CCS and Green Hydrogen Not Yet Mature Enough to Support Projects: Many Expected to Be Abandoned, Argues Paper with Support from Report and Some Scientists

      A new paper published in the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers’ journal, First Break, argues that both green hydrogen and geological carbon sequestration remain immature technologies despite the proliferation of projects, and says many of the projects will never be completed. I was only able to see the paper’s abstract, which notes that current publications are:

“…routinely overstating the technological readiness of these climate mitigation remedies.”

     The paper evaluates both the technological and economic readiness of these projects. It refers to green hydrogen production as a “distant hope,” and CCS in the North Sea as “unproven.”

     They note that none of these projects is anywhere near viable without public funding and may never be. Of course, especially for CCS, which can be seen as a form of pollution abatement, there never was any hope for profitability. Green hydrogen is even less economically feasible. Thus, the economics are well known to be unfavorable.

     According to Henk Kombrink at GeoExPro, the paper’s authors,  Ruud Weijermars and Simone Pilia, both affiliated with the King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals in Saudi Arabia, note that the projects are effectively overhyped. Kombrink writes:

“…the authors identify what they describe as a typical example of the Gartner-style hype: an ini­tial trigger leading to a peak, followed by disillusionment and, subsequently, a “land­ing” in a phase of more modest, workable solutions.”

     The graph below shows that the number of publications per year for CCS and green hydrogen continues to grow. Based on their Gartner-style hype model, they predict that the number of publications for both technologies will soon begin to drop, showing that they are overhyped.

     Renewable energy and so-called climate solutions are quite vulnerable to being overhyped. The authors and Kombrink note that technical challenges remain for most projects.

Kombrink: “Looking at Gorgon in Australia, which keeps on being the only carbon storage project at scale, they observe continued injection challenges. They also argue that it is no surprise to see the Dutch CCS project Porthos experiencing cost overruns and project delays; the project was assigned to a government entity with­out operational experience that also lacks the contrac­tor-handling leverage that large oil companies have.”

     The Global CCS Institute recently published its Global Status of CCS 2026, which is more optimistic, but does acknowledge a deployment gap. The figures below include data and highlights from the report. According to a summary by the institute’s CEO:

“More work is still required for CCS to reach its full deployment potential and many policy and regulatory gaps, uncertain financing frameworks, insufficient markets, and public awareness  barriers remain. As countries move from climate ambition to implementation, carbon management should be explicitly integrated into NDCs, sectoral plans, finance discussions, and wider multilateral processes to help projects move from concept to operation. While the global number of operating projects and cumulative amount of experience and expertise continue to grow, we still have a long way to go.”

     Environmental activists and the scientists who support their views and approach have long been highly critical of CCS, calling it a false solution. They do have some grounds for criticism, noting the high costs and technical challenges. One of those scientists is Mark Jacobson of Stanford, who recently led the authorship of a paper in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, which compared CCS to his idea of a 100% renewable energy scenario in the form of mainly wind, water, and solar, something he has been advocating for years, which most scientists see as highly unfeasible and scientifically flawed. Of course, no one ever said CCS will be the majority of the solution to climate change, simply a tool among many tools. It can only provide some mitigation of emissions. Jacobson, who often levels harsh words against those who don’t embrace his scenarios, stresses that most CCS is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which enables more oil production and thus more emissions, and said this about CCS:

“…data confirm carbon capture and direct air capture are useless opportunity costs.”

“All CC/DAC ever built for non-EOR purposes captures only 0.04% of today's CO2 emissions.”

“74.3% of all CO2 captured today from all installations built in any year is used for EOR (which releases 50-120% of the CO2 back to the air).”

“68.1% of all CO2 captured from 2026 installations is used for EOR.”

     Technically, he is not wrong. However, the world still strongly demands oil, and CCS for EOR helps produce the oil we need and so remains a viable solution for both sequestering carbon and producing oil. The authors conclude in the abstract below that

 "...policies promoting CC and SDACC should be abandoned."

References:

 

Many CCS projects may falter quietly without the promised benefits: That’s the conclusion of a study recently published in First Break. Henk Kombrink. GeoExPro. August 5, 2026. Many CCS projects may falter quietly without the promised benefits - GeoExpro

Price-Flooring Green Hydrogen Production and Geological Carbon Sequestration. Ruud Weijermars and Simone Pilia. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers. First Break. Vol 44, Issue 4. April 2026. Price-Flooring Green Hydrogen Production and Geological Carbon Sequestration | Earthdoc

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS 2026: SUSTAINING GLOBAL PROGRESS. Global CCS Institute. GlaSobal-Status-of-CCS-2026-report-Global-CCS-Institute.pdf

Energy, Health,and Climate Costs of Carbon-Capture and Direct-Air Capture versus100%-Wind-Water-Solar Climate Policies in149 Countries. Mark Z. Jacobson, Danning Fu, Daniel J. Sambor, and Andreas Mühlbauer. Environ.Sci.Technol.2025,59,3034−3045. 25-149-Countries-Main-Final