture is routinely performed in industrial and academic labs, creating the culture medium for mass-market production at competitive prices will require innovations and significant cost reductions. There are still many unknowns about the commercial potential of cultivated meat and whether consumers will accept the products. In 2024, companies began to move from research labs to larger facilities to start producing meat for consumers. There are only two countries that allow the sale of cultivated meat: Singapore and the United States. In the United States, about one-third of adults find the concept of cultivated meat appealing, and only about 17% would be likely to purchase it, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Good Food Institute. However, even substituting a fraction of the beef consumed in the United States with cultivated meat could have an important impact on reducing emissions. Cultivated meat is a novel food and may require consumer education and producer transparency on production methods and safeguards in order to become more widely accepted.

Solution in Action

Congressional Research Service of the United States (2023). Cell-Cultivated Meat: An Overview Link to source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47697

Garrison, G. L., et al. (2022). How much will large-scale production of cell-cultured meat cost?. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 10: 100358. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100358

Good Food Institute (2025). 2024 State of the Industry report: Cultivated meat, seafood, and ingredients. Link to source: https://gfi.org/resource/cultivated-meat-seafood-and-ingredients-state-of-the-industry/

Good Food Institute (2024). Consumer snapshot: Cultivated meat in the U.S. Link to source: https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Consumer-snapshot-cultivated-meat-in-the-US.pdf

Good Food Institute (2020). An analysis of culture medium costs and production volumes for cultivated meat Link to source: https://gfi.org/resource/analyzing-cell-culture-medium-costs/

Gursel, I. et al. (2022). Review and analysis of studies on sustainability of cultured meat. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. Link to source: https://edepot.wur.nl/563404

Mendly-Zambo, Z., et al. (2021). Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk. Food, Culture & Society, 24(5), 675–693. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1888411

MIT Technology Review (2023). Here’s what we know about lab-grown meat and climate change. Link to source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/03/1075809/lab-grown-meat-climate-change/

J. Poore, & T. Nemecek (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360, 987-992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Risner, D., et al. (2023) Environmental impacts of cultured meat: A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. bioRxiv, 2023.04.21.537778; doi: Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778

Sinke, P., et al. (2023). Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 28, 234–254 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8

Treich, N. (2021). Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges. Environ Resource Econ, 79, 33–61 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00551-3

Tuomisto HL, et al. (2022) Prospective life cycle assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow fiber bioreactors. Science of the Total Environment, 851:158051

World Bank (2024) Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/406c71a3-c13f-49cd-8f3f-a071715858fb

Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S et al (2021) Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2:724–732 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Emily Cassidy

Internal Reviewers

  • Eric Toensmeier
  • Paul West, Ph.D.
  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Advance
Solution Title
Cultivated Meat
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date
Subscribe to Cut Emissions

Support Climate Action

Drawdown Delivered

Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.

Receive biweekly email newsletter updates from Project Drawdown. Unsubscribe at any time.