Exploring techno-economic landscapes of abatement options for hard-to-electrify sectors

Approximately 20% of global CO<sub>2</sub> emissions originate from sectors often labeled as hard-to-abate, which are challenging or impossible to electrify. Alternative abatement options are necessary for these sectors but face critical bottlenecks, particularly concerning the availability and cost of low-emission hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and non-fossil CO<sub>2</sub> for synthetic fuels or carbon-dioxide removal. In this study, we conduct a broad techno-economic analysis, mapping abatement options and hard-to-electrify sectors while addressing associated technological uncertainties. Our findings reveal a diverse mitigation landscape that can be categorized into three tiers, based on the abatement cost and technologies required. By requiring long-term climate neutrality through simple conditions, the mitigation landscape narrows substantially, with single options dominating each sector. This clarity justifies targeted political support for sector-specific abatement options, increasing investment security for transforming hard-to-electrify sectors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Communications
Published
2025-04-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59277-1
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.39

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exploring techno-economic landscapes of abatement options for hard-to-electrify sectors

Philipp C. Verpoort, Gunnar Luderer, Clara Bachorz, Falko Ueckerdt
8 citations
Nature Communications
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
6.39
article

Exploring techno-economic landscapes of abatement options for hard-to-electrify sectors

Philipp C. Verpoort, Gunnar Luderer, Clara Bachorz, Falko Ueckerdt
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Approximately 20% of global CO<sub>2</sub> emissions originate from sectors often labeled as hard-to-abate, which are challenging or impossible to electrify. Alternative abatement options are necessary for these sectors but face critical bottlenecks, particularly concerning the availability and cost of low-emission hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and non-fossil CO<sub>2</sub> for synthetic fuels or carbon-dioxide removal. In this study, we conduct a broad techno-economic analysis, mapping abatement options and hard-to-electrify sectors while addressing associated technological uncertainties. Our findings reveal a diverse mitigation landscape that can be categorized into three tiers, based on the abatement cost and technologies required. By requiring long-term climate neutrality through simple conditions, the mitigation landscape narrows substantially, with single options dominating each sector. This clarity justifies targeted political support for sector-specific abatement options, increasing investment security for transforming hard-to-electrify sectors.

Nature CommunicationsVol. 16(1)
Technische Universität Berlin (DE), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE)
Bosch-Forschungsstiftung, European Commission, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
6.39
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.