One Continent, Many Industries, One Big Emissions Challenge
Europe’s industrial CO₂ emissions are far from uniform. Some sectors emit because of unavoidable process chemistry, others because they rely on carbon-intensive fuels or energy-hungry operations. But together, they form the backbone of Europe’s carbon management challenge — and its CCUS opportunity.
Using CaptureMap’s standardized, facility-level dataset, we can compare industrial CO₂ emissions across Europe on equal terms, revealing which sectors matter most for decarbonization, where capture opportunities are emerging, and how different industries will shape the next wave of CCUS deployment.
For this analysis, “Europe” includes EU-27 + Norway, Iceland, the UK, and Switzerland, covering only facilities with >100 000 t/yr of CO₂ for a clearer view of large, actionable emitters. This threshold still captures 93% of all point-source emissions in the region.
Key Insights at a Glance
-
- Eight major industrial segments account for the majority of Europe’s point-source CO₂.
-
- Coal & lignite remain the largest single source, but cement, steel, chemicals, and refineries dominate industrial emissions.
-
- Waste-to-energy (WtE) and pulp & paper stand out for their high biogenic CO₂ share, unlocking early opportunities for carbon removal.
-
- CO₂ concentrations vary significantly between sectors — with cement, steel, and SMR-based hydrogen offering some of the richest and most capture-ready streams.
-
- ETS free allocations differ between industries, heavily influencing capture economics.
-
- CaptureMap’s segmentation framework makes it possible to compare sectors consistently — something that cannot be done reliably with raw public datasets.
Table of Contents
Coal & Lignite
Still Europe’s Largest Point-Source Emitters
Coal and lignite power plants continue to dominate Europe’s CO₂ landscape. While many facilities are scheduled for phase-out, several regions in Central and Eastern Europe still rely heavily on these assets for power and heat — creating a dual challenge of legacy emissions and energy security.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- CO₂ concentration: 10–18%
- Stream profile: high CO₂ but with SO₂, NOₓ, particulates → requires flue gas conditioning
- Capture suitability: strong, particularly on units with existing FGD/SCR systems
Coal & lignite facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 282 mtpa
- Number of facilities: 194
- Average emissions: 1,5 mtpa
- Median emissions: 0,6 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 273 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 5,4 mtpa
- Biogenic share: occasionally, particularly at co-firing sites with biomass
Why it matters for CCUS
These facilities provide some of Europe’s largest, most concentrated emission points — meaning high-volume capture opportunities with potentially strong economics when ETS exposure is high. Their long-term role in the energy system remains a question mark, however. Some of the power plants are transitioning over to biomass, creating significant carbon dioxide removal opportunities.
Natural Gas
Lean Streams, Big Strategic Value
Natural gas–fired plants remain essential for balancing Europe’s grid as renewables expand. Their emissions are lower than coal’s, but still significant, particularly in the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- CO₂ concentration: 3–9%
- High oxygen (10–12%), low impurities
- Capture is technically straightforward but more energy-intensive
Natural gas facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 207 mtpa
- Number of facilities: 325
- Average emissions: 0,6 mtpa
- Median emissions: 0,4 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 203,1 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 8,1 mtpa
- Biogenic share: negligible
Why it matters for CCUS
Gas plants are often located within or near emerging CO₂ transport networks, making them ideal candidates for early regional CCUS clusters.
Refineries
High-Value, Cluster-Connected CO₂ Sources
Refineries generate some of the most strategically located industrial CO₂ streams in Europe, often sitting inside major clusters like Rotterdam, Antwerp, Le Havre, the Humber, and the Mediterranean.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- Mixed streams: 5–25% CO₂
- High-purity SMR-based hydrogen streams: >90% CO₂
- Diversity of sources creates a mix of low-hanging fruit + more complex capture units
Refinery facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 122 mtpa
- Number of facilities: 86
- Average emissions: 1,4 mtpa
- Median emissions: 1,2 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 118,9 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 80,1 mtpa
- Biogenic share: negligible
Why it matters for CCUS
Refineries offer both high-purity and large-volume streams — and sit within clusters already moving toward CO₂ pipelines and storage.
Cement
Hard to Abate, Harder to Ignore
Cement is one of the few industries where more than half of emissions come from chemistry, not fuel. Capture is therefore central to long-term decarbonization.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- CO₂ concentration: 15–30%
- High dust load → requires robust pre-treatment
- Stable, baseload emissions ideal for continuous capture
Cement facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 104 mtpa
- Number of facilities: 199
- Average emissions: 0,5 mtpa
- Median emissions: 0,4 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 97,9 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 100,3 mtpa
- Biogenic share: occasional (waste & biomass fuels)
Why it matters for CCUS
Cement offers some of the richest CO₂ streams in heavy industry and is among the sectors with the strongest long-term capture mandate.
Basic Iron & Steel
High-Volume, High-Concentration CO₂
Europe’s iron and steel sector is transitioning but remains heavily reliant on blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) routes, making it a cornerstone of heavy industrial emissions.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- BF/BOF: 20–30% CO
- Coke and sinter operations: 5–15% CO
- Large volumes, steady flow, cluster-located
Basic iron & steel facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 92 mpta
- Number of facilities: 56
- Average emissions: 1,8 mtpa
- Median emissions: 0,4 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 93,0 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 115,2 mtpa
- Biogenic share: negligible
Why it matters for CCUS
Few facilities, enormous emissions. Steel plants frequently serve as anchor loads for multi-user transport and storage infrastructure.
Waste-to-Energy (WtE)
Baseload Emissions and Biogenic Potential
WtE facilities convert municipal and industrial waste into heat and electricity. They are increasingly prioritized for CCUS due to their unique role in urban decarbonization.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- CO₂ concentration: 8–12%
- Biogenic share: 40–60%
- Impurities present → needs pre-cleaning
WtE facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 90 mtpa
- Number of facilities: 376
- Average emissions: 0,2 mtpa
- Median emissions: 0,2 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 4,2 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 0,8 mtpa
- Biogenic share: medium
Why it matters for CCUS
WtE is one of the largest biogenic CO₂ sources in Europe, enabling early BECCS projects and net-negative pathways.
Chemicals
Diverse Streams, High-Purity Opportunities
The chemical sector includes ammonia, methanol, ethylene, and a range of petrochemical processes — many of which generate CO₂ as a process by-product.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- High-purity streams (>90%) from ammonia/hydrogen
- Combustion streams: 5–15% CO₂
- Highly diverse, often cluster-integrated
Chemical facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 88 mtpa
- Number of facilities: 174
- Average emissions: 0,5 mtpa
- Median emissions: 0,2 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 86,1 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 68,7 mtpa
- Biogenic share: negligible
Why it matters for CCUS
High-purity CO₂ streams make chemicals one of the lowest-cost CCUS segments.
Pulp & Paper
Europe’s Natural Source of Biogenic CO₂
Pulp & paper mills operate some of Europe’s largest biomass energy systems, producing both fossil and predominantly biogenic CO₂.
Typical CO₂ characteristics
- Lime kilns: 20–30% CO₂
- Biomass boilers: 10–15% CO₂
- Biogenic share: 80–90%
Pulp & paper facilities in Europe (>100 000 t/yr CO₂)
- Total emissions: 85 mtpa
- Number of facilities: 184
- Average emissions: 0,5 mtpa
- Median emissions: 0,2 mtpa
- ETS verified emissions: 11,8 mtpa
- Free ETS allowances: 15,2 mtpa
- Biogenic share: high
Why it matters for CCUS
These mills are some of Europe’s best candidates for early BECCS deployment, especially in the Nordics.
Closing — From Data to Action
This analysis shows a simple truth: industrial CO₂ is not one challenge — it is many.
Each sector has its own chemistry, history, geographical footprint, and capture potential. CaptureMap’s segmentation framework is purpose-built to reveal these differences, making it possible for CCUS developers, investors, and policymakers to:
- identify promising capture opportunities
- understand market potential across countries and sectors
- track emerging clusters
- evaluate business cases based on ETS dynamics
- match emitters to transport and storage plans
Sector comparison is only the first step. The next is connecting emitters to real capture projects — where carbon management becomes reality. Explore more CaptureMap insights:
If you want to explore sector-by-sector emissions or identify capture opportunities for your region:
👉 Book a demo and see the data behind the insights.
Methodology
The starting point for emissions data is a set of different environmental databases across Europe. They are all listed here below. If you’re bewildered, that’s normal. So were we when we first started digging into this. It’s really a mess of national and international datasets, with overlaps and gaps, inconsistent segmentation and locations info, and rarely names that match. For example, see some of our thoughts on the E-PRTR database here.
So we go through our in-house methodology for collecting, cleaning, structuring and harmonizng the datasets, using Python and in our custom-made GIS (geographical information system) stack. It’s painstaking work, and a continual chase of perfection. Speaking of, the feedback we get from our users with feet on the ground is that while it’s not perfect, it’s pretty close, and far better than anything else out there.
Note that we collect data for different years, and have taken the latest year with emissions data on each facility as a basis for showing the overview. Most of the emissions data stems from 2023 and 2024, but there are 120 facilities (out 2299, so roughly 5%) that have older emissions data. We didn’t find that number significant enough to drastically skew the outcome, so we included them.
|
Data source name |
Data source details |
Emission coverage |
Creditting |
|
E-PRTR |
E-PRTR database with Industrial Reporting Database |
Fossil, biogenic and sometimes undefined CO2, depending on the sites and countries. All sites with emissions > 100ktpa. |
European Union, 1995-2025 |
|
EU ETS |
EU ETS Register |
Fossil CO2 emissions subject to the EU Emission Trading Scheme (contains also small amounts of N2O and PFCs) |
© European Union, 1995-2025 |
|
Germany PRTR |
German PRTR database |
Both fossil and biogenic CO2 into a combined CO2 amount without details. All sites with emissions > 100ktpa. |
Contains data from the German PRTR dataset available at Thru.de |
|
Norway PRTR |
Norwegian PRTR database |
Both fossil and biogenic CO2, with a distinction between the two types. All sites with emissions > 10 ktpa. |
Contains data under the Norwegian license for public data (NLOD) made available by the Norwegian Environment Agency |
|
Swiss ETS |
Swiss ETS Register |
Fossil CO2 emissions subject to the Swiss Emission Trading Scheme |
|
|
UK ETS |
UK ETS Register |
Fossil CO2 emissions subject to the UK Emission Trading Scheme, from 2021 onwards |
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. |
|
UK PRTR |
United Kingdom PRTR database |
Both fossil and biogenic CO2, with a distinction between the two types. All sites with emissions > 100ktpa. |
© Crown 2025 copyright Defra via prtr.defra.gov.uk, licenced under the Open Government Licence (OGL) |
|
Endrava estimates from waste capacity |
Endrava’s own model for CO2 emissions from waste-to-energy plants, based on waste capacities |
Both fossil and biogenic CO2, with an assumption on 50.0 percent biogenic share |
Endrava AS, 2022-2025 |
|
Endrava estimates from energy use |
Endrava’s own model for biogenic CO2 emissions, based on reported energy inputs in E-PRTR |
Biogenic CO2 emissions, based on energy inputs and emission factors |
Endrava AS, 2022-2025 |
|
Endrava data corrections |
Endrava corrections to the reported data, based on quality checks and external data sources |
Fossil, biogenic and sometimes undefined CO2, depending on the sites and countries. |
Endrava AS, 2022-2025 |
And then the fun begins – what data should we include?
First, which countries to look at? We’ve narrowed it down to countries in Europe, but not all countries have good emissions reporting data. On that basis, we went for EU-27, plus a smaller list of closely related countries: UK, Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland.
Second, what facility emission sizes to include? This was a great opportunity to test out the validity of the Pareto 80-20 rule which in our context means that around 80 % of the emissions should come from 20% of the facilities. The chart below is a pretty good illustration. In our case, 20% of the facilities give 76% of the emissions. Not bad!
But, why would we exclude the smaller facilities from the list? From a low-hanging fruit perspective, let’s say you’re working on developing CCUS value chains, you’ll probably get more value for money developing the larger capture projects first. With that in mind, what if we set a cut-off of 100 ktpa? In that case, we’re eliminating 50% of the total number of facilities, yet keeping 93 % of the total emissions. Decluttering in action.
Finally, what segments should we study in detail? Well, the biggest ones. 8 seems like a good number, so we went with that. Also because there was a significant drop in total emissions from the 8th to the 9th segment. There’s such a wide range of industrial emitters and categories, but ultimately this gives the biggest part of the iceberg without losing out too much on the granularity.
Don’t forget that there are smaller segments that go under this radar, but that still would be very suitable in a CCUS context. Some examples include lime facilities, biomass, plants, and biogas just to mention a few. We’ll get back to these ones in a later blog post.
Sometimes there are small discrepancies between the total CO2 volumes shown in the map-based figures, and the data summaries for each sector. This has to do with using ETS data as a proxy for those sites where the primary datasets from PRTR don’t contain sufficient information. For your own analysis, use the data summaries.
Note that there are also some differences between the totals in the sector summary in the introduction, and in the individual sector anlyses. This is predominantly the case for iron and steel as well as non-metallic minerals, and has to do with that these also contain other smaller segments (for example smelting within the iron and steel bucket, and lime , glass and ceramics within non-metallic minerals). In these cases, we’ve focused on the largest activity within the sector.
Disagree about something? Do let us know. And now, let the analysis begin!
