The pulp and paper (P&P) sector is a dynamic manufacturing industry and plays an essential role in the Austrian economy. However, the sector, which consumes about 20 TWh of final energy, is responsible for 7% of Austria’s industrial CO₂ emissions. This study, intending to assess the potential for improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions in the Austrian context in the P&P sector, uses a bottom-up approach model. The model is applied to analyze the energy consumption (heat and electricity) and CO₂ emissions in the main processes, related to the P&P production from virgin or recycled fibers. Afterward, technological options to reduce energy consumption and fossil CO₂ emissions for P&P production are investigated, and various low-carbon technologies are applied to the model. For each of the selected technologies, the potential of emission reduction and energy savings up to 2050 is estimated. Finally, a series of low-carbon technology-based scenarios are developed and evaluated. These scenarios’ content is based on the improvement potential associated with the various processes of different paper grades. The results reveal that the investigated technologies applied in the production process (chemical pulping and paper drying) have a minor impact on CO₂ emission reduction (maximum 10% due to applying an impulse dryer). In contrast, steam supply electrification, by replacing fossil fuel boilers with direct heat supply (such as commercial electric boilers or heat pumps), enables reducing emissions by up to 75%. This means that the goal of 100% CO₂ emission reduction by 2050 cannot be reached with one method alone. Consequently, a combination of technologies, particularly with the electrification of the steam supply, along with the use of carbon-free electricity generated by renewable energy, appears to be essential.

Efforts towards climate neutrality in Europe must prioritise manufacturing industries, particularly the energy-intensive industry (EII) subsectors. This work proposes a novel approach to assessing transformation options for EII subsectors. At the center of this approach we position a potential analysis of technologies’ impact on subsector decarbonisation—an approach only known so far from the investigation of renewable energy potentials. These so-called technical climate neutrality potentials, supplemented by a set of indicators taking into account energy consumption, capital and operational expenditures, and GHG taxation programs per technology and subsector, enable cross-sector comparisons. The indicators allow the reader to compare the impact on GHG emission mitigation, energy demand, and cost for every considered technology. At the same time, we keep an open mind regarding combinations of technological solutions in the overall energy system. This ensures that the technology pathways with the greatest climate neutrality potential are easily identified. These focal points can subsequently serve in, e.g., narrative-driven scenario analyses to define comprehensive guides for action for policymakers. A case study of Austria for the proposed potential analysis demonstrates that bio-CH₄ and electrolysis-derived H₂ are the most economical green gases, but GHG certificate costs will be necessary for cost-competitiveness in high-temperature applications. Electrification offers advantages over conventional technologies and CO₂-neutral gas alternatives in low-to-mid temperature ranges. Under the given assumptions, including GHG emission certificate costs of 250 EUR/t CO₂, alternative technologies in the identified climate neutrality pathways can operate at total annual costs comparable to conventional fossil-based equivalents.

The chemical industry is a key driver of economic growth and innovation but remains one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Achieving sustainability demands advancements in green chemistry and cleaner production methods. This study investigates emission reduction strategies across Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 by applying both top-down and bottom-up approaches within four system boundaries. The Austrian chemical sector, with a focus on ammonia, methanol, and olefins, serves as a case study. Results highlight the potential of abatement technologies and alternative feedstocks—such as low-carbon hydrogen and methanol—to significantly reduce emissions. Hydrogen-based production for ammonia and methanol, along with low-carbon methanol in olefin production, could reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by approximately 80% compared to conventional methods. However, Scope 3 emissions remain challenging due to embedded carbon in feedstocks and CO₂ use in production, particularly in product use and end-of-life phases. A comprehensive life cycle assessment is crucial to addressing these impacts. To evaluate Scope 3 emissions, this study explores three decarbonization scenarios: the reference scenario—relies on fossil-based production with high emissions; the geogenic scenario—integrates abatement technologies and geogenic CO₂ feedstock, reducing emissions by about 46%; and the bio-based scenario—combines abatement technologies with biogenic CO₂ feedstock, achieving an 80% reduction in total emissions at the national level. The findings emphasize the need for a system-wide approach that integrates bio-based solutions and circular economy strategies to achieve climate neutrality. However, uncertainties in climate policy, bio-resource availability, and data gaps in Scope 3 emissions must be addressed to ensure effective decarbonization and alignment with climate goals.