The Global Clean Energy Technology Demonstration Challenge: An Update
from Climate Realism and Energy Security and Climate Change Program
from Climate Realism and Energy Security and Climate Change Program

The Global Clean Energy Technology Demonstration Challenge: An Update

A general view of the Northern Lights Carbon Capture and Storage facilities on December 16, 2024 in Bergen, Norway.
A general view of the Northern Lights Carbon Capture and Storage facilities on December 16, 2024 in Bergen, Norway. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS

Three years after a $94 billion pledge, uneven progress and poor transparency hinder global clean energy demonstrations aimed at net-zero by 2050.

August 7, 2025 4:57 pm (EST)

A general view of the Northern Lights Carbon Capture and Storage facilities on December 16, 2024 in Bergen, Norway.
A general view of the Northern Lights Carbon Capture and Storage facilities on December 16, 2024 in Bergen, Norway. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

At the 2022 Global Clean Energy Action Forum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Biden administration announced that a group of sixteen countries plus the European Commission had committed $94 billion to support large-scale clean energy technology demonstration projects. That commitment exceeded the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) estimate that at least $90 billion would be required to achieve its Net Zero by 2050 (NZE) scenario. 

More From Our Experts

Three years later, the group is making, at best, uneven progress toward realizing their commitments, and a lack of data impedes a rigorous assessment and sparks concern that the apparent progress toward fulfilling the pledge may be illusory.  

Why Demonstration Projects Matter and Why They Need Government Support 

More on:

Climate Realism

Climate Change

Energy and Climate Policy

Energy and Climate Security

Energy and Environment

To approach global emissions reductions targets, many new kinds of facilities must be developed and fielded around the world. For instance, the steel industry, which accounts for about 8 percent of all emissions, is considering plants that use hydrogen or electricity instead of coal or natural gas.  

Full-scale demonstrations of such radically new types of plants are a critical step in that process. Systems that work in the laboratory or at pilot scale must frequently be tweaked significantly at commercial scale to meet the market’s demands. Such demonstrations cost a lot and, by definition, carry some risk of failure. 

The scale, cost, and risk of demonstration projects deter private investment in them. Public support for such projects, in partnership with the private sector, can help overcome those barriers. The ultimate goal is to instill confidence among private investors that the demonstrated technologies will produce predictable returns. Follow-on projects would then become attractive without public support. 

More From Our Experts

How Many and How Much: The Analytical Basis for the Demonstration Pledge 

The IEA’s $90 billion estimate draws on a detailed scenario that incorporates models of progress of some six hundred technologies. That scenario assumes that greenhouse gas emissions from energy fall to net zero by 2050, while also achieving important global development goals.  

There are many potential pathways to net zero, and the IEA scenario is very unlikely to be realized. But many of the technologies that it covers will be required in any pathway. A recent study of the steel industry, for instance, concluded that “achieving economy-wide net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 will require an ambitious scale-up of low carbon technologies.” 

More on:

Climate Realism

Climate Change

Energy and Climate Policy

Energy and Climate Security

Energy and Environment

The agency recently published an update of its demonstration project database, which it generously shared with us, as well as a report summarizing its contents. 

The Global Picture 

The most striking feature of the data is its incompleteness. The initial national pledges were often vague, and the follow-up reporting contains many gaps. In particular, although pledges were financial in nature, financial reporting is absent for the majority of projects. Those gaps are understandable given the technological complexity and blended public-private financing of the projects, but they point to an underlying flaw in the pledge itself.  

Although the data is poor, it is clear that the combined effort of pledged countries is falling far short of the pledge’s goal. Through its own efforts and submissions by member countries, the IEA identified about 350 active projects that met its definition of demonstration. The projects can be further restricted to a list of 178 using four criteria: (1) they are located in countries that joined the Pittsburgh pledge; (2) they aim to advance technologies included in IEA’s NZE scenario; (3) they are of timely relevance to the pledge; and (4) they have progressed beyond their initial announcements. Only seventy-seven of these projects included information about public contributions, which total about $10 billion. The total funding for demonstration projects amounts to around $24 billion. However, this figure needs to be interpreted carefully, as many projects fail to report detailed public or private funding data. Cutbacks in the United States that have been announced since the data was collected will reduce this number further. 

Two technologies account for most of the projects and funds. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) systems, which could be vital in the power and industrial sectors, are the focus of fifty-four projects, with almost $5 billion in public funding. Hydrogen production, storage, and distribution, which have the potential to contribute to emissions reductions across multiple sectors, are the objectives of forty-eight projects, with over $3 billion in public funding. Nuclear power and biofuels also attracted substantial sums, while biofuels and floating offshore wind power ranked third and fourth in the project count. 

A future post will explore how the distribution of funds across technology areas impacts potential emissions reduction pathways. 

 

Fulfillment of National Commitments 

There is also variation by country. The figure below compares commitments by groups of countries to their actions over the past three years.  

United States 
The United States committed $21.9 billion toward the Pittsburgh pledge, roughly matching the budget of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), which had been established by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Other Energy Department units, notably its carbon removal program, also received funding from that law to support demonstration projects. An additional $5.8 billion [PDF] was provided to OCED for industrial demonstration projects by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. DOE provided initial funding for a wide range of projects during the Biden administration, but the second Trump administration plans [PDF] to withhold support required to complete them and has virtually disbanded OCED. 

European Union 
The European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, promised in Pittsburgh to contribute €28 billion by 2027 “to advance clean energy innovation and deployment, mainly in hard to abate sectors,” but it did not specify the portion of that commitment that would specifically be invested in demonstration projects. Only 2 EU projects in the IEA database fall into the group of 179. However, the EU Innovation Fund, a dedicated funding program for large-scale demonstrations, reports awarding €12 billion for more than two hundred projects. (Some EU-funded projects may be assigned to individual countries by the IEA, while others may not satisfy the IEA’s definition.) 

Germany 
Germany was listed among the Pittsburgh pledge participants, but it did not provide details of its commitment. Its major focus areas among the twenty-one total projects in the database include CCUS (eight projects) and hydrogen (five projects). The German portfolio focuses on the industrial sector, particularly industries in which Germany is already strong. On the other hand, the German government is not supporting any nuclear power projects, having decided to shut down the nation’s existing nuclear fleet, though Germany’s new chancellor is more favorable toward nuclear power than his predecessor. Public funding data is available for seven of these projects and totals about $800 million. 

Japan 
Like Germany, Japan’s Pittsburgh pledge is not publicly available, but it has followed through with eleven projects. The Japanese portfolio is dominated by hydrogen (seven projects). One of these, the Large-Scale Hydrogen Supply Chain Establishment, is slated to receive more than $2 billion in public funding, the largest planned outlay in the database. Japan seeks to develop new transportation and production technologies in that project, as well as demonstrate hydrogen combustion at a full-scale power plant. 

China 
China did not participate in the Pittsburgh pledge, but it is poised to contribute significantly to the global effort. The IEA identified thirty-four demonstration projects in China, but did not provide funding information. China is working on at least three different types of advanced nuclear reactors (small modular light water, fast neutron, and high-temperature gas-cooled), as well as numerous industrial and power CCUS systems [PDF]. In March 2025, the central government announced funding for 101 new demonstration projects, building on 47 announced last year. 

Looking Forward 

The forecast is cloudy, at best, for further progress on the Pittsburgh pledge. The Trump administration is slashing U.S. investments, and other nations’ commitments seem wobbly as well. China is the exception, although greater transparency is required to better assess its efforts. 

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

United States

CFR President Michael Froman analyzes the Trump administrations new National Security Strategy.

Venezuela

The opposition and the Maduro regime will face a new variable at the negotiating table: the United States and its heavy military presence off Venezuela’s coast. As a direct party, the Trump administration now has an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past to bring a potential conflict to a close. 

Taiwan

Assumptions about how a potential conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan would unfold should urgently be revisited. Such a war, far from being insulated, would likely draw in additional powers, expand geographically, and escalate vertically.