TASK FORCE

The Donald C. Hellmann Task Force Program

Global Trends in Energy and Emissions:

Key Points for Policy Decision-Making

2022
Global Trends in Energy and Emissions: Key Points for Policy Decision-Making

Faculty Advisor
Scott L. Montgomery

Evaluator
Devin Helfrich

Coordinator
Sydney Sherk

Editors
Sophia M. Guo
Madison Anne Morgan

Task Force Members

Grace Chun
Jacqueline Days
Jangshik Hwangbo
Yelyzaveta Ismatullayeva
Emma Kamb
Chihiro Kobayashi
Joseph Najmolhoda
Amberleigh Packard
John F. Reinhardt
Meera Naomi Rynne
Alexie Sinclair
Emma Thuau
Lauryn Wilk
 Table of Contents

Introduction
Executive Summary | Scott L. Montgomery and Madison Anne Morgan
Land Acknowledgment | Provided by UW Libraries
Global Emissions | Sophia M. Guo, Madison Anne Morgan, and Sydney Sherk

Section 1: Global Energy: Key Trends, Must-Know Factors

Chapter 1: Carbon Sources
Chapter 1.1: Coal as a Carbon Energy Source | John F. Reinhardt
Chapter 1.2: Oil | Meera Naomi Rynne
Chapter 1.3: Natural Gas | Emma Thuau
Chapter 2: Non-Carbon Sources:
Chapter 2.1: Renewables | Chihiro Kobayashi
Chapter 2.2: Nuclear | Jangshik Hwangbo
Chapter 2.3: Hydropower | Grace Chun
Chapter 2.4: Future technologies: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, Fusion, Electricity Storage |
Grace Chun, Jangshik Hwangbo, and Chihiro Kobayashi
Chapter 3: Possibilities for Direct Carbon Mitigation
Chapter 3.1: Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage | Yelyzaveta Ismatullayeva
Chapter 3.2: Direct Air Capture | Jacqueline Days
Chapter 3.3: Geoengineering | Jacqueline Days and Yelyzaveta Ismatullayeva

Section 2: Geopolitical Realities – Today and Tomorrow

Chapter 4: Geopolitics | Joseph Najmolhoda
Chapter 5: Energy Security Issues | Emma Kamb
Chapter 6: Emerging Economies’ Growing Role in Global Emissions | Amberleigh
Packard

Section 3: Challenges and Opportunities for the United States

Chapter 8: Current United States Energy Situation | Alexie Sinclair
Chapter 10: Realistic Opportunities for Reducing Emissions | Lauryn Wilk

Section 4: Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

 Introduction

Executive Summary

How much progress is the world actually making in the shift away from fossil fuels and
toward reducing global emissions? The energy transition, as this shift has been called, is
decidedly underway: since 2001, more than $4 trillion of global investment has gone into
expanding renewable energy.1 What, however, do global energy trends tell us has been achieved?
This Task Force will assemble an accurate picture of global energy use and emissions for
regions across the world, focusing on major emitting nations such as China, the European Union,
India, Russia, and the United States. Aimed at giving realistic, usable advice to policy
decision-makers, this report will analyze trends in light of recent energy policy decisions to
identify the degree to which progress toward emissions reductions has or has not occurred and
are set to occur in the next few decades.

Land Acknowledgment

This Task Force acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which
touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Duwamish, Puyallup, Suquamish,
Tulalip, and Muckleshoot nations.

Global Emissions
Throughout the last 150 years, the widespread usage of electricity and energy production
has become increasingly essentialized. In a continuously developing world, the production of
energy and mitigation of climate-driven concerns are at the forefront of conversations regarding
the future. This report looks at the means of energy production available and upcoming
technologies, distinguishing the realities in energy production from popularized hopes, exploring
the geopolitical and political advantages and disadvantages of each.
Entering into a discussion about energy production and global emissions, it is essential to
first set the scene for global energy demands and emissions.

Global Energy Consumption and Production

Global demand for energy is increasing over time, as countries that have already
developed have increased consumption, and as other nations move toward increasing
development. According to Figure 0.1, between 1800 and 1875, global energy consumption
remained relatively low at around 10,000 terawatt-hours (TWh)—from primarily biomass
sources. From 1900 to 1950, energy consumption grew past 20,000 TWh before spiking at
160,000 TWh in 2019.

1
Madhumitha Jaganmohan, “Clean Energy - Global Investment 2019,” Statista, January 27, 2021,
[Link]
 With the exponential increases in energy consumption during the last 150 years,
developments in energy production have had to progress quickly; Figure 0.1 also displays the
variation in energy creation.

Figure 0.1. Chart by Our World in Data with data collection from Vaclav Smil & BP Statistical
Review of World Energy
Over time, coal, oil, and gas (fossil fuels) have become the primary means of energy
production, with other forms making strides in recent years. Until around 1870, the primary form
of energy consumption came from the use of traditional biomass, which has remained relatively
steady over time. While coal and oil have revolutionized global energy access, today it is
understood that the burning of carbon-based sources is a major contributor to global climate
change and endangers the health of populations where fossil fuels are procured and burned.
In 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasized the impact that COVID-19
has had on energy demand and CO₂ emissions. In 2019, major decreases in energy consumption
and carbon emissions were experienced globally, as much of the world went into lockdown. In
2022, the world has reopened with tenacity, as global energy demand was projected to increase
by 4.6% in 2021.2 This increase will push energy demand beyond pre-pandemic consumption
levels, ultimately leaving demand 0.5% higher than in 2019.3 The dramatic difference in demand

2
Laura Cozzi et al., “Global Energy Review 2021,” IEA (International Energy Agency, April 2021),
[Link] 4.
3
Cozzi et al., “Global Energy Review 2021,” 4.
is driven largely by developing economies, while advanced economies are set to remain 3%
below pre-pandemic demand, according to the 2021 report.4
Other key findings from the IEA report included increased demand for carbon-based
energy, coupled with high-carbon emissions. Demand for coal was set to rise 4.5% in 2021, with
consumption growth occurring largely in Asia.5 Further, natural gas experienced major demand
increases, with 3.2% growth driven by demand in Russia, the Middle East, and Asia.6 As a result
of the fast-growing demand for carbon-based energy, energy-related CO₂ emissions were set to
rise nearly 5% globally in 2021.7

Net Zero Emissions by 2050

In 2021, the IEA released a roadmap toward achieving net zero emissions of CO₂ by
2050 (NZE 2050) and keeping global warming to about 1.5°C. With a few exceptions, this goal
was accepted at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) by both
developed and developing nations. The IEA outlined a framework for actions that included more
than 400 milestones toward decarbonization.
According to the IEA, the next thirty years should include plans for tripling clean energy
investment to $4 trillion and driving huge leaps in non-carbon energy innovation by 2030.8 By
2035, they postulate that there will be a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and that in 2040
electricity will be the core of global energy systems, which will have net zero emissions during
generation. In 2045, new low-emission industries will grow, and by 2050, the energy sector will
be based primarily on renewable energy.9 The IEA report also provided a comprehensive and
detailed plan for achieving this timeline, with smaller milestones outlined by year. This list
includes 60% of global car sales going electric by 2030 as well as overall net zero emissions
electricity in advanced economies by 2035 and net zero emissions electricity globally in 2040.10
The IEA’s roadmap to NZE 2050 is ambitious, but it serves as an outline for the kinds of
drastic actions that must be taken to reduce carbon emissions. Further, the roadmap to NZE 2050
provides insight into the necessary steps and landmarks that should be achieved, despite whether
or not they follow the IEA’s timeline. Both advanced and growing economies have an essential
role to play in revolutionizing global energy systems. The NZE 2050 report reiterates that
cooperation between countries will be key to reducing emissions in the coming decades.
Development toward carbon neutrality must take economic development and a rising standard of
living into account. It is important that advanced economies work to support developing
economies in the process of making economic advancement while working toward carbon

4
Cozzi et al., “Global Energy Review 2021,” 4.
5
Cozzi et al., “Global Energy Review 2021,” 4.
6
Cozzi et al., “Global Energy Review 2021,” 5.
7
Cozzi et al., “Global Energy Review 2021,” 5.
8
Stephanie Bouckaert et al., “Net Zero by 2050 ,” IEA (International Energy Agency, May 2021),
[Link]
9
Bouckaert et al., “Net Zero by 2050,” 20.
10
Bouckaert et al., “Net Zero by 2050,” 20.
neutrality. Vice versa, it is essential that advancing economies maintain stable governmental
systems that will support the growth of low to no-carbon energy systems.

Implications of Energy Related Carbon Emissions

In the report Climate Change 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) introduced five scenarios based on “climate models participating in the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) of the World Climate Research Programme.”11 This is
illustrated in Figure 0.2.

Figure 0.2. Future annual CO₂ emissions across all five scenarios. Chart and data by the IPCC.
According to the IPCC report, “Global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least
the mid-century under all emissions scenarios considered.”12 Furthermore, “Global warming of
1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO₂ and other
greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.”13

Drivers of Carbon Emissions

According to the IPCC Sixth Assessment, it is “unequivocal” that human activity has
produced increasing concentrations of GHG emissions – so much as to cause rapid, pervasive
warming throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, and cryosphere around the
globe.14 Human influence, mainly atmospheric aerosols (particulate air pollutants and smoke)
and well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4 methane, and N2O nitrous oxide, in descending order of

11
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
12
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
13
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
14
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, 5.
atmospheric concentration), have caused the climate to warm at rates unprecedented in thousands
of years.15 In 2019, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was the highest in at least two million
years, and since 1750, has had greater increases than naturally occurring fluctuations between
glacial periods across millenia. Tied to this trend, global surface temperatures have increased
faster in the last fifty years than over any other fifty-year period in the last 2000 years.16
The rapid, far-reaching, and potentially critical changes to the Earth’s climate, caused by
excessive CO2 emissions resulting from human activity, cannot be easily or quickly remediated.
In addition to the immediately observable effects of rising global temperature, this
anthropogenic, or human-induced climate change means that in every region across the planet,
climate extremes – including heatwaves, droughts, heavy precipitation, and hurricanes/tropical
cyclones – have become increasingly severe and frequent in only the last several decades.17 Land
and ocean carbon sinks, which act as natural cushioning against these outcomes, are predicted to
become less effective at slowing CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere over time, and changes to
oceans and to ice sheets caused by GHG emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia in
the future.18 Actions pertaining to the climate now and in the near future bear enormous
significance on the trajectory of the well-being – and continued existence – of the Earth’s
environment and life forms.

Chapter 1: Carbon Sources

Chapter 1.1: Coal as a Carbon Energy Source

Overview and Introduction

Coal is the world’s most highly polluting, carbon-intensive fuel among carbon energy sources.19
Nonetheless, coal remains the most widely used energy source for the generation of electricity
globally.20 Coal’s preeminence derives from the geological reality that coal resources are more widely
distributed than any other carbon energy source, with commercial abundance in over one hundred
countries. Thus, governments of these nations perceive coal as a particularly accessible, affordable, and
secure energy source in comparison to alternatives.21 These facts complicate the picture for emissions
reduction, as coal continues to be the largest source of global carbon emissions, and subsequently,
climate change, as Figure 1.1.1 demonstrates. However, it also provides the basic need for secure energy
supply in many poor and emergent states.

15
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, 8.
16
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
17
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
18
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, 20.
19
Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2020) - "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions".Retrieved from:
'[Link] [Online Resource]
20
"Coal." The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. Last modified 2022.
[Link]
21
"Coal." The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine..
 Figure 1.1.1 “CO2 Emissions by Fuel Type, World” (Source: Our World in Date, CO2 Emissions, by Fuel)22
Coal is defined as rock containing 50% or more of its mass as carbon.23 Coal is generated from
vegetal matter accumulated in swamp and wetland environments that are subjected to pressure and heat
over time.24 Such environments have been especially abundant and widespread at various periods in the
geologic past, leading to its global distribution contemporarily. Coal is an extractive resource, obtained
primarily through mining.25 Surface mining is employed when the resource is at shallow levels, roughly
61 to 91 meters below the Earth’s surface.26 Such “strip mining” employs heavy machinery to remove
overburden in order to access coal deposits.27 More than two-thirds of U.S. coal mining is done in this
way. Surface mining disrupts the ecology and environment of the extraction site greatly, before and after
extraction. Underground mining, or deep mining, is used when coal seams are too deep to be accessible
through surface mining.28 This necessitates the creation of large underground shafts and elevators and
involves explosives and special machinery to excavate the coal. Underground mining is generally more
costly, labor-intensive, and involves a higher degree of risk to life and limb. Post-extraction for both
modes of coal mining entails transportation via trucks, trains, and ships to move coal from extraction
sites to consumer end-nodes, such as coal-fired power stations. Once extracted, coal is ground into small
pieces and transported via truck, train, and ship, entailing further emissions along the many steps of the
commodity chain.
Coal is divided into four main ranks: anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite.29 Ranks
are determined by the quantity and types of carbon found in coal, which in turn, are determined by the
22
Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2020) - "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions".Retrieved from:
'[Link] [Online Resource]
23
James D. Agresti, Steven Bukovec and Rachel McCutcheon, “Energy Facts: Coal,” Just Facts, last modified
August 25, 2021.
24
Agresti, Bukovec and McCutcheon, “Energy Facts: Coal.”
25
Agresti, Bukovec and McCutcheon, “Energy Facts: Coal.”
26
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Coal Explained: Mining and Transportation of Coal." In Energy
Explained, US EIA. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020. Last modified December 10, 2020.
27
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Coal Explained: Mining and Transportation of Coal."
28
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Coal Explained: Mining and Transportation of Coal."
29
"Coal Explained." U.S. Energy Information Administration. Last modified October 19, 2021. Accessed February
2, 2022.
amount of pressure and heat applied over time.30 About 1% of coal in the United States is anthracite,
which contains over 85% carbon and burns most efficiently.31 Bituminous is about 45 to 85% carbon and
is used in electricity generation and steel production.32 Subbituminous coal contains a lower heat rating
and carbon content at 35 to 45% while representing about half of U.S. production, mainly from strip
mines in Wyoming.33 Lignite, or “brown” coal—which comprises 9% of U.S. production—has the
lowest energy content and is used in electricity generation.34
In addition to coal’s direct use as an energy source via combustion, coal yields two other energy
sources. Most coals naturally contain a significant amount of methane gas, which can be produced via
drilling even at shallow levels of under 152 meters. Such drilling has been used to reduce the amount of
methane in underground mines, thus improving safety and adding to the overall value of a mine. Over
the past several decades, coalbed methane has become an important resource in a number of countries. It
is conceivable that this resource could become a lower-carbon replacement for coal itself in some places.
A second additional energy source can be produced when coal is itself gasified. This occurs when
subbituminous or lignite coal is subjected to high temperatures in a vessel with low levels of oxygen,
yielding “syngas,” a combination of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Processes for converting syngas
into fuels, fertilizer, and petrochemicals are well-known, though more costly, than production from oil
and natural gas. Nonetheless, the use of coal gasification to potentially lower emissions is being pursued
in the United States. A facility located in North Dakota converts lignite coal to synthetic natural gas.35
The world’s top emitter, China, has been exploring coal-bioenergy gasification systems with carbon
capture and storage systems that would facilitate both carbon mitigation and air pollution abatement.36

Coal Power Station Technology

There are several technical terms and technologies that are relevant to coal, its emissions, and
coal-fired power stations. For instance, many forecasts and scenarios outlining the future of emissions
and coal consumption employ terms like “unabated” and “abated” coal. “Unabated” refers to the
industrial processes existing in the absence of applied extraneous pollution controls. As it relates to coal,
it signifies coal power generation without carbon capture and storage or carbon capture, utilization, and
storage (CCS/CCUS) technologies.37 Thus, abated coal power refers to generation with additive controls
with the goal of reducing harmful pollution.38 More efficient abated power stations such as supercritical
and ultrasupercritical types have become increasingly used in more modern stations.39 Both of these

30
"Coal Explained." U.S. Energy Information Administration.
31
U.S. Department of the Interior. "What Is Coal Used For?" U.S. Geological Survey.
[Link]
32
"Coal Explained." U.S. Energy Information Administration.
33
"Coal Explained." U.S. Energy Information Administration.
34
"Coal Explained." U.S. Energy Information Administration.
35
"Coal Explained." U.S. Energy Information Administration.
36
Lu, et al. “Gasification of coal and biomass as a net carbon-negative power source for environment-friendly
electricity generation in China”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
37
Littlecott, Chris, Hanna Hakko, and Leo Roberts. "Explained: What Does 'Unabated Coal' Mean?" E3G. Last
modified June 24, 2021.
38
Littlecott, Hakko, and Roberts. "Explained: What Does 'Unabated Coal' Mean?"
39
Donev, Jason, Bethel Afework, Jordan Hanania, and Kailyn Stenhouse. "Supercritical Coal Plant." In Energy
Education. N.p.: University of Calgary, 2018.
types of coal plants differ from older, conventional plants by using water in a supercritical state, with
characteristics of both liquid and vapor.40 The capital inputs needed for these types of plants are greater
than conventional plants, however, higher efficiency reduces emissions and fuel costs.41 The IEA
reports, “CCUS can be retrofitted to existing power and industrial plants that could otherwise emit 600
billion tonnes of CO2 over the next five decades,” and within their “sustainable development scenario,”
they attribute roughly 15% of emissions reductions by the year 2070 to CCUS technologies, serving an
important technological role in a given energy transformation.42
Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants are another emergent
technology relating to coal power generation. IGCC power generation refers to a process by which
electricity is generated through the gasification of coal using a gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC)
system, and additionally through an exhaust heat recovery steam generator.43 IGCC coal power
generation entails several benefits over its conventional coal-fired thermal counterparts, such as
increased efficiency, coal type flexibility, lower nitrogen and sulfur oxides and dust pollution, and lower
CO2 emissions.44 Emission-reducing technologies like CCUS and IGCC power generation will be crucial
in the future of global coal use.

Emissions Relating to Coal Use

In addition to being the most carbon-intensive fuel source, coal combustion results in several
other negative emissive byproducts, including but not limited to: sulfur dioxide (SO2), which creates
acid rain and respiratory illnesses; nitrogen oxides (NOx), which produces smog and also contributes to
respiratory ailments; particulates that contribute to smog, haze, lung problems, and respiratory diseases;
CO2, which is the primary greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change; mercury and other
heavy metals which negatively impacts biological development; and lastly, ash pollution.45 Existing
technology has the ability to, in part, “clean” coal, which in the form of abated coal power generation,
removes and reduces SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and ash. This, however, does not change the reality
that coal is the most carbon-intensive form of energy production, and has contributed greatly to climate
change, as demonstrated by Figure 1.1.2, displaying the carbon intensity based on pounds of CO2
emitted per million British thermal units (Btu).

Coal (anthracite) 228.60

Coal (bituminous) 205.40
Coal (lignite) 216.24
Coal (subbituminous) 214.13

40
Donev, Jason, Afework, Hanania, and Stenhouse. "Supercritical Coal Plant."
41
"'Clean Coal' Technologies, Carbon Capture, and Sequestration." World Nuclear Association. Last modified
November 2021.
[Link]
42
IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris
[Link]
43
Mitsubishi Power. "Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plants." Edited by Mitsubishi
Power. [Link]
44
Mitsubishi Power. "Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plants."
45
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Coal Explained: Mining and Transportation of Coal." In Energy
Explained, US EIA. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020. Last modified December 10, 2020.
 Diesel fuel and heating oil 163.45
Gasoline (without ethanol) 155.77
Propane 138.63
Natural gas 116.65

Figure 1.1.2 “Pounds of CO2 Emitted per Million Btu of Energy for Various Fuels” (Source: U.S. EIA46)
Coal emissions, regardless of their rank, are more carbon-intensive than their competitors, while
additionally emitting ash, small particulate matter, and other greenhouse gasses- furthering the claim of
coal as a key driver of climate change.
As mentioned throughout this report, China alone comprises a majority of coal consumption, and
consumption in postindustrial economies is trending downwards. A majority of coal emissions currently
come from East and South Asia, geographically. Figure 1.1.3 demonstrates these trends over the past
two decades.

Figure 1.1.3 “Coal Consumption by Region 2000 to 2021” (Source: IEA Global Energy Review, Coal, 202147)
In terms of coal emissions, China is significant enough to warrant its own category, along with
categories of advanced economies, and the rest of the world. Since 2000, postindustrial, advanced
economies have declined in their coal emissions—however, this is more or less offset by the growth of
coal emissions in the rest of the world. So while postindustrial economies and the rest of the world have
proportionally decreased and increased respective coal emissions—effectively offsetting each other—
China has increased their coal emissions by three-fold since 2000. In short, coal is more
carbon-intensive and harmfully emissive than its competitors, while contemporary coal emissions are
largely centralized in South and East Asia.

Importance of Coal
46
U.S. EIA. "FAQs: How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Produced When Different Fuels Are Burned?" U.S. Energy
Information Administration. Last modified October 28, 2021. [Link]
47
IEA (2021), Global Energy Review, Coal, 2021, IEA, Paris
[Link]
 On the subject of global coal use in 2021, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol stated that “Coal is
the single largest source of global carbon emissions, and this year’s historically high level of coal power
generation is a worrying sign of far off track the world is in its efforts to put emissions into decline
towards net zero.”48 Birol’s quote is reflective of the reality that coal has been the most dominant and
carbon-intensive energy source since the early nineteenth century.49 Contemporary coal use is
concentrated in the Global South, representing 85% of global consumption, while China and India alone
represent 60% of total consumption, as Figure 1.1.3 demonstrates.50 Coal’s embedded prevalence can be
explained by several key realities and benefits it has over both its carbon and non-carbon energy
counterparts. Chiefly, and as aforementioned, coal is globally abundant, with a majority of countries
having commercially viable quantities. It is also comparatively accessible, requiring relatively simple
mining and logistical infrastructure for extraction, transportation, and consumption.51 This relative
accessibility is compounded by surging energy demands and ongoing industrialization in the Global
South,as over one billion people have gained access to electricity in the past three decades has largely
been driven by coal.52 For these developing countries, coal brings immediate benefits, such as electricity
and power to fuel economic development, while the costs of pollution and environmental degradation
are experienced later on. While contemporary coal use is declining in post-industrial economies, there
nonetheless exists centuries of coal’s legacy. Thus, coal is deeply globally embedded into the market
economy, labor market, sociopolitical, and cultural life.
At COP26, prominent coal consumers like China, India, and others altered the framing of future
coal use and development from “phase out” to “phase down”, signifying that these states view coal as
part of their development strategy for the foreseeable future.53 Coal’s global significance in its use and
emissions results from: its relative accessibility, simplicity, and its abundance, as well as its immediate
advantages over delayed costs, strong financial backing and geopolitical significance, and its general
societal embeddedness.

Future of Coal Use

Contemporarily, coal is used primarily in emerging economies, and remains a highly emitting
carbon energy source. Coal use is highly concentrated in the Global South, particularly China and India,
comprising well over a simple majority between the two, as shown by Figure 1.1.3. Trends shown in
Figure 1.1.3 will likely not face drastic alterations in the immediate short-term, meaning that the key
actor in the future of coal emissions is China. In addition to domestic Chinese coal consumption, China
invests and finances coal greatly as part of its international Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), promoting
infrastructure and development across Afro-Eurasia. Coal consumption and subsequent emissions will
likely continue trending downwards in postindustrial economies.

48
IEA (2021), Coal 2021, IEA, Paris [Link]
49
IEA (2021), Coal 2021.
50
IEA (2021), Coal 2021.
51
Tänzler, Dennis, and Noah Gordon. "The New Geopolitics of a Decarbonizing World." Wilson Center. Last
modified September 30, 2020.[Link]
52
Tänzler, Dennis, and Noah Gordon. "The New Geopolitics of a Decarbonizing World."
53
Tänzler, Dennis, and Noah Gordon. "The New Geopolitics of a Decarbonizing World."
Geopolitical Challenges of Coal
There are several key geopolitical issues relating to coal use and reducing emissions. First, the
role of emerging, industrializing economies and state actors cannot be ignored. 85% of all coal use is
now in the Global South.54 En masse, China and India are responsible for about 60% of global coal
consumption.55 Besides China and India, other emergent economies such as Indonesia, Vietnam,
Mongolia, Turkey, Pakistan, and South Africa all have economic development strategies presently
reliant on coal use.56 Figure 1.1.3 displays this—modern coal use by country in graphical form. Coal, as
an energy source, provides several benefits for less-developed nations as opposed to its competitors.
Coal requires relatively simple infrastructure, is widespread and abundant (while accessible), sources
multiple fuels (making it versatile), and is prevalent amid surging electricity and industrialization
demands in the Global South.57 Altogether, this makes coal an attractive fuel source for promoting
development and economic growth. In short, though postindustrial economies of the Global North are no
longer prevalent in coal consumption, they are not absolved of their historic coal use. Many states, such
as Australia, remain coal suppliers. Nevertheless, coal use today is heavily concentrated in developing
economies.
Second, coal, as a traded commodity, like other carbon energy sources such as gas or oil, is
vulnerable to dynamic market forces including production, price, crucially demand, and—to a lesser
extent—supply. As a commodity, coal has strong financial backing. Within China, coal has particularly
strong financial backing.58 Coal energy development is intrinsic to China’s Afro-Eurasian-centric BRI
international development plan, in which China develops infrastructure and other works, including coal
power generation, to developing countries across Afro-Eurasia. Thus, demonstrating that coal has strong
international financial backing as a commodity.
Third, coal is a widely-distributed resource globally, with many countries having readily
available access to it. Though, the United States, Russia, Australia, China, and India hold over
three-quarters of the world’s known coal deposits.59 Domestic commercial abundances do more than
facilitate coal extraction and power, they allow for energy security. Energy security refers to the idea of
uninterrupted availability of energy sources.60 The concept of energy security is not hypothetical—in
fact, energy has and continues to be employed as a geopolitical weapon, as demonstrated off and on in
recent decades by Russia and Ukraine.61 Thus, states seek to use what they have in terms of energy
resources to avoid geopolitical reliance. As states will often use what they have in terms of energy
54
U.S. Department of the Interior. "What Is Coal Used For?" U.S. Geological Survey.
[Link]
55
"What Is Coal Used For?" U.S. Geological Survey.
56
Wade, Will. "The World's Three Biggest Coal Users Get Ready to Burn Even More." Bloomberg, March 19, 2021.
57
Wade, Will. "The World's Three Biggest Coal Users Get Ready to Burn Even More."
58
Wang, Christoph Nedopil. "Brief: Coal Phase-out in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): An Analysis of
Chinese-backed Coal Power from 2014-2020." Green Finance and Development Center. Last modified June 16,
2021.
[Link]
m-2014-2020/.
59
Wang, Christoph Nedopil. "Brief: Coal Phase-out in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): An Analysis of
Chinese-backed Coal Power from 2014-2020." Green Finance and Development Center.
60
"Energy Security." International Energy Agency. Last modified 2022. [Link]
61
Gardener, Andrew. “Russia Cuts Gas off to Ukraine”. Politico, June 16, 2014.
resources, coal will almost certainly hold space as a backup energy source, filling the energy gaps that
renewable cannot currently fill with continuity. Coal is geopolitically challenging and entrenched, as it is
heavily consumed in the developing Global South, a financially-backed abundant commodity, and
provides a sense of energy security for many states.

Denouement and Bottom Line

Coal, for economic good or environmental ill, is ostensibly not leaving the energy scene for the
foreseeable future, particularly in developing economies and in the Global South. Coal consumption in
postindustrial western countries is declining, which in regards to emissions, is a good sign and should be
encouraged with continuity. The West’s historic use of coal and Asia’s use of coal today must be pared
and addressed in a just manner. The United Kingdom, United States, India, and China are all either
historic or ongoing coal-use polluters, yet little common ground has been met in emissions reductions.
The West must play a larger role as a historic polluter and aggregate metropole in reducing and replacing
coal’s financial backing, and offering substantive, sustainable development models moving forwards.
Unlike other forms of carbon energy, coal lacks the downstream versatility of something like oil, which
is used in plastics. Coal is used primarily for electricity and power generation, which has existing
replacements, whereas oil’s relation to plastics has less of a suitable alternative. This means that coal’s
use today has few aspects that are truly irreplaceable. Coal emissions must be reduced. If coal energy is
pursued by China and India it must be abated; existing plants should be retrofitted with
emissions-reducing technology, and should ultimately be phased out of wealthy countries with all
deliberate speed.

Chapter 1.2: Carbon Energy: Oil

Introduction
Liquid petroleum, which generates the most carbon emissions after coal, remains the
largest source of energy currently utilized worldwide. As shown in Figure 1.1.1, this has been the
case for decades, and though oil’s dominance has decreased significantly, especially in 2020,
demand has grown rapidly in 2021 and 2022 as the developed world has sought to recover from
the COVID-19 pandemic.62 In 2020, oil made up more than 31% of the global energy mix, with
coal second at 27%, and both natural gas and non-carbon sources (nuclear, hydropower, and
renewables) at 25%.63 The distribution across different fuel sources is very dependent on energy
production and the mix of sources in each country.64 In the United States and the United
Kingdom, for example, oil followed by gas are the largest contributors. In China and India, coal
is much more dominant, whereas in Russia, it is gas. While a large element of which energy
62
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” Short-Term Energy
Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (U.S. Energy Information Administration, February 8,
2022), [Link]
63
Bernard Looney, “Statistical Review of World Energy: Energy Economics: Home,” BP global (BP), accessed
February 14, 2022
[Link]
64
Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, “CO2 Emissions by Fuel,” Our World in Data ([Link], May 11,
2020), [Link]
sources a country is based on their geography and what is naturally available to them on a large
scale, there is also the consideration of price and accessibility to these sources. Though the
United States has access to coal, they can shift their energy consumption to other sources due to
private company investments as well as human capital.
A key reason for oil’s prominent level of use is the diversity of fuels and products it
yields. Crude oil is a mixture of many hydrocarbon fractions whose separation by refining yields
dozens of individual fuels plus lubricants, asphalt, and starting material for petrochemicals. Its
fuels power the overwhelming majority of the world’s land, air, and sea transportation. As this
renders oil fundamental to any economy, global trade, and every nation’s military, it has been for
decades a key national security concern. This reality seems unlikely to change to a profound
degree with the advent of electric light-duty vehicles. Electrification for heavy-duty
vehicles—including construction, mining, agricultural, and military equipment—will take longer
to achieve and requires future advances in battery technology, proving to be a point of contention
for the transition away from oil.

Current World Trends in Consumption and Emissions

The global trade of oil is a large part of many nations' economies. Oil continues to run the
vast majority of world transport, which makes it essential to any modern economy and to every
modern military. As a result, the oil market and its determinations of supply and demand are also
related to the national security of most countries.65 Major exporters include the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Russia, Canada, and Kazakhstan, while the major
importers are the EU, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and emerging economies. In overall
production, the United States leads by 194 Mt according to provisional 2020 data, which is more
than the seventh world producer of the United Arab Emirates.66 It is also one of the top three
importers with an import stat of 202 Mt, according to provisional data from 2019, with China
dominating imports with almost 300 more Mt.67
The overall world production of oil is quite high. There are different views about future
consumption, which have come to focus on the idea that there will be a peak in global oil
demand coming as soon as 2025.68 Figure 1.2.1 displays this prediction, suggesting that world
production will begin to flatten out by the end of 2023, despite additions to world stocks (stored
oil).
Figure 1.2.1 shows global production returning to 2019 levels in 2022, and that
production will exceed consumption for most of the year. Such forecasts, even covering only a
few months into the future, are highly uncertain. This is due to the large number of factors that
can affect levels of supply in the short term, such as severe weather, civil conflict, geopolitical

65
“Oil and Gas in Everyday Life,” IOGP, accessed February 13, 2022,
[Link]
66
IEA, “Supply – Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis,” accessed February 13, 2022,
[Link]
67
Ibid.
68
IEA, “Fuels: Old and New – World Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis,” (IEA, 2021),
[Link]
tensions, energy decisions of major states, and more. British Petroleum (BP) and other scenario
reports have discussed the complications that come with predicting oil demand and consumption.
According to the report, “the point at which oil demand is likely to peak is very uncertain and
depends on many assumptions.”69 Everything that encompasses oil is highly unpredictable,
which is due to the fact that it is a commodity market, and the dependency many countries have
on oil production and use. Consumption and dependency on oil are not dwindling anytime soon,
which points to the increasing amount of emissions oil will be producing.

Figure 1.2.1 World oil production and consumption, 2017-2022, with forecasts to 2023. (Graph from EIA70)

Recent Discoveries and Development

Oil occurs in commercial volumes in many parts of the world, and its accessible
abundance today is greater than previously predicted. The key reason for this is the enhanced
extraction capabilities that have come from multi-stage hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” This
can be described as “the process of injecting liquid and materials at high pressure to create small
fractures within tight shale formations to stimulate the production and safely extract energy from
an underground well after the drilling has ended and the rig and derrick are removed from the
site. The process takes about three to five days, on average, to complete from start to finish.”71

69
“SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy,” Columbia (Columbia University, June 29, 2021),
[Link]
emand.; Spencer Dale and Bassam Fattouh, “BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020,” BP (BP PLC, 2018),
[Link]
[Link].
70
EIA, “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.”
71
“Fracking: What Is Fracking?: Shale Oil and Natural Gas: IPAA,” Independent Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA, July 24, 2018), [Link]
This process is used around the world; in recent years there has been an immense number of oil
exploration, proven oil reservoirs, and extraction, proving that the world is not going to run out
of oil anytime soon.72
Some areas of the world that have had recent oil discoveries include offshore Guyana by
Exxon and the North Sea discovery at the Johann Sverdrup field by Equinor. Most discoveries
are made by private companies such as Exxon, Shell, COPL, and Equinor, as such companies
have extensive experience in many parts of the world, as well as the most sophisticated
technology and highly trained people.73 Additionally, the price of oil exploration is quite
expensive; though oil extraction and production is relatively cheap, the process of searching for
and producing wells is quite expensive. Usually, private companies will take this on as a form of
investment in the future profit of said oil reservoir discoveries. The discovery of oil at “Johan
Svredrup is the third largest oil field on the Norwegian continental shelf, with expected resources
of 2.7 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe)” and the Guyana discovery by Exxon was offshore
and will be adding to their previous recoverable resources by an estimate of 10 billion boe.74 This
extended discovery for Guyana is highly important, because as a developing country, there is a
space for extended security that could be based around the military or energy security.
For development in the oil industry, there has been tremendous growth within Russia,
OPEC, and the United States consistently over the past couple of decades. These countries are
the main oil suppliers for Europe, and as seen recently, have been major players in maintaining
security for nations. The United States was one of the major producers in 2020, with a
production of 18.61 million barrels per day making up 20% of the world’s total, and even has
various untapped wells.75 Followed by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, and China.76 So when
geopolitical issues arise, the United States is able to utilize its power as an oil producer to
support allies and protect itself. However, when looking into Era 2, 2007-2070, developing areas
within Asia and South America are where most development will start to occur.77 China is the
number one importer, which is important to note as it is highly dependent on others for oil,
meaning the country is lacking security.78 The world will see more expansion in oil investment
occurring in these countries. It can be seen in these countries already, but more so as they make
discoveries, start to extract, and become less dependent on imports. This development is

72
“The Earth Is Not Running out of Oil and Gas, BP Says,” Energy Knowledge (Energy Institute, March 11, 2015),
[Link]
uld%20almost%20double%20by%202050.&text=With%20new%20exploration%20and%20technology,leap%20to%
207.5%20trillion%20boe.
73
“Discoveries - Oil & Gas Journal,” Oil & Gas Journal (OGJ) (Endeavor Business Media, 2022),
[Link]
74
“ExxonMobil Discovers More Oil Offshore Guyana,” accessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
e-guyana.; “Johan Sverdrup - the Third Largest Oilfield on the NCS,” Johan Sverdrup - The third largest oilfield on
the NCS (Equinor ASA, January 28, 2021), [Link]
75
EIA, “Frequently Asked Questions (Faqs)” (2020), [Link]
76
Ibid.
77
IEA, “Supply – Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis”
78
IEA, “Supply – Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis,” accessed February 13, 2022,
[Link]
important, as some of these nations are among the poorest in the world, and oil is seen as a
treasured resource, meaning that these countries will not be moving away from oil anytime soon.

Will We Ever See a World Without Oil?

The current world standing of oil is of the utmost importance. Oil means consumption of
products, transportation, military prowess, and much more. Oil takes many forms and is
entrenched in almost every aspect of life. It was estimated that 99.0 million barrels per day (b/d)
of petroleum and liquid fuels were consumed globally in January 2022, an increase of 6.6 million
b/d from January 2021. It is forecast that global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will
average 100.6 million b/d for all of 2022, up 3.5 million b/d from 2021, and above the 2019
average of 100.3 million b/d. Global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels are predicted to
increase by 1.9 million b/d in 2023.79 While advanced nations have the ability and privilege of
moving toward a mixed usage of energy sources, not all developing countries have the ability to
do the same. Less advanced countries—such as those in Africa and South America—rely on oil
to help develop and grow their economy. Due to expenses, lack of human capital, and lack of
accessibility of alternative carbon-neutral energy sources, these countries rely heavily on oil and
coal, some of the sources with the highest emissions.80
One of the major reasons that oil will never be fully dismissed or phased out in exchange
for an alternative source is because it is the driver of militaries and is a major aspect of national
security. In the current political climate, it is clear that pipelines connecting access to oil are
major stressors and political chokeholds. The issues of oil, national security, and political warfare
were evident in the United States in 2021 with the Colonial Pipeline.81 Unlike much of Europe,
the United States is a large producer of domestic oil shares, so there is less concern, but it is very
rare that the production of crude oil within the United States would outweigh its consumption
needs within.82 There are many ways that oil can fuel international conflict, such as through
resource wars, petro-aggression, oil-market domination, and oil transit routes.83 Transit routes
can include pipelines but it can also be transit paths via sea or land. In China, it can be seen that
the country is trying to become more self-sufficient by establishing dominance in the South
China Sea, though this is causing geopolitical tensions for other surrounding countries. As
countries that rely on imported oil, losing access to this is a big point of contention.
Changes need to be made on the front side of the oil industry, and that starts with the
major producers—specifically supermajors such as BP, Shell, Equinor, Total, Eni, and Exxon.
The pressure for change is being pushed by shareholders who want companies to acknowledge
79
EIA, “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.”
80
Rosamond Hutt, “Which Economies Are Most Heavily Reliant on Oil?,” World Economic Forum (World
Economic Forum, May 10, 2016),
[Link]
81
David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, “Pipeline Attack Yields Urgent Lessons about U.S. Cybersecurity,” The
New York Times (The New York Times, May 14, 2021),
[Link]
82
EIA, “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA- Independent Statistics and Analysis.”
83
Jeff D Colgan, “Oil, Conflict, and U.S. National Interests,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
(Harvard University, October 2013), [Link]
climate change and implement adaptations to offset its effects. Both “Shell and BP faced
shareholder rebellions at their annual meetings this month when significant minorities voted for
tougher emissions reductions. Chevron faced a similar vote in May, 2021.”84 This push back
from shareholders and climate activists focused on the lack of responsibility being held by the
companies in terms of the emission goals, specifically the responsibility attached to their scope 3
emissions.85 Scope 3 emissions are the indirect “emissions from both upstream suppliers and
downstream consumers of the company’s products and services.”86 The goal of lower emissions
is a goal set by supermajors, many of whom have said they will achieve net zero emissions by
2050. Some have committed to absolute reductions from their operations and use of oil while
omitting emissions from sales, while others are only pledging to reduce their operational
emissions intensity. There are even cases of companies, such as Shell, planning to use
nature-based solutions—this can include planting trees to assist in removing carbon dioxide from
the air. Companies have focused on expanding out of oil and moving away from fossil fuels to
help offset their carbon footprint. This is being done through the purchasing of renewable energy
firms, electric vehicle (EV) charging companies, and more.87

Main Concerns Associated with Oil

There are many concerns associated with crude oil, from its production, use, and reliance.
A specific concern facing oil is the safety of exploration, extraction, and production. Compared
to other sources, it is much more dangerous. The dangers of extraction come from drilling and
serving wells, which involve different types of equipment and materials that can include vehicle
collisions, getting stuck in machines, explosions and fires, falls, ergonomic hazards, high
pressure lines and equipment, and/or electrical and other hazardous energy.88 Human error is a
big fault within rig systems, so many have moved toward offshore drilling and rigs, which
eliminates human errors, but also leaves more room for machinery errors.
Another concern with oil, as previously mentioned, is that it generates the largest carbon
emissions after coal, and remains the largest source of energy currently utilized worldwide.89
With oil consumption and production only increasing, emissions and emission control will
continue to be one of the main concerns.90 This will include the increase of use within the
transport industry, military use, and electricity. Oil is “providing close to 40% of all of the
nation's [the United States] entire power needs. Though most oil is used for transportation or

84
“Oil Majors' Net Zero Plans Still Far from Paris Targets,” Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), May 25, 2021,
[Link]
85
James Bacchus, “Oil Firms Face More Legal Fights on Climate Change - Here's Why,” World Economic Forum
(World Economic Forum, June 4, 2021),
[Link]
86
Ibid.
87
CTI, “Oil Majors' Net Zero Plans Still Far from Paris Targets,”
88
“Department of Labor Logo United States Department of Labor,” Oil and Gas Extraction - Hazards | Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (United States Department of Labor), accessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
89
Ritchie and Roser, “CO2 Emissions by Fuel.”
90
EIA, “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.”
home heating purposes, a small percentage is still used as a fuel for electricity generating
plants.”91 With oil being usable for electricity use, many developing countries will have a hard
time moving away from oil, as providing electricity to their citizens is a high priority that can
drastically improve the quality of life. Even if electricity is a small portion of oil use, the
pollution from this is of high concern, as “burning oil to generate electricity produces significant
air pollution in the forms of nitrogen oxides, and, depending on the sulfur content of the oil,
sulfur dioxide and particulates.”92 Oil is not just a driver in the production of electricity, but also
in the transport industry, and it will be difficult to replace oil with another energy source. Though
many companies, countries, and governments are looking at EVs as a solution to offset carbon
emissions from transport, commercially and domestically, this will not fix everything. Like crude
oil, EVs are on the commodity market and therefore face a lot of volatility from consumers.
There is still currently a lack of buy-in from consumers, which could stem from the lack of
infrastructure in place to support the transition over to EVs. Overall, oil is a major part of the
global economy and structure, and it will continue to be in the future.

Chapter 1.3: Natural Gas as a Carbon Energy Source

Overview
Natural gas has grown rapidly in the past two decades as a multi-use energy source
worldwide for power generation, petrochemicals, heat production in industry, business, and
residences. The growth of liquified natural gas (LNG) is due to increased abundance and a global
gas market where emerging and developing countries such as Turkey, Mozambique, Ghana, and
the Ivory Coast have discovered new reserves, and in some cases, become exporters.
Additionally, natural gas has grown as a means of reducing coal consumption and CO₂
emissions, especially from major energy consumers such as China, the United States, and
European countries. Among the fossil fuels, natural gas has the lowest carbon intensity, emitting
less CO₂ per unit of energy generated than other fossil fuels, and unlike oil, requires limited
processing to prepare for end use.
These favorable characteristics have enabled natural gas to penetrate many markets.93
However, there have been discussions as to whether LNG should be designated as “low carbon”
or not with respect to a “net zero scenario.” Even though the European Union, China, and India
have recently accepted such a designation, there is evidence that natural gas, if overused, could
actually produce more methane and CO₂ emissions than oil.

Extraction and Uses of Natural Gas

Natural gas is primarily composed of methane, but may also contain ethane, propane, and

91
“Electricity: from Oil,” Electricity from oil (Pace University), accessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
92
Ibid.
93
Ruszel, Mariusz. "The development of global LNG exports." In The Future of Energy Consumption, Security and
Natural Gas, pp. 1-20. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2022, 3.
heavier hydrocarbons.94 Small quantities of nitrogen, sulfur compounds, carbon dioxide, oxygen,
and water may also be found in natural gas.95 However, when natural gas is liquified,
non-methane components such as water and carbon dioxide are removed to prevent solids from
forming when cooled to -160°C.96 As a result, LNG is made up primarily of methane.
There are four different stages to the production and distribution of LNG:

Exploration and Production

Today, the top four exporters of LNG are the United States, Qatar, and Australia, with the
top importer being China. The United States is projected to be the largest producer of LNG in
2022. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projected dry gas production would rise to
2.64 billion cubic meters per day (bcmd) in 2021 and 2.72 bcmd in 2022—up from 2.59 bcmd in
2020.97 Many other countries play smaller, albeit significant—as well as growing—roles as
natural gas producers and LNG exporters. Countries such as Angola and Venezuela are striving
to reach their full potential in the global LNG marketplace, and countries like Saudi Arabia and
Iran, which have vast reserves of natural gas, could also participate as LNG exporters.98
Natural gas occurs in pores and fractures within shale, sandstone, and other types of
sedimentary rock.99 When these pores are connected, allowing gas to flow through the rock to a
drilled wellbore and up to the surface, production is called “conventional.” When pores are
poorly connected and must be stimulated to create the flow of gas, the production is
“unconventional.” Another common term for this situation is “tight gas,” and if the rock is
mostly shale, “shale gas.” Additionally, natural gas can also be found within deposits of crude
oil, which is referred to as “associated natural gas.”100
Technological advances in the past two decades have greatly expanded the ability to drill
long horizontal wells in gas-rich zones and stimulate tight formations and those composed of
shale by fracturing them. This process involves pumping water, chemicals, and sand down a well
under high pressure. Called multi-stage hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” this process creates
flow pathways and releases the natural gas from the rock, allowing it to flow to the surface.101
There, gas is put into gathering pipelines and sent to natural gas processing plants, where
non-methane components are removed.

Liquefaction

94
Montgomery, Scott L. The powers that be: Global energy for the twenty-first century and beyond. University of
Chicago Press, 2010, 83.
95
Foss, Michelle Michot. "Introduction to LNG." Center for Energy Economics. Available: [Link] beg. utexas.
edu/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_INTRODUCTION_TO_LNG_F INAL. pdf [accessed 20150819] (2007), 14.
96
Ibid.
97
Reuters,“US Natural Gas.”
98
Foss, “Introduction,” 16.
99
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Natural gas explained -
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Accessed February 15, 2022.
[Link]
100
Ibid.
101
Ibid.
 For marine transport, natural gas is cooled to liquid form at a temperature of -1600C.
During liquefaction, any contaminants found in produced gas are removed to avoid freezing and
damaging equipment and to meet pipeline specifications at the delivery point.102 The liquefaction
process can be designed to purify LNG to almost 100% methane through refrigerant cooling. The
natural gas is liquified for shipping at a temperature of approximately -160ºC, as its volume is
reduced by a factor of 600. In other words, LNG at -160ºC uses 1/600th of the space required for
a comparable amount of gas at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.103

Shipping
When LNG is shipped worldwide, it is transported in tankers (double-hulled ships) that
are specially designed and insulated to prevent leakage or ruptures in an accident. The typical
LNG carrier can transport 125,000-138,000 cubic meters (CM) of LNG, and the typical carrier
measures some 274 meters in length, about 42 meters in width, 11 meters in water draft, and
costs about $160 million.104 LNG tankers generally pollute less than other shipping vessels
because they burn natural gas in addition to oil as a source of fuel for propulsion.

Distribution
In order to prepare LNG for residential and commercial use, it must be returned to its
gaseous state through a regasification plant. On arrival at the receiving terminal in its liquid state,
LNG is pumped first to a double-walled storage tank—similar to those used in the liquefaction
plant—at atmospheric pressure, then pumped at high pressure through various terminal
components where it is warmed in a controlled environment.105 Then, the LNG is warmed by
passing through pipes heated by direct-fired heaters, seawater, or through pipes that are in heated
water.106

Energy potential
Until recently, the debate about the future of energy in the United States has focused on
oil, with natural gas often being overlooked. However, this view has changed during the past
decade due to the substantial new supplies that have been unlocked by shale gas development,
reducing domestic prices, and allowing U.S. companies to become major exporters. Additionally,
the demand for natural gas is growing; according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration,
LNG consumption rose from 2.35 BCM per day in 2020 to 2.36 BCM in 2021 before sliding to
2.35 BCM in 2022. That compares with a record high of 2.41 BCM per day in 2019.107
Rapid growth in natural gas production has had positive effects for the United States.
Since 2017, it has eliminated the need for significant imports and has altered the global
geopolitics of natural gas by supplying European and Asian allies with increasing volumes of

102
Foss, “Introduction,” 17.
103
Foss, “Introduction,”17.
104
Foss, “Introduction,” 19.
105
Foss, “Introduction,” 21.
106
Ibid.
107
“U.S. Natural Gas Output and Demand to Rise in 2021.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, December 7, 2021.
LNG, thereby decreasing their reliance on Russia and OPEC.108 In addition, there has been a
growing recognition that the lower carbon content of natural gas relative to oil and coal can play
a significant role in reducing CO₂ emissions. For example, a typical coal-burning power plant in
2013 was approximately 33% efficient in converting heat energy into electrical power.109 A
gas-fired plant was approximately 42% efficient, and a natural gas combined-cycle power plant
was 60% efficient.110

Dangers and Prices of Natural Gas

Another reason why natural gas is an appealing energy source is because it is nowhere
near as dangerous as oil. LNG is non-explosive, non-toxic, and is only flammable in very narrow
concentrations. It is only flammable in concentrations between 5-15% because more than 95% of
air dilutes the gas so it will not ignite, and concentrations less than 85% have too little oxygen to
keep a flame going.111 Additionally, there is no natural gas equivalent to the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, and in the past eighty years, there have only been two major natural gas explosions. The
first was in 1944 in a Cleveland facility, where 136 people died;112 this was due to a poorly built
storage tank. The other large explosion occurred in Skikdia, Algeria in 2004 when a leaked vapor
cloud was set on fire by a faulty boiler. Conversely, Japan is an excellent example of how safe
transporting natural gas is, as they have never suffered from a major fire despite having
twenty-three ports and tankers docking every twenty hours.

Environmental Footprint
The environmental impacts of shale development can be challenging because such
development requires the drilling and fracking of many wells and the use of large volumes of
water. There is also evidence of surface water contamination and natural gas migration into
freshwater zones.113 While such occurrences are rare and almost certainly result from
substandard well completion practices, they occur more often than conventional oil/gas
operations, since so many more wells are drilled. Moreover, they have affected private
landowners in areas not used to oil/gas drilling.
There are additional environmental challenges in the area of water management,
particularly the effective disposal of fracture fluids. Concerns with this issue are particularly
acute in regions that have not previously experienced large-scale oil and gas development,

108
Foss, “Introduction,” 20.
109
“The National Academies Presents: What You Need to Know about Energy.” Our Energy Sources, Natural Gas -.
Accessed February 15, 2022.
[Link]
29%25%20of,homes%20in%20the%20United%20States.&text=It%20is%20also%20more%20energy,plant%20was
%20about%2042%25%20efficient.
110
Ibid.
111
Montgomery, Global, 4; Montgomery, Global, 5.
112
Biamonte, Emilio. “Controlling the Risks from Liquefied Natural Gas.” The Geneva Papers on Risk and
Insurance 7, no. 23 (1982): 75–88. [Link] 75.
113
Vengosh, Avner, Robert B. Jackson, Nathaniel Warner, Thomas H. Darrah, and Andrew Kondash." A critical
review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the
United States." Environmental science & technology 48, no. 15 (2014): 8334.
especially those overlying the massive Marcellus Shale, as well as those that do not have a
well-developed subsurface water disposal infrastructure. It is essential that both large and small
companies follow the industry’s best practices: that water supply and disposal are coordinated on
a regional basis and that improved methods are developed for the recycling of returned fracture
fluids. A second problem in the domain of water disposal has been the generation of earthquakes
from the injection of wastewater at high volumes. While this can be reduced by moderating
disposal volumes to some degree, a better solution is to recycle such water for repeated use.
Additionally, between 2010 and 2020, growth in CO2 emissions from natural gas was
greater than that for oil, which is a much richer source of carbon.114 Moreover, methane
emissions from gas production and pipeline leakage have also increased, generating significant
concern, since methane has a global warming potential twenty-five times that of CO2.115

Supply and Demand of Natural Gas

Despite natural gas being the least carbon-rich of all fossil fuels, it is still a hydrocarbon,
and therefore a source of emissions. Even though it has the ability to buy the world time to find
and develop non-carbon energy sources, it is not a solution to climate change.116 More and more
countries are discovering and producing their own natural gas, such as Abu Dhabi’s new
discovery of up to 42,475 MCM of raw natural gas.117 At the end of 2020, the United States had
12.6 trillion CM of natural gas reserves, Venezuela had 6.3T CM, Russia had 37.4T CM,
Turkmenistan had 13.6T CM, Iran had 32.1T CM, Qatar had 24.7T CM, and China had 8.4T
CM.118
In terms of consumption, the United States consumed 832 billion cubic meters of natural
gas in 2020, Europe consumed 541.1B CM, Russia consumed 411.4B CM, Iran consumed
233.1B CM, and China consumed 330.6B CM.119 This is significant because there are abundant
supplies of natural gas in the world, and many of these can be developed and produced at a
relatively low cost.120 In North America, shale gas development over the past decade has
substantially increased assessments of resources producible at modest cost. This has made the
price of natural gas in the United States among the lowest in the world. With growing LNG
exports in 2021 and 2022, volumes available for domestic use have decreased and prices have
risen. Yet they remain a fraction of those in most parts of the world.121 For example, U.S. prices
114
“Importance of Methane.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, November 15, 2016.
[Link]
115
Ibid.
116
Montgomery, Global, 2.
117
“Eni Discovers Gas Offshore Abu Dhabi | Oil & Gas Journal.” AcceBP Energy Reportd February 15, 2022.
[Link]
118
“Energy Economics: Home.” BP global. Accessed February 15, 2022.
[Link] 34.
119
BP, “Energy Economics,” 38.
120
“How Natural Gas Can Displace Competing Fuels - UNECE.” Accessed February 27, 2022.
[Link] xv.
121
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Three countries provided
almost 70% of liquefied natural gas received in Europe in 2021 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA). Accessed March 1, 2022. [Link]
of natural gas in 2020 were $1.99 per Btu, natural gas in the Netherlands cost $3.42 per Btu,
Japan’s natural gas cost $7.81, and German imported natural gas was $4.06.122
In the U.S. electricity supply sector, reducing CO₂ emissions lies with the substitution of
natural gas for coal, especially in older, less efficient units. Substitution through increased
utilization of existing combined-cycle natural gas power plants provides a relatively low-cost,
short-term opportunity to reduce U.S. power sector CO₂ emissions by up to 20% while also
reducing the emissions of criteria pollutants and mercury.123
Additionally, U.S. administrations and Congress have viewed European energy security
as a U.S. national interest, which is why the U.S has sanctions on Nord Stream 2, the new natural
gas pipeline being built by Russia to connect domestic supplies of natural gas to Europe. During
the George W. Bush administration, this issue was viewed in geopolitical terms, and the
administration sharply criticized Russia for using energy supplies as a political tool to influence
other countries.124 While supplying natural gas to Europe from the Caspian region and Central
Asia has been a goal of multiple U.S. administrations and the EU, it is far from being achieved in
volumes significant to counter Russian exports.125

Figure 1.3.1. The two charts compare natural gas production by region (left) to natural gas consumption by
region (right). Source: BP 2021 Statistical Review of World Energy.

122
BP, “Energy Economics,” 41.
123
UNECE, “Natural Gas,” xv.
124
Belkin, Paul, Jim Nichol, and Steven Woehrel. "Europe’s energy security: options and challenges to natural gas
supply diversification." Congressional Research Service (2013): 9.
125
Ibid.
 While the United States has become a producer of natural gas, the EU is one of the
greatest importers of natural gas, and their consumption is expected to grow, whereas its
domestic natural gas production is expected to decline.126 Though second to Norway as a supplier
to Europe, Russia remains one of Europe’s most important natural gas suppliers, and with the
completion of Nord Stream 2, their reliance on Russian natural gas is expected to increase.
However, Europe finds itself in a difficult situation, because although it would be in their best
interests to explore alternative sources for its natural gas needs, it is uncertain whether Europe as
a whole can, or is willing to, replace a significant quantity of imports from Russia.

Future Natural Gas Initiatives/Plants

Natural gas will continue to grow as an energy source, especially considering its
increased dependence from Europe. The United States and other significant producing countries
of natural gas will continue to develop this energy source and export it to countries such as
China. In 2020, the United States experiences an annual growth rate of inter-regional trade for
natural gas of 11.6%. There were 68.2 BCM of NG pipeline imports, 1.3 BCM of LNG imports,
76.1 BCM of pipeline exports, and 61.4 BCM of LNG exports.127
The main obstacle for the United States and other countries in operating a global gas
market is not the lack of supply, but rather the deliverability of natural gas. In order to collect and
distribute natural gas, there needs to be an increase in investment, exploration, technology, and
infrastructure.128 This is similar to other fossil fuels that require specialists who know where to
look, what the best method of extraction is, and how to transport it in the safest and cheapest way
possible. There also needs to be additional investment in natural gas made in 2022, as most
scenarios spanning the next several decades show natural gas consumption growing at least until
2030-2035.129
Efforts to develop the use of natural gas are being made in marine transportation, more
specifically, in tankers and cargo ships. Shipping is a significant contributor to global GHG and
air pollutant emissions via huge amounts of SOx, CO₂, particulate matter (PM), carbon
monoxide (CO), and NOx.130 According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), ships
are responsible for 4%, 2.6%, and 6.6% of the global SOx, CO₂, and NOx emissions, which
respectively come from diesel fuel.131 As a result, switching from diesel-powered ships to
dual-fuel engines would produce environmental benefits for reducing CO₂, NOx, SOx, PM, and
CO emissions by 20.1%, 85.5%, 98%, 99%, and 55.7% with cost effectiveness of $109, $840,
$9,864, $27,761, and $4,307 per ton, respectively.132 In addition, a dual-fuel engine would

126
Belkin, “Europe,” 10.
127
BP, “Energy Economics,” 42.
128
Montgomery, Global, 87.
129
BP, “Energy Economics,” 38.
130
Elkafas, Ahmed G., Mohamed M. Elgohary, and Mohamed R. Shouman. "Numerical analysis of economic and
environmental benefits of marine fuel conversion from diesel oil to natural gas for container ships." Environmental
Science and Pollution Research 28, no. 12 (2021): 15210.
131
Ibid.
132
Ruszel, “Development,” 20.
comply with the current and future IMO regulations regarding air pollutant emissions, improve
the ship energy efficiency index by 29.6% with annual fuel cost savings of $4.77 million.133

Concluding Statement
Trade-in LNG has more than tripled between 2000 and 2020, and it is estimated—despite
COVID-19—to be a further increase from 485 BCM in 2019 to 585 BCM in 2025.134 Due to this
increase, the growing oversupply of natural gas on the global market will increase the
competition among exporters and contribute to lower gas prices for end-users and more flexible
contracts. At the same time, LNG may become more competitive than gas delivered through
pipelines, given further planned investments in the construction of LNG export infrastructure.
For this reason, the most competitive supplier will be the one that reduces the price of supplied
LNG by lowering production and transportation costs. By 2025, the United States will become
the largest exporter of LNG, while China will become the largest LNG importer and will
therefore avoid being as dependent on Russia’s natural gas supply. Additionally, COVID-19 will
create an opportunity for energy company stock acquisitions and the consolidation of the
strongest players on the LNG market, who will look to improve their position.

Chapter 2: Non-Carbon Sources

Chapter 2.1: Renewables

Introduction
Renewable energy, often labeled “clean energy” or “green energy,” is energy from
sources that are naturally replenishing.135 Major types of renewable energy sources include solar,
wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower. This chapter will dive into energy from solar, wind,
geothermal, and biomass sources, with hydropower will be mentioned in a future chapter. As
renewable resources are virtually inexhaustible, renewable energy technologies globally are a
key part of reducing emissions from electricity generation. NZE 2050 has set a goal of
generating as much as 70% of global electricity from renewable sources by mid-century. Solar
becomes the largest source, accounting for one-fifth of the total energy supply.136 Yet there are
major questions about relying so heavily on weaker and intermittent sources like solar and wind
when other non-carbon sources and decarbonization approaches exist.
Renewable energy, like all energy sources, involves trade-offs. Though often thought of
as “clean energy,” renewables produce an enormous amount of waste. As the renewable energy
market increases, this has the potential to become a limiting factor if not solved via recycling.
Global solar photovoltaic (PV) panel waste is anticipated to reach 8 million metric tons by 2030
133
Ibid.
134
Ruszel, “Development,” 10.
135
EIA, “What is renewable energy?,” last updated May 20, 2021,
[Link]
136
IEA, “Net Zero 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector,” last revised October 2021,
[Link]
eGlobalEnergySector_CORR.pdf
and 78 million metric tons by 2050.137 A report by the IEA and the International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA) highlighted the importance of recycling and repurposing solar PV
panels at the end of their 30-year lifetime. In addition to solar energy, all other renewable energy
produces a significant amount of waste, so the discussion of their recycling and repurposing is as
important as the capacity-building, innovation, and investment of renewable energy.
Recycling industries are expected to generate employment opportunities in developing
and emerging countries, as waste collection and recycling services are often operated by informal
sectors. IEA and IRENA suggest that solar PV waste management systems could increase
employment, especially in the repair/reuse and recycling/treatment industries.138

Solar Energy
As discussed above, solar energy is anticipated to be a much larger source of energy by
139
2050. In the pathway to NZE 2050, solar and wind energy generation is predicted to grow
rapidly in this decade, reaching an annual addition of 630 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV and 390
GW of wind by 2030.140 As of 2020, China had the largest electricity generation from solar with
261.10 terawatt-hours, followed by the EU at 144.96 TWh, and the United States at 132.63
TWh.141 Whether the world is able to achieve NZE 2050, these numbers are almost certain to
grow considerably. Although China had the largest primary energy consumption in 2019 as well
as fossil fuel consumption, it also generated the largest amount of electricity from solar in 2019,
which was double that of the United States.142;143
However, solar has grown rapidly in the United States. In 2020, electricity from solar
energy was twenty-three times what it had been in 2011. There were 2 million solar PV systems
installed in 2019 and an additional million installations in the summer of 2021.144 Solar power is
forecasted to make up 46% of the new utility-scale electric generating capacity in the United
States in 2022 followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%. Additionally, 21.5 GW is
expected to be added to the nation’s utility-scale solar generating capacity, surpassing 2021’s
15.5 GW of capacity additions. The largest planned solar addition will take place in Texas,
accounting for 28% of the national total, followed by California at 4 GW.145 Though Texas is
137
IEA and IRENA, “End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels,” June 2016,
[Link]
anels_2016.pdf
138
IEA and IRENA, “End-of-Life Management,” 14
139
IEA, “Net Zero 2050,” 18
140
IEA, “Net Zero 2050,” 14
141
Our World in Data, “Solar power generation,” retrieved February 13, 2022,
[Link]
P~OWID_WRL~European+Union+%2827%29
142
Our World in Data, “Primary energy consumption,” accessed February 11, 2022,
[Link]
143
Our World in Data, “Fossil fuel consumption”
144
Environment America Research & Policy Center, “Renewables on the Rise 2021: The rapid growth of
renewables, electric vehicles and other building blocks of a clean energy future,” 1, November 2021,
[Link]
145
EIA, “Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022,” January 10,
2022 [Link]
expected to have the most utility-scale solar electric generator additions in 2022, the largest
market for solar power in the United States will be California, providing nearly a quarter of the
nation’s electricity.146 California’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative, adopted in 2006, was largely
completed within a decade and accelerated California’s solar growth and capacity. The California
state government also adopted policies to ensure that homeowners and businesses that invested
in solar power were fully compensated for their efforts toward contributing to environmental and
social benefits. Furthermore, California requires all new homes in the state to have solar PV
panels.147 Although other states have also increased solar electricity generation over the last
several decades, California’s growth rate from 2011 to 2020 was about five times that of
Texas—the second most rapid rate of solar electricity growth.148
As noted, there are advantages and disadvantages to solar energy in terms of current
technology. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in addition to the
environmental benefits of solar PV, the benefits of residential solar electricity include saved
costs, increased home value, and non-limiting locations.149 As the cost of solar PV has rapidly
fallen over the past decade, switching residential electricity to solar has become a viable choice
for more American families. Solar electricity enables financial returns and lower monthly utility
bills. Savings depend on the residence’s electricity consumption, solar energy system size, hours
of daily sunlight, size and angle of solar PV on roofs, and local electricity rates. Having solar PV
panels on roofs can lower monthly utility bills and make long-term, low-risk investments. The
number of residential solar PV panels is anticipated to increase globally from 25 million in 2020
to 240 million in 2050.150 In addition, studies show that solar PV panels may increase the value
of a home by about $15,000 on average.151
On the other hand, the twenty to thirty-year lifetime of solar panels—as well as the waste
produced by solar PVs—serve as major disadvantages.152 The IEA and IRENA estimate that PV
waste will globally emerge around 2030, with regions like the EU experiencing a large volume
of PV waste even earlier.153 End-of-life management such as recycling and reuse, as well as solar
PV installation, needs to be well-addressed in order to be prepared for the upcoming wave of
solar PV deployment. The technologies needed to increase solar PV lifetime and solar PV waste
management need further development.

Wind Energy
NZE 2050 envisions generating nearly 70% of total electricity from solar and wind by
2050. From 2030 to 2050, 340 GW of electricity generation from wind will be added annually.
China had the largest electricity generation from onshore and offshore wind resources in 2019 at
146
Environment America Research & Policy Center, “Renewables on the Rise 2021”
147
Environment America Research & Policy Center, “Renewables on the Rise 2021”
148
Environment America Research & Policy Center, “Renewables on the Rise 2021”
149
U.S. Department of Energy, “Benefits of residential solar electricity,”
[Link]
150
IEA, “Net Zero 2050,” 146
151
U.S. Department of Energy, “Benefits of residential solar electricity”
152
IEA and IRENA, “End-of-Life Management,” 11
153
IEA and IRENA, “End-of-Life Management,” 19
1004 TWh, which was nearly 3% of the country’s total energy consumption.154 In the United
States, energy consumption by wind power was at 740 TWh, accounting for 2.85% of the United
States’ total energy consumption.155
Since the United States has one of the fastest-growing wind markets in the world, the
DOE has conducted a variety of both onshore and offshore research and development projects.156
In 2008, the DOE released 20% Wind Energy by 2030, a report examining the costs, major
impacts, and challenges likely to arise from attempting to generate 20% of the nation’s electricity
demand from wind by 2030.157 The DOE’s Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) later
published Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States in 2015 and Wind Vision
Detailed Roadmap Actions: 2017 Updates to further evaluate the future pathway of the wind
energy industry.158;159 According to Wind Vision, the wind industry has scaled up its domestic
manufacturing capacity and lowered wind power costs by more than 30% since 2008. In some
aspects, the growth of wind power exceeded assumptions made in the 2008 report.160 Wind Vision
clarified that wind power would need to provide 10% of the U.S. electric demand by 2020, 20%
by 2030, and 35% by 2050. In 2020, wind power provided more than 10% of electricity in
sixteen states and more than 30% in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and North
Dakota.161
Advantages of wind power include cost-efficiency, economic benefits, new employment,
reliability, and sustainability.162 Land-based utility-scale wind power is, in fact, one of the
cheapest energy sources available today. Because wind is inexhaustible and electricity from wind
is sold at a fixed rate, the price of electricity would be more certain and would be sustainably
generated. The DOE also anticipates that the wind industry will employ 100,000 workers and
will potentially create over 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and
supporting services by 2050.163 Considering that energy from wind is produced and consumed
domestically, the supply and price of electricity will not be affected by political affairs.

154
Our World in Data, “China: Energy Country Profile,” [Link]
155
Our World in Data, “United States: Energy Country Profile,”
[Link]
156
U.S. Department of Energy, “Wind,”
[Link]
157
U.S. Department of Energy, “20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to
U.S. Electricity Supply,” July 2008, [Link]
158
U.S. Department of Energy, “Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States,” April 2015,
[Link]
159
U.S. Department of Energy, “Wind Vision: Detailed Roadmap Actions: 2017 Updates,” May 2018,
[Link]
160
U.S. Department of Energy, “Wind Vision: A New Era,” xxxiv-xxxv
161
U.S. Department of Energy, “Wind Market Reports: 2021 Edition,” 7-8, August 2021,
[Link]
n_Full%20Report_FINAL.pdf
162
U.S. Department of Energy, “Advantages and Challenges of Wind Energy,”
[Link]
163
U.S. Department of Energy, “Advantages and Challenges”
 On the other hand, major challenges include cost bias, limited location, noise and
aesthetic pollution, lack of profitability, and impact on the local habitat.164 Although the cost of
wind power has dramatically declined over the past few decades, the wind industry needs to
compete with the lowest-cost source of energy. Compared to solar power, wind power is not
variable in size and is thus limited in the locations where a wind turbine can be installed. There
are also concerns regarding visual impacts on the landscape and noise produced by turbine
blades. Installation of wind plants may affect the local habitat, as birds are sometimes killed by
turbine sources.

Geothermal Energy
Geothermal resources are widely distributed and occur in many parts of the world. They
occur in large portions of the western United States, in countries bordering the Pacific Ocean,
portions of South and Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Central Asia, East Africa, and
the eastern Mediterranean.165 To date, these resources have only been locally developed, where
hydrothermal heat is accessible at the surface. While there are reasons underlying this, they do
not erase the fact that geothermal represents a very large, mostly untapped source of renewable
energy.
Geothermal energy is baseload and domestic and has a small environmental footprint.
Compared to solar PV, geothermal power plants emit four times fewer GHGs on a lifecycle basis.
While utility-scale solar PV and wind turbines require large amounts of land, geothermal power
plants only use 404m2 per GW hour. In addition, as geothermal resources are “always on,” its
energy is secure, reliable, flexible, and constant, while the electric supply from solar and wind is
dependent on weather.166 Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) has a great potential to expand
the use of geothermal energy in larger areas of the western United States as well as new
geographic areas of the nation.167 EGS is also expected to accelerate the growth in the
non-electric sector for district-heating systems and other direct-use applications.168
Despite these advantages, geothermal has so far attracted much smaller levels of
investment, with few exceptions (e.g. Iceland, El Salvador, and Kenya) and remains a small
contribution to the total electricity generation. A significant challenge is the high drilling costs
associated with exploration and development.169 Initial costs for a field and plant in the United
States is around $2,500 per installed kW.170 The cost of solar PV and wind plants has fallen in the

164
U.S. Department of Energy, “Advantages and Challenges”
165
Statista, “Global geothermal energy produced in 2020, by country,”
[Link]
166
U.S. Department of Energy, “GeoVision: Harnessing the Heat Beneath Our Feet,” May 2019, x-xii
[Link]
167
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “How an Enhanced Geothermal System Works,”
[Link]
168
U.S. Department of Energy, “GeoVision,” 19
169
Susan Hamm, “Geothermal Energy: Solutions for a Zero-Emissions Sustainable Energy Future,” Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy, [Link]
170
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “Geothermal FAQs,”
[Link]
last few decades, which has enabled people and manufacturers to adopt renewable
energy—though the installation cost of geothermal energy is still high. A Report by the DOE
highlighted that technology improvements could reduce costs and risks associated with
geothermal developments and increase the geothermal electric power generation.171 Since
geothermal power can generate 8.5% of all U.S. electricity generation with the cost reduction,
technology improvements are critical for increasing the electric generation by geothermal power
and achieving commercial EGS.172

Biomass Energy
Among the bioenergy technologies, wood is still the largest source of biomass energy.173
On the pathway to NZE 2050, the traditional use of biomass is anticipated to decrease gradually
leading up to 2030, when it will be replaced by liquefied petroleum gas, biogas, electric cookers,
and improved bioenergy stoves. By providing a renewable source for cooking to households and
villages in rural areas, about 500 million households will use biogas in 2030, consequently
raising the demand for biomethane.174 Biogas is an energy-rich gas composed primarily of
methane, carbon dioxide, and the same compound found in natural gas.175 However, it continues
to be an important source of energy, especially in emerging markets and developing countries.
Additionally, 750 million people in developing countries will not have access to electricity, and
billions will have to rely on the traditional use of bioenergy for cooking.176
In 2020—excluding its traditional use for cooking approximately 10% of the global
primary supply of modern bioenergy was consumed as liquid biofuels for road transport, and 6%
was consumed as biogases for power and heat.177 Biofuels are transportation fuels like ethanol
and biomass-based diesel fuel and are used to meet transportation needs by converting biomass
into liquid. As the use of fossil fuels is expected to decline rapidly on the way to NZE 2050,
low-emission fuels such as biogases, hydrogen, and hydrogen-based fuels will consequently
grow.
In 2020, biomass energy generated nearly 5% of total primary energy use in the United
178
States. Biomass sources include wood and wood processing wastes, agricultural crops and
waste materials, biogenic materials in municipal solid waste, animal manure, and human sewage.
39% of total renewable energy use is generated from biomass energy, consisting of 22% from
wood and waste and 17% from biofuels.179 In September 2021, the DOE announced that over

171
U.S. Department of Energy, “GeoVision,” xii
172
U.S. Department of Energy, “GeoVision”
173
NREL, “Biomass Energy Basics,” [Link]
174
IEA, “Net Zero 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector,” 77-78
175
EIA, “Biomass explained,” last updated November 3, 2021,
[Link]
176
IEA, “Net Zero 2050,” 37-38
177
IEA, “Net Zero 2050,” 106-107
178
EIA, “Table 1.3 Primary Energy Consumption by Source,”
[Link]
179
EIA, “U.S. renewable energy consumption by source and sector, 2020,”
[Link]
$64 million was funded for twenty-two biofuels research projects to help accelerate the United
States’ path to NZE 2050.180 These projects will support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand
Challenge, which aims at reducing the cost, enhancing sustainability, and expanding the
production and use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). Memorandum of Understanding set a
commitment of achieving a minimum 50% reduction in life cycle GHG emissions and meeting a
goal of supplying sufficient SAF to meet 100% of aviation fuel demand by 2050.181

Chapter 2.2: Nuclear Energy

Introduction
Nuclear energy is one of the most crucial non-carbon sources of electricity in the world.
Energy originates from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process called fission. This generates heat
to produce steam, which is used by a turbine generator to generate electricity. Uranium is a
naturally-occurring radioactive element, and it can be recovered by conventional mining of rock182.
Nuclear energy could be a key part of the solution for carbon emissions and rising energy demands
benefitting both national and public interests. However, the initial investment for nuclear energy is
high compared to other energy sources, and cooperation among citizens, the private sectors, and the
state and federal government, is crucial.
Civilization consumes around 23,398 terawatt-hours of electricity in a year.183 This energy
demand is forecasted to increase from 40% to 50% in the next thirty years. Currently, the world
generates 84% of its electricity from oil, coal, and gas. The environmental consequences of relying
on these energy sources are now known to be extremely serious. Aside from air, water, and soil
pollution, the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, results in emitting CO2 into the air, exacerbating
climate change. Climate change affects environmental conditions, food and water supplies, weather
patterns, sea levels, and many other factors that threaten all types of organisms, not least human
beings. In 2020, the world has emitted about 37 billion tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
Though roughly half of this is absorbed by the oceans and other terrestrial systems, the other half
remains in the atmosphere for centuries. Even if all countries and industries were to stop their
emissions today, climate change will still occur in the future.184 Lowering emissions a large amount
will significantly reduce the amount of such change, and thus the scale and intensity of negative
impacts. Therefore, it is essential to prioritize lowering carbon emissions.

180
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “U.S. Department of Energy Announces More Than $64
Million for Biofuels Research to Reduce Transportation,” September 9, 2021,
[Link]
-reduce
181
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “U.S. Department of Energy”
182
“Radioactive Waste From Uranium Mining and Milling.” EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. Accessed February 15, 2022. [Link]
183
Alves, Bruna. “Net Electricity Consumption Worldwide in Select Years from 1980 to 2019.” Statista. Statista,
February 14, 2022. [Link]
184
Goldstein, Joshua S., and Staffan A. Qvist. A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change
and the Rest Can Follow. Public Affairs, 2019, 5.
 Nuclear energy can be a core solution to climate change and global carbon emissions. Since
the first nuclear power plant began operations in the 1950s, the technology has provided an enormous
amount of low-carbon energy to civilized society. Yet the technology has continued to spark fear and
opposition due to concerns about safety and radiation that are exaggerated and non science-based.
Such fears have been heightened by news coverage and anti-nuclear exploitation of three major
accidents: Three Mile Island (United States), Chernobyl (Soviet Union, today Ukraine), and
Fukushima (Japan). The 2011 power plant failure in Fukushima especially influenced policymakers
to reconsider the dependence on nuclear energy.
In the United States, twelve nuclear power reactors have permanently closed since 2012, and
another seven reactor retirements have been announced through 2025, a total generation capacity of
7% of U.S. nuclear capacity.185 The major factor that contributed to the shutdowns is the cost of major
repairs or operating losses. Most of Europe is
moving toward a mixed usage of different
sources of energy, with nuclear at 26%,
renewables at 30%, and fossil fuels at 44%.186
Since the 1980s, France has relied on nuclear
for 70% of its energy as a way to achieve
independence from fossil fuels. France is now
one of the lowest carbon emitting countries.
In February 2022, French President
Emmanuel Macron announced that France
will construct six new nuclear reactors to
reach carbon-neutral status by 2050.187 While
some European countries—such as the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands—are increasing
the capacity of nuclear energy, a few other
European nations— like Germany and
Belgium—are heading in the opposite
direction. After Fukushima, former German
Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed shutting
down all seventeen nuclear plants, of which
generate 12% of Germany’s electricity. Belgium is also planning to denuclearize by 2025, even
though they rely on nuclear power for more than 50% of their energy.

185
Holt, Mark, and Phillip Brown, R46820 U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns
§ (2022).
186
“Eurostat.” Electricity Production, Consumption and Market Overview. Eurostat, January 27, 2022.
[Link]
ket_overview#Electricity_generation.
187
Lough, Richard, and Benjamin Mallet. “Macron Bets on Nuclear in Carbon-Neutrality Push, Announces New
Reactors.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, February 10, 2022.
[Link]
-02-10/.
 While some European nations have policies in place for nuclear power phase-out, China,
Russia, India, as well as countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, are constructing or
planning to build nuclear power plants to meet increasing energy demand. As of January 2022, China
had fifty-three operating nuclear power units, eighteen under construction, and over 200 more
planned or proposed.188 Although China is currently relying heavily on coal, the government is
aiming to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, with nuclear a key non-carbon source of power and heat.
Russia operates thirty-seven reactors, with three under construction and another forty-eight planned.
Both countries are pursuing advanced reactor technologies and have large-scale programs
underway for nuclear exports. Nuclear electricity production in the United States accounts for 20% of
national electricity. Although the Russian government is seeking to enhance the efficiency of natural
gas utilization and coal quality, Russia recently agreed to create six nuclear reactors in India, and is
also building reactors in Bangladesh, Turkey, Belarus, Iran, and Egypt.
Nuclear energy development in the Middle East is still in its early stages. As an oil and gas
producing region, shifting away from fossil fuels seems difficult. However, a strong reason in favor
of nuclear energy is that these nations would rather save their oil and gas for export than burn it for
electricity. There are six countries in the region with nuclear power ambitions: Iran, the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), and Turkey, who have existing reactos or one or more in countrustion, while Egypt
will begin building its first reactor in 2022189; Saudi Arabia, and Jordan will likely follow in the next
several years.190 In 2020, the UAE brought the first of four large (1.4 GW capacity) reactors online,
which together will supply as much as 25% of the nation’s electricity by the end of 2023. Iran already
has one operational nuclear power plant, with an additional reactor under construction. Of the
remaining Middle Eastern countries, Turkey has a four-reactor site being built, with plans for two
other similar sites to be completed by the early 2030s.
As shown in Figure 2.2.1, reactors have been proposed in most areas of the world, with Asia
having particularly large ambitions. Southeast Asia, for example, is one of the fastest-growing
economic regions worldwide, yet it has no commercial nuclear power plants. However, according to a
recent report from the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), the prospects for putting the
region’s first nuclear power plant into operation could take place by 2030, with two more by 2035.191
Nuclear energy currently provides about 10% of the world's electricity from about 437
reactors. In the United States, nuclear energy provides 20% of electricity. Despite the fact that some
188
“World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements.” World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear
Association, January 2022.
[Link]
[Link].
189
“Construction of 1st Reactors of Dabaa Plant in Egypt to Start next July: Rosatom.” EgyptToday. EgyptToday,
January 19, 2022.
[Link]
190
Thomas, Joelle. “Refuting the Case for Nuclear in the Middle East.” Energy Transition. The Global
Energiewende, April 23, 2021.
[Link]
191
Manpati, Tipakson. “Nuclear Power Trend in Southeast Asia and Its Contested Discourses on Climate Change:
Heinrich Böll Foundation: Southeast Asia Regional Office.” Nuclear Power Trend in Southeast Asia and Its
Contested Discourses on Climate Change. Heinrich Böll Stiftung Southeast Asia, November 9, 2020.
[Link]
nations in Europe have plans for denuclearization, the global demand for nuclear energy remains
high. Currently, about one hundred power reactors are on order or planned, and over 320 more are
proposed.192

Capacity of Nuclear Energy

The capacity factor—the percentage of total capacity actually generated—of nuclear energy is
the highest of any energy source and comes with a smaller environmental footprint. Another strength
of nuclear energy is outstanding reliability. The average capacity factor of a nuclear energy plant is
93.5%, while geothermal is 74%, and hydropower has 42% of its capacity.193 A nuclear plant requires
fewer maintenance and refueling cycles compared to natural gas and coal plants, an advantage that is
set to increase considerably with current reactor and fuel designs that will allow operation for more
than two years without refueling. In addition, plant operations are less influenced by seasonal or
environmental variations, unlike renewable energy, which is heavily dependent on weather
conditions. Updated standards now in use in most nations make plant operations almost wholly
independent of weather, including major storms, such as hurricanes and related flooding.
Finding clean energy sources requires the consideration of environmental footprints. Large
land use for solar energy will have an impact on soil, water, and air resources. In the process of
construction of solar facilities, large areas of land require clearing and grading, resulting in soil
compaction which potentially alters drainage channels; and increases runoff and erosion. Land
clearing and grading also affect native vegetation and wildlife in many ways, including loss of
habitat. Other impacts from solar power include potentially causing interference with aircraft
operations if reflected light beams are misdirected into aircraft pathways. This might not occur at
small-scale energy plants, though large-scale solar energy plants will have significant impacts on both
nature and humanity.194

192
WNA, “Plans For New Reactors Worldwide”.
193
“Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close.” [Link]. U.S. Department of
Energy, March 24, 2021.
[Link]
194
“Solar Energy Development Environmental Considerations.” Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS.
Information Center. Accessed February 15, 2022. [Link]
 Figure. 2.2.2 Nuclear Has The Highest Capacity Factor. Graph by Office of Nuclear Energy; Data Adapted From
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Many nations are considering increasing their reliance on hydropower. It is more reliable than
other renewable energy sources and generates much larger quantities of energy. However, land use
for hydropower plants is enormous — among all energy resources, it has the greatest land usage. In
addition, the construction of dams has a major impact on aquatic ecosystems. Although there are
several methods to minimize this impact, fish and other organisms can be injured and killed by
turbine blades.195
On a large scale, to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity, a nuclear energy facility requires
about 1.3 square miles. By contrast, a solar farm requires about 45 to 75 square miles, and a wind
farm requires 260 to 360 square miles of land.196 Figure 2.2.3 shows how much space is required to
power a flat screen TV.
In order to generate the power for a single TV screen, hydropower requires more than one
double tennis court's worth of space, and wind and solar also require much larger space than nuclear
power. Such a large usage of land in the United States could cause conflict with Indigenous peoples.
Their land ownership is protected by law, and no private company or government can legally take
their land and resources.

195
“Environmental Impacts of Hydroelectric Power.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Union of Concerned Scientists,
March 5, 2013.
[Link]
0a%20hydroelectric,way%20for%20reservoirs%20%5B3%5D.
196
“Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint.” Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear
Plant’s Footprint. Nuclear Energy Institute, July 9, 2015.
[Link]
 Figure 2.2.3 Power Densities Graph by Bloomberg; Data Adapted From The Spatial Extent of Renewable and
Non-Renewable Power Generation

Safety and Ethics

According to a recent survey, 49% of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy, while 49%
are opposed. In addition, 47% of Americans believe nuclear power plants are safe.197 The majority of
Americans believe nuclear power is dangerous, despite the fact that the fatality rate of other energy
sources is much higher than that of nuclear energy. A study on the number of deaths per terawatt-hour
of electricity generated, which is the same as roughly the amount of power consumed by as 187,000
citizens in Europe, shows that nuclear energy death rates are almost 98% fewer than energy from
fossil fuels.
The data combines death rates from accidents and air pollution from major energy sources
including fossil fuels, nuclear, and biomass. As Figure 2.2.4 indicates, nuclear belongs in the same
risk category as solar and wind. Nuclear energy is responsible for no fatalities. In none of the three
major accidents over the past 75 years were there large numbers of deaths due to radiation. In fact, no
such deaths occurred in two of the three; only Chernobyl saw such fatalities, specifically among first
responders to the core-generated fires who were not informed of the radioactivity danger and wore no
protective clothing. According to detailed studies by United Nations scientific agencies, the greatest
number of fatalities resulted from the ordered evacuations, which removed many people from critical
care and nursing home facilities.198

197
Reinhart, RJ. “40 Years after Three Mile Island, Americans Split on Nuclear Power.” Gallup. Gallup, November
20, 2021. [Link]
198
Ritchie, Hannah. “What Was the Death Toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?” Our World in Data. Our World in
Data, July 24, 2017. [Link]
 Figure 2.2.4 Death Rates From Energy Production per TWh. Graph by Our World in Data; Data Adapted
From Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); Sovacool et al. (2016)
Exporting nuclear technology to developing countries is a considerable choice for the United
States due to the fact that developing nations rely heavily on fossil fuels, and replacing them with
nuclear energy solves energy shortages and rising CO2 emissions. The global nuclear power market is
a matter of national interest and security for the United States. Estimates from the U.S. Department of
Commerce (DOC) project that the United States is absent from a global nuclear reactor market that is
forecasted to be worth between $500 billion and $740 billion over the next several
decades.199Meanwhile, Russia is expanding its global nuclear influence with $133 billion worth in
foreign orders for reactors. China is also constructing four reactors abroad with prospects for sixteen
more. Russia and China are conducting projects, and thus are gaining influence on the nuclear sector.
The United States should consider greater involvement in exporting nuclear energy, which also leads
to job creation. According to the DOC, every $1 billion of exports by U.S. companies represents
5,000 to 10,000 jobs.200 The possibility of exporting nuclear technology to create nuclear weapons is
unlikely given the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the U.N. Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Nuclear power plants are one of the most highly secured places in a country. It is a robust
structure protected by armed security guards, physical barriers, intrusion detection, and surveillance
systems to defend against possible threats. Most power plants collaborate with military and local law

199
Sallee, Kyle. “Regaining American Competitiveness in the Global Nuclear Power Market.” American University.
American University, Washington, D.C., February 5, 2021.
[Link]
-[Link].
200
NEI, “Nuclear Energy’s Economic Benefits - Current and Future
enforcement.201 In the United States, nuclear power plants are often protected by the Department of
Homeland Security, Defense, Energy, the FBI, and local police. However, when it comes to
cyberspace, nuclear power plants can be targeted, as process control systems in nuclear power plants
have evolved from early analog systems to digital ones. In September 2019, the Kudankulam Nuclear
Power Plant in India was the victim of a cyber attack, though damage to the main operating system
was avoided. There have been constant updates and innovations in technology (both hardware and
software). A nuclear power plant in Switzerland created a private cloud program with malware
protection and maintained their system with their own IT team. However, such with a cat and mouse
game, hackers always find ways into a system. There are still many obstacles ahead in terms of cyber
security, and this limits the potential of nuclear technology. A data breach involving sensitive
commercial or nuclear information could cause significant reputational damage or loss of regulatory
and public confidence.202

New Era of Nuclear Energy

Generation III Reactor

Nuclear reactors are entering a new era. The French government has decided to build six new
European Pressurized Reactors (EPR-2), which is an optimized version of the standard EPR. This
reactor has an operating life of at least sixty years and is much more durable and easy to construct.
Compared to an EPR, the cost of an EPR-2 was reduced by about 30% and the total capacity of the
reactor is 1.6 GW, making it one of the best nuclear reactors in the world.203

Generation IV Reactor
Fast Neutron Reactors (FNR) are a technological step beyond conventional power reactors.
This reactor uses plutonium as its basic fuel, and the system has the potential to extract sixty times
more energy compared to existing reactors. It also contributes to a significant reduction in the burden
of radioactive waste.204However, these technologies are still under development. Furthermore, since
plutonium is a highly toxic material, FNR power plants require stringent safety and security,
sustainable development, proliferation resistance, and public acceptance. Therefore, FNRs are
currently economically infeasible, and further research is needed.

Small Modular Nuclear Power Reactors

The future of nuclear power plants could be smaller and operable at a local scale rather than
generating power from a central power system. The construction cost of conventional nuclear power
plants is about $6 billion to $9 billion and takes over five years to build. On the other hand, the
construction cost for small modular reactors (SMR) is about $1 billion and takes fourteen months to
build. The power output of an SMR is as small as under 300 MW and 700 MW for medium reactors.
201
“Backgrounder on Cyber Security.” [Link]. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 13, 2021.
[Link]
202
WNA, “Security of Nuclear Facilities and Material.”
203
WNA, “Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors”.
204
Patel, Sonal by POWER. “Rapid Advancements for Fast Nuclear Reactors.” POWER . Power Magazine, March
24, 2019. [Link]
SMRs are expected to have greater simplicity of design. Due to the fact that most of the construction
is largely placed in factories, the period of construction would be much shorter, which significantly
reduces the cost. In addition, SMRs can readily slot into brownfield sites in place of decommissioned
fossil fuel plants, reducing its enormous environmental footprint.205 SMRs can be exported to other
countries, because their small size and passive safety features are compatible for countries with
smaller grids and less experience with nuclear power. In 2020, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) approved the design of SMRs from Portland-based company NuScale Power.
The company is expected to sell anywhere from 674 to 1,682 reactors between 2023 and 2042, and
the capacity of the reactor is more than 80 GW. The first reactors are expected for delivery at the
Idaho National Laboratory by 2027 and are scheduled to be operational by 2029206.

Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste

Radioactive waste management is a large concern for the public due to the fact that nuclear
waste is highly toxic and can take up to 1,000 years to decay. However, like all industries, the thermal
generation of electricity produces waste. For instance, fossil fuels produce CO2, and renewables like
solar and wind energy produce silicons and unrecyclable steel. Waste from those energy sources is
not well-managed in ways that safeguard human health and minimize the impacts on the
environment. Conversely, nuclear waste is well-managed and stored in locations where it does not
harm any species on this planet. In addition, the amount of waste from nuclear energy is much less
than some renewable energies. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimated that solar
panels produced 250,000 metric tons of waste in 2018 alone.207 In contrast, the amount of used fuel
discharged from 1954 to 2013 was 367,600 metric tons of waste.208 The amount of waste from
nuclear energy is significantly lower than from solar energy, which helps reduce damage to the
environment and the environmental footprint.
Deep geological disposal is largely the preferred option for nuclear waste management. One
such facility is located in Finland. It is about 427 meters underground and 32 kilometers (20 miles)
long. The facility can store up to 6,500 tons of used fuel and is expected to start operations in 2023.209
Nuclear waste will be stored in containers surrounded by two-inch-thick copper. After the waste has
been filled, the entire facility will be packed with clay and eventually abandoned. While the United
States has advanced plans for the disposal of used fuel, there has been a delay due to political

205
WNA, “Small Nuclear Power Reactors”.
206
Levitan, Dave. “First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved.” Scientific American. Scientific American,
September 9, 2020. [Link]
207
Folk, Emily. “Waste in the Renewable Energy Industry and How We Can Sustainably Power Our World.”
Renewable Energy Magazine, at the heart of clean energy journalism. Renewable Energy Magazine, January 14,
2021. [Link]
208
“Renewable Technologies Can't Escape the Issue of Waste Management.” Nuclear Newswire. Nuclear Newswire,
February 3, 2021.
[Link]
209
“Construction of Test Disposal Tunnel under Way at Onkalo.” WNN. World Nuclear News, March 1, 2021.
[Link]
polarization. Public acceptance is the remaining issue for the disposal facilities, not technological
feasibility.210

Concluding Statement
Nuclear energy is:
● The most reliable energy source; with capacity of 92.5%
● One of the safest energy sources along with renewable energy.
● The lowest carbon emitting energy source.
● The lowest environmental footprint within the non-carbon energy source.
● Over $500 billion market opportunity, which leads to job creation.
● Innovation within the nuclear energy sector is growing, and Generation IV or SMRs could be
a new era of nuclear technology.
The clock is ticking. In the book A Bright Future, it is stated that the consequences of CO2
emissions can affect all ecosystems on the Earth. There are two kinds of effects from climate change:
those recognizable in the past five years, such as rising sea levels and temperature, as well as a
greater frequency of large hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires, and the tipping points that
cause truly catastrophic shifts.211 Rafael Marino Grossi, the director general of the IEA, said during
the COP26 that several developed and developing countries were considering either expanding or
introducing nuclear power to help achieve both climate change and sustainable development goals.
Grossi also noted that nuclear power is a “present solution” that provides almost one third of the
world’s low carbon electricity.212 In addition, Dr. Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, stated that
“Nuclear is the number one source of clean electricity. And it has been so for the last three decades.
Therefore, when we think of electricity security [and] clean electricity to reach our climate targets,
nuclear power should have an integral part in the countries where governments and citizens are part
of the solution.”213 Nuclear energy must be included in the energy solution to net zero emissions, and
we must act immediately.
Due to technological advancements, global electricity demand is increasing annually. Nuclear
energy is the most desirable energy source because of its capacity, reliability, safety, and ability for
innovations. The U.S. nuclear sector is expected to decrease by 2050 due to a lack of federal and
public support. At the same time, China and Russia are expanding their nuclear energy
sectors—therefore increasing their influence in the global energy market. As a global leader, the
United States must expand and lead the nuclear energy sector to remain competitive with other
nations.

2.3 Non-carbon Sources: Hydropower

210
WNA, “Radioactive Waste - Myths and Realities.”
211
Goldstein, Joshua S., and Qvist, Staffan A. A Bright Future, 208.
212
IAEA, “IAEA's Grossi Calls for Nuclear Power for Net Zero Emissions as Climate ‘Clock is Ticking.’”
213
“Nuclear Is Integral to Clean Energy Transition, Says IEA's Birol.” World Nuclear News. World Nuclear
Association, March 4, 2021.
[Link]
Introduction
Hydropower continues to dominate the non-carbon energy market, producing more
electricity than all other non-carbon sources combined at 4,418 TWh worldwide in 2020.214
Many countries favor including hydropower as part of their energy portfolios because of its
efficiency, reliability, and ability to reduce and prevent emissions. It is estimated that the use of
hydropower has avoided one hundred billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over the past
fifty years.215 Continued advances in hydropower technology and market formation can be
considered evidence that hydropower plants will be critical to the overall goal of decarbonizing
power grids, especially in emerging economies, and thus decelerating the impacts of climate
change worldwide.

Three Main Types of Hydropower Plants

There are three different kinds of hydropower plants: reservoir, “run-of-river” (ROR),
and pumped storage plants. Reservoir power plants, also known as impoundment facilities,
utilize a dam to store water in a reservoir. Stored water is directed to flow through turbines,
whose spin is transmitted to a generator to produce electricity.216 The installed cost of a reservoir
power plant is around $1,000-$5,000 per kW.217 One advantage of reservoir power plants is that
their stored water makes them less reliant on the variability of flows in a given season or day.218
Additionally, reservoir power plants monitor flood control and provide irrigation services.219 One
study concluded that dams significantly help with the “frequency, duration, and timing of annual
flooding events.”220 Reservoir power plants also provide recreational value to local communities,
such as fishing, swimming, and boating.221
Reservoir power plants come with disadvantages as well. The most notable disadvantage
is the disruption to the natural habitat and nearby communities. It is reported that dams have
forced around 40 to 80 million people worldwide to physically relocate.222 Building dams that
drive resettlement can cause major unrest among people who cannot find other places to live.
214
IEA, “Hydropower,” (2021), accessed January 24, 2022, [Link]
215
Clean Energy Council, “Hydropower: The Backbone of a Reliable Renewable Energy System,” November 17,
2021,
[Link]
[Link], 11
216
Water Power Technologies Office, “Types of Hydropower Plants,” [Link], accessed January 24, 2022,
[Link]
217
Dylan Fitzgerald, “Affordable,” National Hydropower Association, September 12, 2019,
[Link]
218
IEA, “Hydropower - Fuels & Technologies,” (2022), January 7, 2022,
[Link]
219
IEA, “Hydropower - Fuels & Technologies”
220
Julien Boulange et al., “Role of Dams in Reducing Global Flood Exposure under Climate Change,” Nature
Communications 12, no. 1 (January 18, 2021), [Link]
221
Water Power Technologies Office, “Benefits of Hydropower,” [Link] (Office of Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy), accessed February 13, 2022, [Link]
222
Vijay Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, and Sachchida Nand Pandey, “A Study of Environmental Impact Due to
Construction and Operation of Dam,” in ResearchGate (Mathura, 2010): 4-5, accessed January 26, 2022,
[Link]
nd_Operation_of_Dam
Furthermore, dams endanger aquatic wildlife and their migratory patterns.223 Another negative
factor associated with dams is their potential to accumulate dead vegetation, garbage, and
fertilizer runoff, all of which can impact the health of nearby residents.224 While related concerns
are wholly justified, such environmental impacts can be mitigated by careful planning and design
in correspondence to stakeholder considerations. For example, the sensor fish device—a project
funded by the DOE’s Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO)—aims to measure the physical
activity of fish passing through hydropower plants such as dam turbines.225 This provides
researchers and hydropower plant operators insight into the fish experience, and aids in
determining whether to adjust pressure, acceleration, strain, turbulence, and other forces so that
the fish population is not negatively affected. Another example is how artificial intelligence (AI)
can be employed to both minimize environmental impact and optimize hydropower production.
A group of international researchers from a Nature Communications study in 2019 utilized data
from a sophisticated computational model to determine that lowland dams in Brazil tend to have
large reservoirs with high levels of carbon concentration. In contrast, countries, such as Bolivia,
Ecuador, and Peru, with higher elevation and steep topography emit less carbon concentration.226
Maximizing current technologies opens the capability to protect the environment and maintain
hydroelectric output.
The second type of hydropower plant is the “run-of-river” (ROR) facility, sometimes
referred to as a diversion facility. As the name suggests, a ROR diverts part of a river with a
canal and/or penstock to a set of turbines, thus relying on the natural downward flow of the river
to generate electricity.227 A penstock is a closed, tunnel-like pathway that directs the flow of river
water. ROR power plants can be built within three to four years.228 The installed cost of a ROR
power plant is about $1,500-$6,000 per kW.229 Most RORs do not have a dam. This can be
viewed as an advantage over its reservoir counterpart as it eliminates the scale of environmental
damage caused by dam construction and operation.
One disadvantage to ROR power plants are their higher vulnerability to seasonal changes
in river volume and, more seriously, periods of drought. Although some ROR plants have
pondage, or short-term water storage, the volume is limited and lacks the capacity to compensate
for an entire season of low river discharge.230 ROR facilities also produce less power than other
types of hydropower plants, which causes further uncertainty regarding supply needed to meet
given demands. Overall, this type of hydropower plant can be less reliable than a reservoir
facility and often requires one or more forms of backup, adding to total related costs.
223
Dwivedi, Kumar Gupta, and Nand Pandey 4-5
224
Dwivedi, Kumar Gupta, and Nand Pandey 4-5
225
Hoyt Battey, “Making Hydropower More Eco-Friendly,” [Link], October 22, 2014,
[Link]
226
Anuradha Varanasi, “How AI Could Help Bring a Sustainable Reckoning to Hydropower,” Popular Science,
February 25, 2022, [Link]
227
Water Power Technologies Office, “Types of Hydropower Plants”
228
“How Long Does It Take to Build a Hydroelectric Power Station?,” AQPER, accessed February 28, 2022,
[Link]
229
Dylan Fitzgerald, “Affordable”
230
IEA, “Hydropower - Fuels & Technologies”
 The third type of hydropower plant is pumped storage hydropower (PSH). PSH facilities
possess both an upper and lower reservoir. During periods of high demand, the upper reservoir
releases water to the lower reservoir to run turbines for added electricity generation.231 At times
of high water and large power production, PSHs pump water from the lower to the upper
reservoir to store energy for future use. The installed cost of a PSH is around $1,010-$4,500 per
kW.232 These plants are also able to store energy generated from other non-carbon sources, such
as solar, wind, and nuclear.233 This defines a distinct advantage, as it represents a cheaper and
more long-lived alternative to battery storage for these technologies. As a report from Australia’s
Clean Energy Council claims, hydropower is the “only low-carbon electricity-generating
technology that can provide system flexibility within a range of sub-seconds to hours while also
cost-effectively storing energy for days to months during periods of limited energy.”234 Another
benefit of PSHs is that it has a high “return on energy.” Research from the Swiss Academy of
Engineering Sciences suggests that PSH power plants return “186 times the energy required to
build it.235
PSHs have their disadvantages as well. For example, PSHs require specific topographic
settings, where a large vertical change takes place over a relatively short horizontal distance.236
As a result, PSHs are constrained as a global source of non-carbon power.

General Advantages and Disadvantages of Hydropower

Because hydropower relies solely on water, it is easily replenishable, making it a
renewable source. Also, using hydropower to generate electricity does not emit as many
greenhouse gasses or contribute to as much pollution, unlike fossil fuel counterparts such as coal,
oil, and natural gas. In addition, incorporating hydropower into the United States’ energy
portfolio makes it less reliant on international energy sources due to hydropower’s domestic
abundance. Hydroelectric power is also flexible. Regardless of the level of demand, hydropower
has the ability to generate electricity to the grid quickly. This makes hydropower a reliable
source, especially as a backup power for intermittent energy sources.237
Similar to reservoir power plants, the major drawback against hydropower is the use of
dams. While hydropower is meant to serve as a better alternative for energy use, it also has the
potential to impose negative impacts on the environment, like the construction of dams and
decomposition of flooded organic material, which produces methane and further emits
greenhouse gasses. ROR power plants cause less environmental damage than reservoir and PSH
plants because they do not require the presence of a dam. Nevertheless, ROR facilities rely
heavily on seasonal changes and are not as efficient in terms of total output. Furthermore, any
type of hydropower plant comes with a significant financial investment upfront. Despite having a

231
Water Power Technologies Office, “Types of Hydropower Plants”
232
Dylan Fitzgerald, “Affordable”
233
Water Power Technologies Office, “Types of Hydropower Plants”
234
Clean Energy Council, “Hydropower: The Backbone of a Reliable Renewable Energy System,” 9
235
Clean Energy Council, “Hydropower: The Backbone of a Reliable Renewable Energy System,” 11
236
Water Power Technologies Office, “Types of Hydropower Plants”
237
Water Power Technologies Office, “Benefits of Hydropower”
lifespan of up to one hundred years, countries must consider the material, labor, operational, and
maintenance costs associated with any hydropower facility. Another element to consider is how
climate change can affect the future of hydropower. Even though hydropower is considered a
renewable energy source, local weather and precipitation trends affect the overall supply of
water. Climate-related trends in the United States include megadrought conditions in the
Southwest, such as large portions of California, where hydropower has suffered major declines
since 2010.238 As of June 2021, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated that
100% of California is experiencing some form of drought, with about 33% of the state classified
as undergoing “exceptional drought,” which is the most intense level. Usually, melted water from
the mountains supply water to California’s reservoirs during the spring and summer seasons. Due
to the severe impact from megadroughts, however, melted water was not able to reach the
designated reservoirs because it was absorbed by parched soil and streams along the way.239

Global Trends of Hydropower Use

Hydropower has emerged as the world’s most popular renewable energy source. As of
2021, hydropower comprised about one-sixth of the world’s total power generation, only behind
coal and natural gas.240 According to a report published by the International Hydropower
Association (IHA), hydropower ranks within the following regions of the world in terms of
highest to lowest hydropower capacity up to 2020:
*Highest capacity actor refers to countries with the highest total installed hydropower capacity; emerging actor
refers to the country that demonstrates strong potential regarding current hydropower capabilities; metrics relate to
total installed hydropower capacity up to 2020*

1. East Asia and the Pacific (501 GW)

a. Highest capacity actor: China (370,160 MW) → In 2020 alone, China
contributed 13.76 GW of new hydropower capacity. This was achieved through
the completion of the Jixi project and others. The Wudongde plant, which was
scheduled to be completed by July 2021, was projected to become China’s
fourth-largest and the world’s seventh-largest hydropower plant. China strongly
emphasizes the production of PSH facilities.
b. Emerging actor: Japan (50,016 MW)
2. Europe (254 GW)
a. Highest capacity actor: Norway (32,995 MW)
b. Emerging actor: Turkey (30,984 MW) → Within a span of a year, Turkey’s
hydropower capacity grew by 10% in 2020. One of the most notable hydropower
plants in the country is the Ilisu facility, which generates 1,224 MW. This is
238
Lindsay Aramayo, “California's Hydroelectric Generation Affected by Historic Drought,” U.S. Energy
Information Administration, July 7, 2021, [Link]
239
Lindsay Aramayo, “California’s Hydroelectric Generation Affected by Historic Drought”
240
Rystad Energy, “Hydropower Cements Its Place As The World's Most Popular Renewable Energy,” [Link],
February 7, 2022,
[Link]
[Link]
 significant because the construction was completed after thirteen years, which
started in 2007. Ilisu provides electricity for over a million homes and irrigation
for thousands of farmers in the region.
3. North and Central America (205 GW)
a. Highest capacity actor: The United States (102,000 MW) → Stanford
University’s initiative called the “Uncommon Dialogue” aims to find ways that
decarbonize the country’s electrical grid, as well as preserve the biodiversity and
ecosystems of rivers.
b. Emerging actor: Canada (82,000 MW) → Back in April 2020, the government
proposed a $14 billion budget for green programs throughout 2021-2022. Within
this budget, about $33.15 million was allocated for hydropower-related projects,
which could advance the Atlin Hydro expansion in Yukon and feasibility study of
the Kivalliq HydroFibre Link in Nunavut.
4. South America (177 GW)
a. Highest capacity actor: Brazil (109,271 MW) → Due to ongoing droughts
across the entire country, Brazil’s government has declared a hydrological crisis.
Since Brazil relies on over 60% of hydropower for its electricity, Brazil’s current
status symbolizes the effects from climate change on its hydropower supply. To
find other solutions, Brazil has stood out as a global leader in hybrid energy
projects, such as installing solar floating photovoltaic panels on reservoirs.
b. Emerging actor: Venezuela (15,393 MW)
5. South and Central Asia (155 GW)
a. Highest capacity actor: India (50,549 MW) → India granted approval and
commissioned various hydropower projects, including Dibang (2,880 MW),
Bodhghat (500 MW), and more.
b. Emerging actor: Russia (49,912 MW) → Russia commissioned four
hydropower plants in 2020.
6. Africa (38 GW)
a. Highest capacity actor: Ethiopia (4,074 MW) → The country continued with
the construction of its Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which is set to
produce 6,350 MW, despite facing legal challenges with Egypt and Sudan
regarding the amount of water being retained in the reservoir.
b. Emerging actor: Angola (3,836 MW) → Angola itself added 401 MW of total
installed capacity in 2020.241
2020 marked a 1.6% increase from 2019 in total installed hydropower capacity
worldwide.242 To put this metric into perspective, the average yearly growth in installed capacity
from 2016 to 2020 equaled 1.8%.243 Despite records of increasing capacity, experts argue that

241
International Hydropower Association, “2021 Hydropower Status Report: Sector Trends and Insights,” 2021,
[Link] 23-45
242
International Hydropower Association, “2021 Hydropower Status Report: Sector Trends and Insights,” 8
243
International Hydropower Association, “2021 Hydropower Status Report: Sector Trends and Insights,” 8
countries must continue to be more aggressive with their growth strategies in order to meet NZE
2050 goals. To accomplish this, the yearly growth rate must reach around 2.3%, which is
equivalent to 1,300 GW generated by 2050.244

Figure 2.3.1: Total Hydropower Installed Capacity Growth by Country (2020)245

The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Hydropower Industry

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the global hydropower industry in ways that
exemplify how such crises can cause serious setbacks for the transition to non-carbon sources. In
terms of short-term effects, the IHA outlined that “widespread uncertainty, currency volatility,
and liquidity shortages” have put financing and refinancing for hydropower plants at major
risk.246 Furthermore, construction of upcoming hydropower plants have been delayed due to
social distancing regulations and supply chain disruptions.247 Several public initiatives and
programs that support the hydropower sector have also been put on hold due to the redistribution

244
International Hydropower Association, “2021 Hydropower Status Report: Sector Trends and Insights,” 8
245
International Hydropower Association, “2021 Hydropower Status Report: Sector Trends and Insights,” 7
246
International Hydropower Association, “Strengthening Sustainable Hydropower to Support the Covid-19
Recovery,” May 28, 2020,
[Link]
ovid-19, 3
247
International Hydropower Association, “Strengthening Sustainable Hydropower to Support the Covid-19
Recovery,” 3
of government attention to immediate forms of public assistance, such as unemployment
benefits, vaccine development, and more. As of now, it is too early to determine the long-term
effects on the hydropower industry from the pandemic. However, it is imperative to highlight
how the pandemic has made individuals realize the extent of their reliance on electricity. In the
case of the United States, specifically, COVID-19 forced white collar employees to communicate
through Zoom meetings, transitioned students to the online learning environment, and challenged
people to find alternative ways to operate online. The pandemic has further underscored the
importance of securing the electrical grid and diversifying energy resources.

The Relationship Between Hydropower and Climate Change

While hydropower is classified as a “renewable” source of energy, this label could
become misleading if climate change were to have a stronger impact in the near future. For
example, South and Southeast Asia credit almost 14.5% of their total electricity generation to
hydropower, which is about 117 GW of total installed hydropower capacity.248 However, due to
the “rising temperatures, extreme rainfall patterns, melting glaciers, and increasing occurrence of
extreme weather events,” hydropower can become an unreliable source of energy if the effects of
climate change are not sufficiently mitigated.249 This is imperative for South and Southeast Asian
countries to address, as hydropower enables them to meet electricity demands, aids economic
development, and assists in the transition to non-carbon energy sources.
Some South and Southeast Asian countries are already enduring the effects of climate
change in relation to their hydropower resources. One example is Vietnam, where a series of
landslides occurred due to severe rainfall in October 2020. The landslides caused the Thua Thien
Hue hydropower plant to suspend its operations and killed several of its workers.250 Another
example from India occurred in February 2021, when a glacial burst triggered a flash flood that
caused the Dhauliganga Hydropower Plant to halt operations.251
Climate change has also affected hydropower operations in Latin America. In this region,
hydropower dominates as the main source of electricity generation at 45%.252 In Peru, the
Callahuanca hydropower plant—which was constructed in 1938—was shut down temporarily in
2017 when a series of landslides and flooding significantly damaged 95% of the total
infrastructure and equipment.253 The scale of the impact caused severe blackouts where the grid
was connected to the plant. While the Callahuanca plant was fixed and modernized with new
generators, turbines, and control systems—eventually reopening in 2019—this does not avoid
the fact that climate change imposes dire consequences if not specifically addressed. Moving
forward, the United States must take these incidents seriously, especially since certain parts of

248
IEA, “Climate Impacts on South and Southeast Asian Hydropower,” December 2021,
[Link] 2
249
IEA, “Climate Impacts on South and Southeast Asian Hydropower,” 2
250
IEA, “Climate Impacts on South and Southeast Asian Hydropower,” 10
251
IEA, “Climate Impacts on South and Southeast Asian Hydropower,” 10
252
IEA, “Climate Impacts on Latin American Hydropower,” January 2021,
[Link] 2
253
IEA, “Climate Impacts on Latin American Hydropower,” 15
the country have already been impacted by climate change (i.e. megadroughts in California) that
could be detrimental to the nation’s hydropower supply.

Hydropower versus Nuclear Energy

Hydropower and nuclear energy are often compared to each other because of their larger
presences in the non-carbon energy market. In contrast to intermittent energy sources such as
solar and wind, hydropower and nuclear are baseload technologies that provide continuous
power on a twenty-four hour, seven days a week basis.
One differentiating factor between both non-carbon sources is their respective lifespans.
For hydropower, a typical plant—if properly maintained—can last one hundred years.254 For
nuclear, lifespan depends on which generation of technology was used to build a plant. Most
nuclear plants were built between the early 1970s and 1990s; these were licensed for forty years,
but a sizable number have been, and continue to be, relicensed for up to eighty years.255 Reactors
that use more advanced technology starting in the late 1990s are typically licensed for sixty
years, but this could possibly be extended between eighty to one hundred years if current trends
are to be repeated in the future.256 Life spans are important to consider because they allow
countries to understand how much power can be generated as well as to calculate how much it
would cost to replace such technology once it has expired.
Additionally, both energy sources come with significant environmental impacts. For
hydropower, dams disrupt the local ecology and can negatively impact human life, while nuclear
waste is toxic and its disposal has proven to be a difficult social problem due to public fear.257
Another element is the amount of land used for each power plant. According to research from
Bloomberg, hydropower requires 296 square meters of land area, whereas nuclear power plants
need 0.3 square meters to produce enough electricity to power a flat-screen television.258 Since
hydropower plants demand large sections of land, some countries may feel restricted in terms of
how much space they have and whether they can build such structures. Therefore, countries may
resort to nuclear power plants if they are limited in space.
Another factor to consider is reliability. Due to evidence concerning how climate change
can affect the supply of hydropower, countries may feel more comfortable using nuclear energy
since weather and climate do not factor into their electricity generation. Moreover, another
difference between both non-carbon sources is the consideration of geographic conditions.

254
“Hydropower: Setting a Course for Our Energy Future ,” Hydropower: Setting a Course for Our Energy Future
(Washington , DC, 2004), [Link]
255
Office of Nuclear Energy , “What's the Lifespan for a Nuclear Reactor? Much Longer Than You Might Think,”
[Link], April 16, 2020,
[Link]
256
“Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors ,” World Nuclear Association, April 2021,
[Link]
[Link]#:~:text=It%20is%20designed%20for%2060%20year%20life%20and%2090%25%20capacity%20factor
257
Michael Wolfe, “The Comparison Between Hydropower & Nuclear Energy,” Bizfluent, September 26, 2017,
[Link]
258
Dave Merrill, “The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy,” [Link] (Bloomberg,
June 3, 2021), [Link]
Regarding hydropower plants, they require specific topographic settings. For example, PSH
plants need both an upper and lower reservoir, which imposes difficulty for countries that do not
satisfy those geographical requirements. Another geographical element is weather and climate
patterns. Hydropower plants would not be successful in deserts or semi-arid regions. In contrast,
there is more flexibility for nuclear power plants, as they can be constructed in more spaces
without regard to physical locations.
These differences are not to say that hydropower is a better option than nuclear energy or
vice versa. Rather, as countries accelerate their plans to decarbonize their electrical grids, they
must take all of these factors into consideration and employ such a source wherever they feel is
the most appropriate in terms of energy security and prosperity.

Aging Hydropower Plants

Countries must prioritize the maintenance of aging hydropower plants to avoid
disruptions in their power supplies and progress toward decarbonization. In terms of global
comparison, around 40% of all hydropower plants worldwide—which is 476 GW of power—are
at least forty years old.259 This is a result of the widespread hydropower construction wave that
occurred between the 1960s and 1980s in many advanced countries. Regionally speaking, about
70% of hydropower plants in North America are forty years old or older.260 When hydropower
facilities reach between forty-five and sixty years of their lifespan, countries must consider
implementing upgrades to improve electricity generation and increase flexibility. According to
the IEA, through the modernization process, upgraded hydropower plants have the ability to
increase their output by 5 to 10%.
An integral part of the modernization process is the digitalization of hydropower
facilities. According to a study conducted by Accenture, improved systems of forecasting and
data analytics can enable hydropower plant operators to maximize power production and
profitability due to reduced costs in material, labor, and maintenance.261 Forecasting includes
external factors (e.g. weather and water inflows), internal factors (e.g. reservoir levels), and
market conditions (e.g. price, demand, and supply). Regarding data analytics, hydropower
facility operators can examine past trends of weather and market conditions to determine the best
time periods and methods of optimized electricity production. As hydropower plants undergo
digitization, it is imperative for operators to be aware of the new challenges and concerns that
arise with the integration of technology, such as data privacy, critical infrastructure protection,
and information security compliance. Therefore, operators must establish designated timelines to
review and audit their upgraded systems.

Concluding Statement

259
IEA, “Hydropower”
260
IEA, “Hydropower”
261
Maria Agostini et al., “Hydro's Digital Generation: Transforming the Future of Hydropower” (Accenture, 2020),
[Link] 7
 While hydropower presents a variety of options as well as its benefits and drawbacks,
expediting the growth of the hydropower sector is a crucial component in promoting energy
security, increasing job opportunity, and decarbonizing the world’s electrical grids. As countries
begin and further their construction plans, they must consider both the environmental and social
implications that come with hydropower plants, especially the presence of dams. Furthermore, it
is important to upgrade existing hydropower plants in accordance with modern environmental
and technological standards so that current supplies of hydropower are not disrupted by
preventable measures.

2.4 Future Technologies

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

Although not quite as mainstream as other non-carbon sources, countries should consider
investing time and resources into hydrogen. Hydrogen is proven to be very beneficial in
providing electricity; it is versatile and represents another means toward diversifying the world’s
energy portfolio.
Hydrogen fuel can be produced via four different methods. First, it can be created
through a thermal process called steam reforming. This refers to high-temperature steam reacting
with a hydrocarbon fuel to create hydrogen. Common hydrocarbons include “natural gas, diesel,
renewable liquid fuels, gasified coal, and gasified biomass.”262 In the United States, 95% of all
hydrogen sources are produced through steam reforming with natural gas.263 The second way
hydrogen fuel is produced is through the electrolytic process, which refers to the physical
separation of hydrogen and oxygen atoms in an electrolyzer.264 The third method consists of
solar-driven processes, which come in three different forms: photobiological,
photoelectrochemical, and solar thermochemical. Photobiological processes utilize the natural
photosynthetic activity of bacteria and green algae to produce hydrogen. Photoelectrochemical
activity happens when specific semiconductors separate water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
Solar thermochemical optimizes concentrated solar power to force the separation of water
molecules, even with other materials like metal oxides.265 The last method related to hydrogen
fuel production occurs through biological processes with the use of microbes such as bacteria
and microalgae.266
Steam reforming has gained traction worldwide for electricity generation as it serves as
an alternative way to source power through non-carbon technology. Hydrogen power is
especially favorable within the trucking industry, as its refueling time and driving range are just

262
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, “Hydrogen Fuel Basics,” [Link], accessed February 5, 2022,
[Link]
263
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, “Hydrogen Fuel Basics”
264
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, “Hydrogen Fuel Basics”
265
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, “Hydrogen Fuel Basics”
266
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, “Hydrogen Fuel Basics”
as strong and reliable as gasoline.267 Replacing lithium batteries and diesel fuel with hydrogen
fuel has the potential to significantly eliminate annual greenhouse gas emissions. Since
heavy-duty transportation vehicles make up 23% of total transportation emissions, this shift can
have a significant impact on both the industry and the environment.268
Along with transportation, hydrogen is also used in many industrial processes. This
includes refining petroleum and producing fertilizers.269 Hydrogen fuel has also been
experimented in the realm of space exploration. Since the 1950s, NASA has utilized liquid
hydrogen as rocket fuel. From these examples, it is evident that hydrogen is a versatile energy
source that can be beneficial to decarbonizing the electrical grid and diversifying energy options.
Hydrogen has grown globally. As of October 2021, seventeen governments have released
hydrogen strategies and more than twenty governments have publicly stated their intentions to
develop similar strategies.270 Besides utilizing fossil fuels like natural gas, countries are also
continuing to research and find ways to produce fuel from alternative sources. For example,
Europe is leading the way in electrolyser capacity deployment, which equates to about 40% of
total global installed capacity. The IEA also suggests that Australia’s progress can catch up to
Europe’s within a few years.271
In terms of regional consumption, the United States accounts for 13% of global hydrogen
demand. Two-thirds of it is used in the country’s refining sector and the rest is used for ammonia
production. The United States has been a long supporter of including hydrogen in its energy
portfolio. Throughout the past few years, the country has launched initiatives, such as the
H2@Scale (2016), DOE Hydrogen Program Plan (2020), and the Hydrogen Energy Earthshot
(2021) to further scale its hydrogen output.272

The Relationship Between Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

Fuel cells derive chemical energy from hydrogen and other fuels to produce electricity.
Simply put, the function of fuel cells is similar to batteries: they both produce electricity and heat
as long as fuel is supplied.273 Investing in and maximizing the use of fuel cells will be critical in
meeting goals of NZE 2050 because of their versatility. Their capabilities range from powering
industrial buildings to supplying energy for everyday devices, such as a laptop. Fuel cells are
highly favorable because they are able to convert chemical energy in the fuel into electrical

267
David A Cullen and Karren L More, “Heavy-Duty Vehicles an Ideal Entry into Hydrogen Fuel Cell Use,” Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, April 23, 2021,
[Link]
268
Cullen and More, “Heavy-Duty Vehicles an Ideal Entry into Hydrogen Fuel Cell Use”
269
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Hydrogen Explained ,” [Link], January 20, 22AD,
[Link]
ce%20electricity%20by%20combining%20hydrogen%20and%20oxygen,a%20wide%20range%20of%20application
s
270
IEA. Rep. Global Hydrogen Review 2021, October 2021.
[Link] 5
271
IEA, “Global Hydrogen Review 2021,” 5
272
IEA, “Global Hydrogen Review 2021,” 176
273
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, “Fuel Cells,” [Link], accessed February 23, 2022,
[Link]
energy with an efficiency of 60% or more.274 Furthermore, the only emission component of fuel
cells is water, thus making fuel cells appealing because they do not emit as much greenhouse gas
emissions compared to other energy sources.
The relevancy of fuel cells can be demonstrated in the transportation sector. Since 2008,
the cost of automotive fuel cells has fallen by almost 70% due to the technological advancements
and increasing sales of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). Countries like South Korea, the United
States, China, and Japan have been leading this effort, selling over 43,000 vehicles since
mid-2021.275

Nuclear Fusion
Nuclear fusion technology has been widely researched since the 1970s. Fusion powers
the sun and other stars, which as hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium, with some of the original
matter being converted into energy. Normally, fusion is not possible, as extreme temperatures of
around 50 million ℃ are required for nuclei to collide. However, scientists have found that
increasing temperature causes ions to move faster, eventually reaching speeds high enough to
bring close enough together that they create energy.276 Nuclear fusion generates four times as
much energy as conventional nuclear fission reactors. In addition, fusion reactors create less
toxic radioactive materials, thus, fusion reactors are the future of nuclear energy.
A challenge that fusion reactors are currently facing is related to economics. The energy
density of fusion reactions in gas is much less than for fission reactions in solid fuel, and the heat
yield per reaction is seventy times lower. Therefore, thermonuclear fusion will always have a
much lower power density than nuclear fission, which means reactors need to be larger and more
costly than a nuclear fission reactor of the same power output.277
As of today, there is no commercialized fusion reactor, yet there is much new activity and
investment in experimental programs, both on a national and international level. International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is the largest international nuclear fusion research
and engineering project in the world, with thirty-five nations collaborating. The DEMOnstration
Power Plant known as Demo, is expected to demonstrate large-scale production of electrical
power on a continual basis. The first phase of operation is expected to begin after 2040. This
year, scientists in the United Kingdom announced new milestones. A team at the Joint European
Torus (JET) facility generated 55921 Btu (59 megajoules) of sustained energy during an
experiment in December 2021.278 A challenge for nuclear fusion is the magnetic field of a fusion
device which encloses the hot plasma and keeps it away from the vessel walls to avoid inefficient

274
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, “Fuel Cells”
275
IEA, “Global Hydrogen Review 2021,” 6
276
“Fission vs. Fusion – What's the Difference?” Nuclear Information Center. Duke Energy, January 30, 2013.
[Link]
277
“Nuclear Fusion Power.” World Nuclear Association. WNA, August 2021.
[Link]
278
Koshy, Jacob. “Scientists Set New Record in Creating Energy from Nuclear Fusion.” The Hindu. The Hindu,
February 10, 2022.
[Link]
energy losses from plasma particles drifting outward. The German stellarator Wendelstein 7-X
proved its confinement efficiency, as the twisted magnetic coils of the device successfully
controlled plasma energy loss, which indicated that stellarator fusion devices could be suitable
for commercial power plants.279 In addition, the DOE used a powerful laser to heat and compress
hydrogen fuel and initiate a fusion reaction. The experiment produced 1280 Btu (1.35
megajoules) of energy and was a huge step forward for the fusion community. The research of
fusion reactors will continue to grow, and scientists have the ambition to build commercial
nuclear fusion reactors by 2030.

Electricity Storage
Electric storage plays an important role in balancing supply (electricity generation) and
demand (consumer use).280 Although supply is relatively fixed over short periods of time,
demand varies daily. Developing the technology is necessary for electricity storage to meet the
gap between supply—specifically secure supply—and demand. Electricity storage devices can
make intermittent renewable energy supplies (e.g. from solar and wind) more stable and
reliable.281 As renewable energy becomes more prevalent in the world, electric storage
technology will become more central to the discussion of stable supplies of electricity. Also,
electric storage may provide economic reliability and environmental benefits in some cases, such
as helping the utility grid work more efficiently, provide sufficient amounts of electricity during
peak demand periods, and encourage the use of more renewable resources.
Types of electricity storage include pumped hydroelectric, compressed air, flywheels,
batteries, and thermal energy storage.282 Pumped hydroelectric stores energy in the form of water
in an upper reservoir. In periods of high electricity demand, power is generated by releasing the
water through turbines. On the other hand, when there is low demand—such during nights or
weekends—the upper reservoir is recharged by pumping water from the lower reservoir back to
the upper reservoir.283 Compressed air uses air to store electricity. When demand is high, the
pressurized air is released to generate electricity through an expansion turbine generator. A
flywheel is a type of rotor, and electricity is used to increase the speed of the flywheel. Just as
they are used in day-to-day life, large batteries can store large amounts of electricity.284 Lithium
ion, lead acid, lithium iron, or other battery technologies can be used. In thermal energy storage,
electricity is used to produce thermal energy, which can be stored until needed. In addition to
these electricity storage technologies, new ones are now being developed, including flow
batteries, supercapacitors, and superconducting magnetic energy storage.285

279
Radel, Ross. “Germany's Wendelstein 7-X Stellarator Proves Its Confinement Efficiency.” Nuclear News Wire.
American Nuclear Society, August 17, 2021.
[Link]
280
U.S. EPA, “Electricity Storage,” [Link]
281
Office of Electricity, “Energy Storage,” [Link]
282
U.S. EPA, “Electricity Storage”
283
ESA, “Pumped Hydropower,” [Link]
284
U.S. EPA, “Electricity Storage”
285
U.S. EPA, “Electricity Storage”
 The DOE announced that electricity storage capacity was approximately 25 gigawatts,
with 94% of the total being pumped by hydroelectric storage and 6% by other types of energy
storage such as batteries, thermal energy storage, compressed air, and flywheels.286 This amount
is expected to grow on the pathway to NZE 2050 as renewable energy becomes a major source of
energy.

Chapter 3: Possibilities for Direct Carbon Mitigation

Chapter 3.1: Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage

Introduction
CCS is a technology that directly removes carbon from the atmosphere and transports it
via ship, road, or pipeline to an underground storage facility. An alternate approach, CCUS,
allows for captured carbon to be reused in industrial processes such as fertilizer, food, and
biofuel production.287
The need for carbon capture technology became prominent in the light of the Paris
Agreement’s goals to limit future temperature increase to 1.5 ℃. Accounting for over 200
million tons of CO₂ captured and injected underground to date, the CCS industry is among the
most feasible instruments included in the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of many
countries. Governments and the private sector are displaying their interest in the technology and
providing their support via research and development (R&D). From 2020 to 2021 alone, the
capacity of CCS facilities grew 32%, cumulatively with those in development by 48%.288
In response to growing climate pressures and continued dependence on carbon sources,
CCS offers a timely solution to reducing CO₂ emissions, potentially on a major scale. First, the
rate of switching to alternative non-carbon energy sources is not nearly enough to fully replace
them. Second, growing economies have shown that they will continue using whatever energy
sources they domestically possess (which are predominantly fossil fuels), to satisfy both
demands for economic development and energy security. Last, the recent pandemic demonstrated
a deeper carbon dependence that might grow even larger given the tendency to rely on natural
gas and coal during emergencies. This point was confirmed by the energy crisis in Europe during
the fall and winter of 2021 and 2022, when a shortage of natural gas and wind power led to a
greater use of coal.289 Carbon dependency will not disappear in the near future and, at varying
levels among different nations, will continue for decades. CCS/CCUS is therefore recognized as
a potentially necessary and effective tool for mitigating carbon emissions.

286
U.S. EPA, “Electricity Storage”
287
IEA, “About CCUS,” (2021), assessed February 10, 2022, [Link]
288
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” (2021): 10, accessed February 10, 2022,
[Link]
[Link]
289
Wald, The EU Contributed to Its Own Energy Crisis, but Diversification Can Solve It, Atlantic Council (2021),
accessed February 20, 2022,
[Link]
an-solve-it/.
 In addition, certain industries that rely heavily on fossil fuel energy and are emissions
intensive such as chemicals, iron and steel, and cement—will remain challenging to the
non-carbon energy transition.290 These industries will therefore benefit greatly from CCS/CCUS
technologies, whether for an intermediate period or in the long run. With CCS in place, jobs
connected with these hard-to-abate industries could be preserved, minimizing political risks, and
new jobs within CCS/CCUS technologies as a growing field will emerge.291 Thus, decarbonizing
the industry sector within its realistic measures is only possible with CCS technologies in place.

Science: CCS/CCUS Technology

As demonstrated in Figure 3.1.1, the standardized CCUS procedure includes four steps:
1. Capture: CO₂ is separated from other gasses produced in industrial processes, such as
those at coal and natural gas-fired power generation plants or steel or cement factories.
The most advanced and widely adopted capture technologies are chemical absorption,
adsorption, and physical separation; other technologies include membrane separation,
chemical looping, hydrating, and biofixation.292 Post-combustion capture using amines is
among the most prominent commercialized CCUS technology.293

Figure 3.1.1 Standard CCUS procedure (IEA294)

290
Gül et al., “Energy Technology Perspectives 2020,” (2020): 22, accessed February 11, 2022,
[Link]
[Link]
291
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” 10.
292
“About CCUS.”
293
Rahimpour, Farsi, and Makarem, Advances in Carbon Capture, 37.
294
“About CCUS.”
 2. Transport: CO₂ is then compressed and transported to a site for storage. The two main
options for the large-scale transport of CO₂ are via pipeline (the cheapest way) and ship
(more expensive but also more flexible), although for short distances and small volumes
of CO2, it can also be transported by truck or rail (at higher cost per ton of CO2).295
3. Usage (this stage is only considered in CCUS technologies): this stage provides a
profitable alternative to producing chemicals and fuels while mitigating climate
change.296 CO₂ is used as an input to a range of products and services and can be used
directly (non-conversion: where CO₂ is not chemically altered) or through the
transformation of CO₂ to a useful product (conversion: through chemical and biological
processes) as displayed in Figure 3.1.2. Methanol production using CO₂ and hydrogen is
one of the most successful applications that involve conversion—not only because the
conversion rate is relatively high (>60%), but also because methanol usage to generate
power is a potential future for use of CO₂ flue gas emissions. Methanol can be directly
blended in fuel, while Methyl tertbutyl ether can be used for biodiesel production. CO₂
can also be used directly in transcritical and supercritical processes, enhanced oil
recovery, and even in the medical field.297

Figure 3.1.2. Classification of pathways for CO₂ use (IEA298)

4. Storage: involves the injection of captured CO₂ into a deep underground geological
reservoir of porous rock that is at least 800 meters deep and sealed by impermeable rock

295
“About CCUS.”
296
Rahimpour et al., Advances in Carbon Capture, 32.
297
IEA. “Putting CO₂ to Use.,”(2019): 6, accessed February 12, 2022,
[Link]
Rahimpour et al., Advances in Carbon Capture, 33.
298
“About CCUS.”
 layers (e.g. shale) above and below.299 The CO₂ could be stored in several types of
reservoirs. The most common are deep saline formations and depleted oil and gas
reservoirs, both having a porous structure and high trapping capacity. The process of
storage involves injecting CO₂ into the reservoir in a compressed state. Depending on
geologic conditions, the CO2 will remain entrapped in the reservoir by a combination of
the mentioned seals, as well as chemical processes like dissolving in brine and formation
of carbonate minerals.300 Research is also ongoing on the potential for using porous or
fractured basalt as storage reservoirs.301 Overall, global CO₂ storage resources are
plentiful. In a review by the Global CCS Institute on sedimentary basins, two important
observations were made:
1) Suitable basins with storage reservoirs exist in nations that are generally near
emission-intensive regions. Parts of Europe, the United States, the Middle East,
Russia, and some areas in Southeast Asia fit this category.
2) More work on basin assessment is needed. It will ensure a larger storage potential
and suitable ranking to enable the full-scale deployments of CCS.302

Current/Future Global State and Partnerships

Figure 3.1.3 depicts globally existing CCS/CCUS facilities that capture 36.6 megatons
(Mt) CO₂ annually in industry and fuel transformation. The most prominent examples include:

Figure 3.1.3 World map of CCS facilities at different stages of development.303

299
“About CCUS.”
300
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” 70.
301
“About CCUS.”
302
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” 70.
303
Turan et al., 12.
 ➔ The Gorgon CCS project in Australia launched in 2019 by Chevron (capacity to capture
up to 4 Mt CO2 per year from natural gas processing).304
➔ Qatar launched a 2 Mt CO₂ per year capture facility in 2019.
➔ The CNPC Jilin Oil Field started commercial operations in China in 2018 (capturing up
to 0.6Mt CO₂ per year from a natural gas processing plant). In 2021, China also began its
offshore project developments.305
With climate goals in mind, various new projects began their development globally:
● China: the Sinopec Qilu Petrochemical project (projected to capture up to 1Mt of CO₂) is
currently under construction.
● Norway: Norcem’s Brevik plant, the world’s first application of CCUS at a cement
facility, is beginning construction.
● The Equinor, Shell, and Total partnership is developing the Northern Lights project,
which will provide CO₂ transport and storage for multiple industrial hubs located around
the North Sea.
● In the United States alone, over fifty carbon capture projects have been announced
between January 2020 and August 2021, which have the potential to double global
industrial CCUS capacity.306
These are only a few examples of both developed and developing projects that together
estimate to capture 149.3 Mt CO₂, as demonstrated in Table 3.2.4:
Operational In construction Advanced Early Operation Total
Development Development Suspended

Number of 27 4 58 44 2 135
facilities

Capture capacity 36.6 3.1 46.7 60.9 2.1 149.3

(Mtpa)
Table 3.2.4 Commercial CCS facilities in September 2021 by number and total capacity307

CCS projects become more diverse, both in size and the areas of industries they cover.
Size-wise, and on par with individual larger capture plants, networks like the United States’
Summit Carbon Solutions are making smaller capture viable. In the past, small capacity
facilities would be difficult to justify, but with the creation of solid networks, CCS has expanded
its possibilities. For example, it has allowed the expansion of the Norcem Brevik project (part of
the Langskip network) into a new sector—cement manufacturing. As a significant global emitter
with limited decarbonization options, the cement sector’s use of CCS is an indispensable step
toward net zero.308 Network development allows for shared transportation that the Porthos
304
Turan et al., 32.
305
Fajardy, “ CCUS in Industry and Transformation,” (2021), accessed February 12, 2022, CCUS in Industry and
Transformation – Analysis - IEA
306
Fajardy, “CCUS in Industry and Transformation.”
307
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” 14.
308
Turan et al., 15–16.
network in Rotterdam demonstrated through the shared pipeline for its four new blue hydrogen
projects: Air Products, Air Liquide, ExxonMobile, and Shell. Due to emerging networks trends,
various partnerships have developed between oil and gas companies, technology, shipping,
electricity generators and distributors, and financial service providers:

● ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions (ELCS) was established in 2021 to commercialize

CCS technologies and develop new CCS projects. The plans for 20 new CCS
developments were announced with a $3 billion budget to invest by 2025.
● Siemens and Aker Carbon Capture have partnered to develop CCS technology to capture
CO₂ from gas turbines and gas powered generation.
● G2, NETPower, Siemens, and EJM are working together to capture CO₂ at a liquefied
natural gas plant in the United States.
● LaFargeHolcim and Schlumberger have partnered to develop capture plants at cement
facilities in Europe and the United States.
● Italian oil major ENI is also moving into CCS in a big way. Its Ravenna Hub in Italy is
set to use depleted natural gas fields for CO₂ storage.
● In 2021, Shell expanded its activities in CCS when it became a founding partner of the
Porthos network blue hydrogen project feeding CO₂ to a shared CO₂ infrastructure.
● BP continues to develop CCS projects under its leadership of the United Kingdom’s Net
Zero Teesside network, along with partners ENI, Equinor, Shell, and Total.
● The Greensand project brought together Ineos, Maersk Drilling, and Wintershall DEA to
develop a CCS network in Denmark with storage in the North Sea.
● Valero, Black Rock, and Navigator partnered to develop a CO₂ pipeline project in the
U.S. Midwest to transport CO₂ from bioethanol plants.309

All these (and many more) CCS partnerships demonstrate the importance of networks and
cooperation that allow for a reduction in CO₂ emissions and financial costs from transportation
and storage. These partnerships will also work toward minimizing the risk for investment in
CCS technologies for emerging economies. At the moment, funding gaps make it almost
impossible for developing countries to finance CCS technologies on the same level that
developed countries do. Developing and transitioning economies are considered high risk
investment areas and will benefit from network cooperation.

U.S. Financial Tangibility

As demonstrated earlier in Figure 3.2.3, over half of existing CCS/CCUS facilities are
located and projected to be built in the United States. Among the most successful existing
facilities is Shute Creek, Wyoming (which has captured more than 110 Mt CO₂ since 1986), the
Great Plains Synfuel Plant (with over 40 million tons of CO₂ captured and stored), and the
Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant (20 million tons), and the Enid Fertilizer Plant (11 million

309
Turan et al., 18.
tons).310 The projects in development within the United States are estimated to quadruple the
global capture capacity. This places the United States on the leaderboard with both trendsetting
powers and global responsibilities.
In the United States, the largest variety of CCS technologies are setting up a global agenda:
● Relatively low CO₂ capture costs from bioethanol production and the opportunity to
access California LCFS via the production of low carbon ethanol has enabled the
proposed development of two large-scale CCS network projects in the U.S. Midwest: 1)
Summit Carbon Solutions announced a project that would link more than thirty
biorefineries with a total CO₂ capture of about 8 metric tons per annum (Mtpa). This
project would potentially be both the largest CCS network and the largest bioenergy with
CCS (BECCS) project in the world. 2) Navigator CO₂ Ventures, in collaboration with
Valero and BlackRock, has proposed a CCS network spanning more than 1,200 miles
across five states in the U.S. Midwest. The Heartland Greenway Pipeline would transport
CO₂ from biorefineries and other industrial facilities in Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska,
Minnesota, and South Dakota to a geological storage site in Illinois with a capacity of up
to 5 Mtpa.
● Industrial emissions range between 20 to 30% in the iron and steel industry and 14 to
33% in the cement industry. As demand for carbon capture has begun to grow, especially
in these hard-to-abate sectors, several proactive projects were announced for CCS
implementation. This demonstrates that the behavior of buyers has changed notably with
consideration to the carbon footprint of products and services and their supply chains.
● Large-scale, low-carbon fuel projects also emerged as a market approach with the
announced integration of CCS into planned LNG projects.
● Technologies that capture CO₂ directly from flue gas streams using solid adsorbents
received support from the public and private investments. Two at-scale projects in the
United States utilizing pre-combustion CCS technology have been announced.
● CCS technologies capable of delivering negative emissions, including both direct air
capture (DACCS) and BECCS were supported by corporate net zero pledges from a
broad set of industries, including major technology and online retail. Investments by
technology companies in carbon removal technologies are an example of this trend.311
The growing trend in CCS development in the United States resulted from many enabling
factors. Being the cradle country of CCS technologies (begun in Texas in 1972) and recently
returning to the Paris Agreement, CCS in the United States has received enhanced government
climate change attention, finalizing tax regulations and increasing investments,
● The DOE also emphasized the importance of CCS as part of its transition to a hydrogen
economy in its hydrogen strategy.312

310
Turan et al., 27.
311
Turan et al., 26–30.
312
Lawson, “Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture,” (2021), accessed February 18, 2022, 5 ([Link]);
“Hydrogen Strategy. Enabling A Low-Carbon Economy,” (2020): 6, accessed February 13, 2022,
USDOE_FE_Hydrogen_Strategy_July2020.pdf ([Link])
 ● Most significantly, in December 2020 the U.S. Energy Act of 2020 was passed, with a $6
billion budget for CCS R&D projects within the DOE and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA):
○ Six commercial-scale demonstrations (natural gas, coal, industrial) at $2.6 billion
○ Large-scale pilot projects for DOE R&D at $910 million
○ Large-scale carbon storage and validation program at $800 million
○ Front end engineering and design (FEED) studies at $200 million
○ Other activities at $1 billion
● 45Q tax credits were finalized:
○ Clarifications about geological storage certification: geological storage credit
values were significantly raised;
○ Aggregation of multiple projects: network promotion;
○ Reduction of the lookback period or credit reclaim;
○ A broader definition of carbon utilization, including providing a direct pay option;
○ Providing an extension for construction deadline (to ten years);
○ Allowing for credit to more easily offset tax obligations for multinational
corporations.
● Other changes include:
○ Financing CO₂ infrastructure and storage and funding to permit these projects;
○ Modifications to existing 48A tax credits for CCS equipment on coal-fired power
plant redevelopments;
○ Enabling the use of a tax-advantaged, master limited partnership structure;
○ Purchase of tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance CCS modernization.313

CCS/CCUS Limitations and Opportunities

When looking at challenges facing the development of CO₂ capture and utilization, it is
important to compare the general effects of CCS technologies in relation to the existing world
carbon economy. Given its effectiveness and rising potential, the CCS industry is on the rise. The
expectation defined by the IEA is that these technologies will take care of 15% of the world’s
emissions reductions between now and 2050. This equates to 2,000 large-scale facilities being
deployed by 2050—around 100 facilities commissioned each year.314 The largest challenge here
is the capital requirement. Around $1,300 billion is needed, which means unprecedented levels
of financing will have to fall on both the governmental and private sectors.315 Small-scale
facilities will require not only financial support, but larger networking, allowing for risk and cost
reduction in the long run. This is especially important for developing economies, where the risk
of investment is high and the possibilities for curbing emissions are limited.

313
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” 27.
314
“Carbon Capture and Storage: Challenges, Enablers and Opportunities for Deployment,” (2020), accessed
February 13, 2022, Carbon capture and storage: Challenges, enablers and opportunities for deployment - Global
CCS Institute
315
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” 50.
 Apart from commercial challenges, there are concerns about the safety of CCS
technologies:
1. Capture: the key is to minimize the consumed energy of the separation. In the process
of CO₂ desorption from a solvent, the amount of energy used largely depends on the
chemical composition of the solvent and the type of energy used. Ongoing research is
working to optimize these factors to make sure that their processing “fees” do not
overshadow their benefits. Other challenges that should be addressed include capital
expenditure, CO₂ uptake limits, the life cycle of solvent, disposal, and environmental
effects.316
2. Utilization: integration of materials, processes, delivery, and transformation. The caveat
is that this phase cannot replace the CO2 storage stage in delivering significant emissions
reductions. This is because use opportunities have a smaller scale and a limited scope for
negative emissions. They are still very young technologies and require further R&D and
market development. In producing fuels, the conversion is still energy-intensive and
therefore less attractive. Using CO2 for fuel production in many cases only delays its
emissions rather than removing them. Similar to the capture stage, more R&D is needed
for solvent improvement and infrastructure development.317
3. Storage: the criticism of the potential storage leakage was disputed by both Global CCS
Institute and IEA reports.318 The largest limitation in storage is its uneven distribution
throughout the globe. Network formation and carbon markets can incentivize developing
CCS projects globally.319

Concluding Statement
CCS trends are on the rise and projected to grow steadily into the future with unchanging
industry emissions and global carbon dependency. There are no reasons to dismiss the need for
carbon or the technologies that could assist with bringing them down until the world is ready for
a transition to a NZE future. However, CCS and CCUS technologies would most likely not be a
sole solution to resolving emissions problems. IEA projections for 2030 amount to 1149 Mt CO₂
to achieve NZE, whereas carbon capture projects—both existing and developing—will only
reach 81 Mt CO₂ by 2030.320 As Pacala and Socolow first acknowledged in 2004, CCS should be
used in combination with other mitigation options in order to achieve significant emission
reductions.321 Removing CCS from the list of potential solutions will complicate, prolong, and
significantly raise the cost of cutting emissions. It goes without saying, being a comparatively
young technology, that CCS would require multilevel support from world governments and the
private sector in the shape of: financial support: between $655 billion and $1,280 billion;

316
Rahimpour, Farsi, and Makarem, Advances in Carbon Capture, 42–43.
317
Rahimpour, Farsi, and Makarem, 37.
318
“Carbon Capture and Storage: Challenges, Enablers and Opportunities for Deployment.”; “About CCUS.”
319
Turan et al., “Global Status of CCS 2021,” 22.
320
“About CCUS.”
321
Pacala and Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges,” (2004), accessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
internalizing CCS/CCUS technologies into NDC projects; building networks that will support
both developed and growing economies; continuing R&D, especially in the capture and usage
phases.

Chapter 3.2: Direct Air Capture

Background: Direct Air Capture

Direct air capture is the technological process that involves removing CO₂ from a flow of
air and storing it into a formation or utilizing it elsewhere.322 A fairly recent technology, the first
DAC—built by Swiss company Climeworks—began operations in Himil, Switzerland, in 2017.
Since then, more plants have opened throughout Europe, the United States, and Canada. While
the process is indeed working to mitigate carbon from the air, there are several drawbacks to the
existing technology. Thus, it is essential to comprehensively inspect all facets of DAC for
cost-benefit analysis in order to evaluate the role it can play in policy aiming to lower global
emissions.

How It Works
In direct air capture, air is extracted from the atmosphere, typically around large emitting
industries; through a series of chemical reactions, CO₂ is extracted. There are two types of DAC
plants: high temperature aqueous solution-based (HT DAC) and low temperature solid
sorbent-based (LT DAC). The first of these requires air to pass through a series of chemical
solutions at a high temperature that extract the CO₂. LT DAC plants have solid sorbent filters that
bind with CO₂. When these filters are heated up, CO₂ is released.323 The released CO₂ is put
through a pipeline and injected into an underground rock layer or stored for later use, such as for
carbonation or in synthetic fuel. The processed air, now free of CO₂, is released back into the
atmosphere.

Current Status of DAC

There are currently nineteen DAC plants operational throughout the world, all of which
are located in advanced nations. The three major companies involved are Climeworks in
Switzerland, Carbon Engineering in Canada, and Global Thermostat in the United States. Most
DAC plants are small-scale and sell the CO₂ to soda companies for beverage carbonation, but
there is a large-scale project called Orca operating in Iceland which injects captured CO₂ into
basalt formations.324 The first of its kind, this plant is designed so that the CO₂ will calcify into
rocks in about twenty years. It extracts around 4000 tons of CO₂ a year, which is insignificant
compared to global emissions of about 37 billion tons per year. This is an indicator that DAC is
still in its early phase of development. The United States has plans to open a more large-scale

322
Sara Budinis, “Direct Air Capture – Analysis,” IEA, November 1, 2021,
[Link]
323
Budinis, “Direct Air Capture – Analysis,”
324
Budinis, “Direct Air Capture – Analysis,”
plant capable of capturing one Mt CO₂ per year; it is slated to become operational in 2024.325
Even so, to reduce global emissions at a significant level, much larger plants will be needed.

Figure 3.2.1 Current status of the top DAC companies and statistics about their operation (Credit to World
Resources Institute)

Land and Water Requirements for DAC

The land requirements for DAC are minimal, which makes it a very accessible tool for
carbon-negative options. It is possible for there to be virtually no added land requirements for
building DAC plants, which are essentially units of fans built near or within existing industrial
and geological sites. In cases where waste heat sources - such as from power plants or industrial
facilities - exist, this would greatly reduce upfront and operational costs. This also has a neutral
effect on the surrounding area in terms of agriculture and other land uses.326
Plants using solid sorbents only require one contractor, so they take up less space and
take in less CO₂, whereas liquid systems are larger.327 Water demand from DAC is also a
consideration and depends on the type of system. Liquid solvent systems require about zero to
fifty tons of water to capture one ton of carbon, depending on the temperature and humidity of

325
Budinis, “Direct Air Capture – Analysis,”
326
Katie Lebling et al., “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal,” World
Resources Institute, January 6, 2021,
[Link]
327
Mahdi Fasihi, Olga Efimova, and Christian Breyer, “Techno-Economic Assessment of CO₂ Direct Air Capture
Plants,” Journal of Cleaner Production (Elsevier, March 14, 2019),
[Link]
the location, while solid systems only use about 1.9 tons of water per one ton of carbon.328 Some
companies, like Climeworks, have developed technology using cellulose filters that bind the
captured CO₂ molecules to moisture, thus capturing and producing water, minimizing loss.329

Energy Requirements for DAC

DAC does have a high energy demand, mainly related to regeneration - the separation of
the CO₂ process that uses heat. Typically, DAC is reliant on electricity powered by fossil fuels.
The amount of energy needed is dependent on the type of energy system. Solid systems, which
operate at a lower temperature, are less energy intensive and require about 8 GJ/t CO₂. Liquid
systems require more thermal energy, about 10 GJ/tCO₂, because of their higher temperature
requirements.330 Currently, most systems rely on fossil fuels to power the process, which is not
the most efficient in terms of reaching the desired goal of reducing emissions. However, there is
a concentrated push by experts to ensure future DAC plants will run on renewable energy, which
will help mitigate this gap in achievement.

Cost of DAC
The cost of DAC is relatively high compared to other carbon mitigation methods.
Currently, costs are about $250 to $600 to capture one ton of carbon, compared, for example, to
reforestation, which costs about $50 per ton of carbon captured.331 The high cost of DAC is
associated with energy use needed per unit of CO₂ recovered, and its efficiency is fairly low due
to the relatively low absolute concentration of CO₂ in the air (approximately 415 parts per
million). 332
Overall, DAC is still in its infancy. There are only a few companies that are involved at
this stage, so no market yet exists. Despite a potential role of real importance in decarbonization,
financial support remains minimal. Indeed, this lack of significant support may be the largest
hurdle now facing this technology. Additionally, there is a limited market for the carbon that
plants sell.333 The largest existing market for captured carbon is enhanced oil recovery (EOR), in
which CO₂ gas is injected into oil reservoirs in order to increase production. EOR, however, is
highly sensitive to oil prices, which are notoriously volatile.334 More broadly, capturing carbon to
reduce emissions while enhancing oil production is contradictory in the context of climate

328
Fasihi, Efimova, and Breyer, “Techno-Economic Assessment of CO₂ Direct Air Capture Plants”
329
Lebling, McQueen, Pisciotta, and Wilcox. “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon
Removal.”
330
Soheil Shayegh, Valentina Bosetti, and Massimo Tavoni, “Future Prospects of Direct Air Capture Technologies:
Insights from an Expert Elicitation Survey,” Frontiers (Frontiers, January 1, 2021),
[Link]
331
Lebling, McQueen, Pisciotta, and Wilcox. “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon
Removal.”
332
Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni, “Future Prospects of Direct Air Capture Technologies: Insights from an Expert
Elicitation Survey,”
333
Lebling, McQueen, Pisciotta, and Wilcox. “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon
Removal.”
334
Lebling, McQueen, Pisciotta, and Wilcox. “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon
Removal.”
mitigation. For DAC to become sustainable, attracting more financing, developing into a serious
contributor to mitigation, and different kinds of carbon capture uses—and thus markets—are
necessary.

Future Plans for DAC

The general consensus, as indicated by the Paris Accords in 2015, accepted a need for
carbon-negative technologies in order to successfully achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Direct
air carbon technology is a promising method to accomplish this, with several hints of further
global investment and development. In terms of the future of DAC technology, scientists have
made several projections in terms of cost, energy use, commercialization, and widespread
utilization. Under the net nero by 2050 scenario, DAC needs to capture up to 85 Mt CO₂ per year
by 2030, as shown in Figure 3.2.2, and approximately 980 Mt CO₂ per year by 2050. Figure 3.2.2
makes clear that reaching these levels requires extensive upscaling of DAC.335

Figure 3.2.2 Projected harvest of CO₂ by Direct Air Capture by 2030 (Credit to: IEA)
Aiding the possibility of such upscaling, the cost of DAC is expected to drop significantly from
$600 to about $200 per ton.336 The drop in cost for DAC comes from its industrialization and a
“learning by doing” process that has been successful for many other forms of environmental
engineering.337
In terms of actual plans for DAC, there has been a noticeable shift in attention and
investment. As of October 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy has allocated $14.5 million of

335
Budinis, “Direct Air Capture – Analysis,”
336
Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni, “Future Prospects of Direct Air Capture Technologies: Insights from an Expert
Elicitation Survey,”
337
McQueen, Noah, Katherine Vaz Gomes, Colin McCormick, Katherine Blumanthal, Maxwell Pisciotta, and
Jennifer Wilcox. “IOPscience.” Progress in Energy. IOP Publishing, April 16, 2021.
[Link]
funding to the research and deployment of DAC technology.338 This funding, albeit insignificant
compared to other funding allocations, will be used to drastically scale up carbon capture
connected to low-carbon energy in the United States. Government funding for DAC remains
limited, but private investment is the main source of funding. More companies have
demonstrated an interest in investment or partnerships with DAC corporations. For example,
Microsoft has pledged to remove all their historical carbon emissions by 2050, and has pledged
$1 billion to research and development into the limited technology.339

Analysis of Benefits
DAC has several benefits that would contribute toward zero emissions and green energy.
The main benefit is at its core—it removes CO₂ from the atmosphere, which has a higher staying
power than other gasses that contribute to climate change and rising temperatures. Compared to
other carbon-negative technologies, DAC has variable benefits that make it accessible and
efficient. First, DAC plants can be constructed and utilized in a large variety of locations, as they
do not need to be attached to a power source, and are thus more accessible. They have a smaller
land footprint than other carbon sequestration techniques like bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage.

Analysis of Present Limitations

There are some limitations that inhibit the widespread use and accessibility of direct air
capture. DAC uses large fans and other technology that require a lot of energy to power; a 2020
study posited that DAC plants use between 46% and 121% of the world's energy. Fossil fuels
currently provide this energy, which is counterproductive to the goal of reducing emissions and
also requires money to purchase. Because of this, DAC is expensive, therefore inaccessible and
unattractive for businesses.340 Not only is it expensive, but there are limited opportunities for
return on input in terms of markets. Aside from beverages, foods, and some greenhouse
industries—which are small—there is not a substantial market for CO₂. In general, there is not a
demand for purchasing CO₂, which makes the benefit and recovery marginal.341 A number of
environmental risks, such as pipeline leakages, interruption to natural environments, or seismic
activity could occur.342

The Role of DAC in Policy

338
“Doe Announces $14.5 Million Supporting Direct Air Capture and Storage Coupled to Low Carbon Energy
Sources.” [Link], October 26, 2021.
[Link]
carbon.
339
Justine Calma, “Microsoft Wants to Capture All of the Carbon Dioxide It's Ever Emitted,” The Verge (The Verge,
January 16, 2020), [Link]
340
Anja Chalmin, “Direct Air Capture: Recent Developments and Future Plans,” Geoengineering Monitor, October
24, 2019, [Link]
341
Chalmin, “Direct Air Capture: Recent Developments and Future Plans,” Geoengineering Monitor, October 24,
2019
342
Hiyori Yoshida, “Direct Air Capture: Costs, Benefits, and the Future,” Risk Management and Decision Processes
Center, September 13, 2021, [Link]
 At its present level of development, DAC will not be impactful on its own, as it lacks the
ability to reduce carbon drastically enough to meet the necessary standards. Significant
advancements in technology need to be made before it will be usable on a large scale. DAC
would work best in conjunction with other emissions reduction efforts. The combination of DAC
and other carbon sequestration methods is extremely impactful, such as the use of CO₂ to make
synthetic fuels.343 The IEA has also slated DAC as a key tool toward the goal of net nero, and has
stated that international cooperation regarding this is integral.344 Additionally, DAC requires
more supplementary policies surrounding carbon markets (and DAC in general) in order to
generate large-scale deployment of this technology in the United States.

Policy Suggestions
Below is a comprehensive list of suggestions to fully enhance the efficiency of DAC.
Policies are both U.S.-centric and internationally-focused, under the assumption that climate
change and energy issues are not confined to the United States.

● Direct more federal funding to the research and development of new DAC programs,
gradually increasing funding to $240 million.345
● Enact policies that will increase the demand for DAC and CO₂
○ Federal procurement processes to generate competition for CO₂
○ Improving upon the 45Q tax credit to incentivize more companies to participate in
DAC
○ Establish a federal mandate for DAC based fuels.346
● Create opportunities for DAC in infrastructure, climate, and policy framework

Concluding Statement
While still currently in its early stages, direct air capture bodes a promising future if
enough research and funding is invested in it. Realistically, the use of fossil fuels will not
decrease dramatically enough in the near future to meet emissions goals and create substantial
change. Thus, solutions like DAC and CCUS are very critical in reducing emissions and
regulating climate change. More support is needed from the government, specifically support for
DAC on the front and back end of the issue. Policy and redistribution or allocation of funding is
needed to stimulate research and investment in DAC in order to mitigate the gaps, such as large
energy consumption, that exist in it today. Additionally, policy is required to create and expand
markets for captured CO₂ to incentivize private investment.
343
Giulia Realmonte et al., “An Inter-Model Assessment of the Role of Direct Air Capture in Deep Mitigation
Pathways,” Nature News (Nature Publishing Group, July 22, 2019),
[Link]
344
“Net Zero by 2050 - .NET Framework” (IEA), accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
[Link], 188.
345
John Larsen et al., “Capturing Leadership: Policies for the US to Advance Direct Air Capture Technology,”
Rhodium Group (Rhodium Group, LLC, June 23, 2020),
[Link]
346
Larsen et al., “Capturing Leadership: Policies for the US to Advance Direct Air Capture Technology”
Chapter 3.3: Geoengineering

Climate geoengineering is the planned, direct intervention of the Earth’s natural systems
with the goal of mitigating climate change. Geoengineering utilizes one or more of several
advanced technological processes to reduce the heating of oceans, soils, and the atmosphere. It is
used to manipulate the Earth’s environment to mitigate the effects of climate change and slow
global warming. Geoengineering methods are divided into three main categories: natural climate
solutions, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and solar radiation management (SRM).347 All have
advantages and limitations that need to be considered carefully.

Figure 3.3.1. The above figure shows the variety of geoengineering projects implemented worldwide. (Credit
to: ETC Group and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, link to interactive map:
[Link]
Geoengineering is already being tested and implemented in various projects around the
globe, both at local and regional levels, as illustrated in Figure 3.3.1. Given the expansive
opportunities, analyses of the different projects and their advantages, disadvantages, as well as
costs, are needed to determine the most effective approaches.

Ecosystem Restoration
Ecosystem restoration is the process of human intervention toward recovery of an
ecosystem that has been degraded or damaged by climate change.348 The goal is to initiate

347
“Climate Engineering Solutions to Climate Change and Global Warming,” [Link], June 30, 2021,
[Link]
348
“Home,” Go to Restoration Resource Center., accessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
restoration so that an ecosystem can reestablish its original self-sustaining conditions. Projects
within restoration such as afforestation are believed to act as carbon sinks, thereby adding to
climate change mitigation. Ecosystem restoration is heavily involved in reaching the U.N.
Sustainable Development Goals. The largest restoration project is the Great Green Wall, which
aims to green the entire width of Africa by planting trees and greenery across the Sahel from
Senegal to Djibouti.349 The goal of this initiative is to restore damaged land and bring people
together to sustainably develop a vast area that has lost much of its original plant cover due to a
combination of overuse by humans and drought related to climate change. It is led by the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the U.N. and the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP),
which have established the framework for the project and provided funding.350 There are a
plethora of projects dedicated to restoring ecosystems across the globe, from forest restoration in
the Lacandon forest in Mexico to coral reef restoration in Bali.

Advantages, Disadvantages, and Cost of Ecosystem Restoration

Restoration is often praised as a carbon-negative initiative because of its ethical nature in
restoring the environment to its original, pre-industrialization form. However, ecological
restoration alone is not the key to carbon mitigation, as there are many limitations and
stipulations involved. The process is very delicate, because human error in intervention could
lead to unforeseen consequences. For example, in China, the overuse of shrubbery in arid
landscapes has led to a compromised environment.351 Additionally, the ever-changing social and
economic dynamics of countries makes it difficult to gauge restoration’s long-term potential of
continued capital and physical investment in projects.352 In terms of cost, many projects vary by
type of environment and who is involved, though a study by the International Institute for
Sustainability demonstrated that in most cases, the impact of ecological restoration outweighs the
cost, as demonstrated in Figure [Link] Overall, ecosystem restoration has many co-benefits that
create a thriving environment. Thus, it is a highly attractive policy option if coupled with
aggressive energy reform.354

349
“The World's Biggest Ecosystem Restoration Project,” UNEP, April 23, 2020,
[Link]
350
“The World's Biggest Ecosystem Restoration Project,” UNEP
351
Rattan Lal, “Ecological Restoration,” Ecological Restoration , 2016,
[Link]
352
Lal, “Ecological Restoration”
353
Bernardo BN Strassburg and Agnieszka E Latawiec, “The Economics of Restoration: Costs, Benefits, Scale and
...” (International Institute for Sustainability , March 2014),
[Link]
354
Emma W Littleton et al., “IOPscience,” Dynamic modeling shows substantial contribution of ecosystem
restoration to climate change mitigation (IOP Publishing, December 14, 2021),
[Link]
 Figure 3.3.2. A cost benefit analysis of different types of ecosystems and their restorations. (Credit to: IIS)
Blue Carbon
Blue carbon refers to carbon captured by global oceans and coastal ecosystems. Greenery
and biological life in the ocean has the power to capture and hold carbon—known as a “carbon
sink”—and store it below the Earth’s surface.355 These sea plants, albeit smaller in square footage
compared to the Earth’s forest, sequester carbon at a much faster rate, as well as store it for
millions of years.356 Blue carbon is comparable to a natural form of carbon sequestration, as the
ecosystem restoration of coastal areas and wetlands greatly improves the ability for the oceanic
capture and hold of carbon. Additionally, the destruction of coastal ecosystems emits all carbon
that has been stored there. The International Blue Carbon Initiative is the largest international
organization that aims to protect tidal marshes, wetlands, and seagrasses through restoration
activities and research.357

Advantages, Disadvantages, and Cost of Blue Carbon

One of the main attractions of blue carbon is that it is a nature-based solution, meaning
that it contributes to climate regulation in three important ways: through emissions reduction,
carbon capture and storage, and via socio-economic benefits.358 It greatly helps communities
affected by climate change restore their ecosystems as well as from further damages, as wetlands
are a guard against floods and other climate disasters.359 However, blue carbon is not seen as a
truly viable option for large-scale carbon mitigation. The theoretical ability to restore carbon at

355
“What Is Blue Carbon?,” NOAA's National Ocean Service (National Ocean Service, June 1, 2013),
[Link]
356
“What Is Blue Carbon?,” NOAA's National Ocean Service
357
“The Blue Carbon Initiative,” The Blue Carbon Initiative, accessed February 16, 2022,
[Link]
358
Ralph Chami et al., “The Role of Blue Carbon in Climate Change Mitigation and Carbon Stock Conservation,”
Frontiers (Frontiers, September 7, 2021),
[Link]
rm%20protection,sinks%20beyond%20marine%20angiosperm%
359
Chami et al., “The Role of Blue Carbon in Climate Change Mitigation and Carbon Stock Conservation”
such a high level is disputed by low efficacy of implementation.360 Effective mitigation using
blue carbon to a degree that would be impactful toward negative emissions would be a
multidecadal process, assuming it is being implemented at the highest capacity.361 Additionally,
blue carbon initiatives have not been proven to be entirely cost-effective, as they can range from
$240 to $30,000 without very positive and effective outcomes.362

Space-based Geoengineering
Space-based or solar geoengineering involves mitigating the effects of climate change by
reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth.363 Methods for blocking or reflecting the sun’s
radiation include placing sunshades, mirrors, reflectors, and clouds of sunblocking particles into
space or the upper atmosphere. Researchers propose positioning objects at the L1 Lagrange
point, where gravity is equidistant from the Earth and sun, thus requiring very little energy to
keep objects in place.364 Currently, there are no active geoengineering initiatives in space, only
the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite launched by NOAA, which sits at the
L1 Lagrange point—though simply for observation and research purposes.

Advantages, Disadvantages, and Cost of Space-based Geoengineering

Space-based geoengineering has a very delicate balance between benefits and drawbacks
due to lack of actual testing. Most analyses must be reliant on theoretical approaches, scientific
proposals, and research. The major advantage of proposed space-based geoengineering is the
exponential effects that redirecting high levels of solar energy would have on global warming in
a very short timespan.365 Space-based geoengineering, if done properly, would greatly improve
the climate situation. A few stipulations place limitations on the successful implementation of
geoengineering. One is the inevitability of objects in space becoming compromised, thus
requiring the utilization of lunar or asteroid resources.366 Additionally, solar modification must
continue. If stopped, the detrimental consequences would include global warming accelerating at
greater rates than prior to modification.367 Moreover, it may not mitigate all the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions, and could even implicate existing ecosystems due to the way sunlight
impacts rainfall.368 Space-based geoengineering would also be very expensive, estimated to be
about $5 trillion over twenty-five years.369

360
Jean-Pierre Gattuso et al., “The Potential for Ocean-Based Climate Action: Negative Emissions Technologies and
Beyond,” Frontiers (Frontiers, January 25, 2021),
[Link]
361
Gattuso et al., “The Potential for Ocean-Based Climate Action”
362
Gattuso et al., “The Potential for Ocean-Based Climate Action”
363
“Space-based Geoengineering,” [Link], April 10, 2021
364
“Space-based Geoengineering,” [Link]
365
C R McInnes, “Space-Based Geoengineering: Challenges and Requirements,” September 15, 2009,
[Link] 573-574.
366
McInnes, “Space-Based Geoengineering”
367
Tara Yarlagadda, “1 Big pro and 4 Cons of Solar Geoengineering,” Inverse (Inverse, April 7, 2021),
[Link]
368
Yarlagadda, “1 Big pro and 4 Cons of Solar Geoengineering”
369
“Space-based Geoengineering,” [Link], April 10, 2021
Albedo Modification
Albedo modification is a climate engineering approach with the potential to reverse
global warming by increasing the Earth’s ability to reflect solar radiation back out into space.370
Albedo is the measure of sunlight reflected by a surface compared to the amount absorbed by
that surface. Light surfaces have a high albedo, which leads to cooling effects, as the short-wave
radiation from the sun is reflected back instead of penetrating the surface and heating it.371 Since
the 1960s, there have been proposals to artificially manipulate land, ocean, and cloud albedo
through geoengineering.372
The effectiveness of the albedo modification in lowering land and water temperatures
was proven through various climate models. Temperature reduction in general is feasible,
considering continuous investments into manufacturing albedo effects. Reducing sea surface
temperatures would reduce the risk of coral bleaching events, help maintain favorable conditions
for coral reefs, and could lessen the loss of sea ice. The most prominent examples of albedo
modification technologies include stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening,
which will be discussed in more detail later on?.
However, these albedo modification strategies do not address other effects of greenhouse
gasses like ocean acidification.373 Absorbing a quarter of emitted CO2 a year, the oceans are
undergoing chemical change. Thus, solely relying on albedo modification is not enough. Overall,
albedo modification methods cannot be a substitute for cutting CO2 emissions but may be a
feasible supplement to other carbon sequestration and geoengineering approaches.

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a geoengineering approach that uses tiny
reflective particles (aerosols) to modify the planet’s albedo. This SRM strategy involves spraying
reflective sulfate aerosol particles into the stratosphere via high altitude airplanes, tethered
balloons, or artillery.374
SAI is highly controversial and faces large amounts of criticism. This approach is
designed to mimic the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions.375 Every so often, large
volcanic eruptions release massive amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere. The
SO2 is then oxidized in the atmosphere into sulfuric acid, which has low enough vapor pressure
to form a cloud of droplets. Only strong volcanic eruptions eject sulfur into the stratosphere to
impact the climate. They do this by scattering incoming short-wave radiation back into space,

370
National Research Council (U.S.), Climate Intervention, (2015): 32, assessed February 14, 2022.
371
Yip, “Albedo,” (2021): 475, assessed February 14, 2022,
372
Cziczo et al., “Unanticipated Side Effects of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Proposals Due to Aerosol
Composition and Phase,” (2019):1, assessed February 14, 2022, .
373
Cziczo et al., “Unanticipated Side Effects of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Proposals Due to Aerosol
Composition and Phase,” 2.
374
Robock, “CHAPTER 7. Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering,” (2014): 162, assessed February 13, 2022,
[Link]
375
Kravitz et al., “Holistic Assessment of SO2 Injections Using CESM1(WACCM): Introduction to the Special
Issue,” (2019): 444, assessed February 13, 2022, [Link]
cooling the surface.376 One of the brightest examples is the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the
Philippines. On June 15, 1991, the volcano injected a 20-million ton SO2 cloud into the
stratosphere at an altitude of nearly 20 miles. According to a United States Geological Survey
(USGS) survey, it managed to cool the Earth's surface by as much as 0.6 °C in the next 15
months after the eruption, the Pinatubo Effect, as it was called, was strong but temporary.377
In addition, SAI emulates volcanic eruptions by continuously delivering sulfur twenty km
above ground. In many climate models, SAI completely stops global warming by reflecting
sunlight radiation. However, if SAI is halted for any reason, it may result in rapid global
warming at a rate much higher than pre-SAI.378
Among the many potential risks associated with this method, the most explicit are:
● Potential drought increase in certain monsoon regions. This effect is the same as the
aftermath of large volcanic eruptions.379
● Sulfuric acid is dangerous for human health and ecosystems.380
● The impact of more diffuse and less direct radiation on Earth’s surface will give the sky a
permanently hazy appearance. This will cause unquantified psychological effects, disturb
solar electricity generation, and disrupt the biosphere.381

Cost-benefit Analysis of SAI

When calculating the costs of SAI implementation, the most significant expenses fall
under delivery. As mentioned earlier, planes, tether balloons, guns, and other airships are utilized
for this purpose.

376
Robock, “CHAPTER 7. Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering,” 164.
377
“Sulfate Aerosols Can Cool the Climate and Deplete Earth’s Ozone Layer,” (2015), assessed February 13, 2022,
Volcanoes Can Affect Climate | U.S. Geological Survey ([Link]).
378
Robock, “CHAPTER 7. Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering,” 171.
379
Robock, “CHAPTER 7. Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering,” 173.
380
Robock, “CHAPTER 7. Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering,” 165.
381
Robock, “CHAPTER 7. Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering,” 176.
 Figure 3.3.3 Summary of different delivery systems of SAI. Annual 1Mt/yr382
Demonstrated in Figure 3.3.3, yearly costs of SAI implementations for a 1 Mt annual
mass delivery rate vary between $1 to $2 billion, including interest rates and depreciation costs.
To put these into perspective, the cost of climate damages emissions mitigation are commonly
estimated to be 0.2 to 2.5% of global GDP in 2030,383 equivalent to roughly $200 to $2,000
billion per year.384 This means that the most expensive part of SAI deployment is less than 1% of
potential damages. However, it is crucial to understand that costs associated with its risk
side-effects are almost impossible to calculate.

Marine Cloud Brightening

Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is a climate engineering approach that increases the
reflectivity or albedo of marine clouds by seeding them with seawater aerosol.385 MCB is among
one of the most easily implemented, potentially very effective and environmentally-friendly
geoengineering approaches. It also has the benefit of reducing tropospheric ozone pollution.386
MCB applications emerged based on the research of cloud physicist Dr. Sean Towmey,
who explained how smaller water droplets in a larger quantity increase cloud albedo. Aerosols
with seawater are sprayed, and when they evaporate, leftover particles are carried by the wind to
clouds, acting as cloud condensation nuclei. These nuclei are responsible for creating smaller
droplets in a larger amount that increase the cloud albedo effect.387,388

Technical Feasibility of MCB

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) identifies several critical
caveats that need to be addressed for MCB to be deemed technically feasible:
Generation and delivery of appropriately-sized particles. Aerosols should maintain
specific properties to form cloud droplets that are effective at reflecting solar radiation. These
properties include appropriate size, minimal variations, and the ability to overcome buoyancy
and maintain size distribution. Both R&D and advanced technologies are required to test these
properties and implement MCB under various conditions.389
Local cloud adjustments. MCB technology requires several adjustments in order to be
applicable in different locations. Particles that are too large or too small may dissipate clouds,

382
McClellan et al., “Cost Analysis of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Delivery Systems,” (2012): 6, assessed
February 16, 2022, [Link]
383
Metz et al., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007.
384
McClellan et al., “Cost Analysis of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Delivery Systems,” 6.
385
Latham et al., “Global Temperature Stabilization via Controlled Albedo Enhancement of Low-Level Maritime
Clouds,” assessed February 14, 2022, [Link]
386
Diamond et al., “Opinion,” (2022): 5, assessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
387
Twomey, “The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds,” (1977): 1149, assessed February 14,
[Link]
388
Latham et al., “Global Temperature Stabilization via Controlled Albedo Enhancement of Low-Level Maritime
Clouds.”
389
Diamond et al., “Opinion,” 3–5.
leading to the offsetting of the necessary brightening effect. Thus, remote sensing and ground
truthing measurements should be obtained for better models and projections.
Spatiotemporal scale of susceptible clouds. For MCB to have a global impact, suitable
cloud formation should be present consistently throughout large proportions of the world. In
practice, cloud susceptibility varies greatly, thus deeper local knowledge should be cultivated
through research and observations. As of today, only the areas with particularly heat-sensitive
ecosystems (such as coral reefs) are among the most researched territories, since they have
demonstrated consistent conditions for testing MCB technologies.
Signal detection. Observation of the effects of MCB largely depends on data collected
from space and a flexible timescale which allows for adjustments in response to new conditions
or concerns. Since the signals from MBC are relatively small and timeframes are relatively large
(spanning years to decades), the question emerges whether this technology could be deployed in
a timely manner.
Impacts on marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The effects of salt as part of
injected aerosols are minimal and should not interfere with important chemical processes or
impact coastal ecosystems negatively. However, the chemical effects of MCB are still under
research, as it is unknown how light dynamics affect ecosystems around MCB deployment. Salt
deposition may also affect ecosystem functions as well as coastal infrastructure. Collaboration
between physical scientists, ecologists, social scientists, and ethicists is required to fully
understand the potential impacts of MBC on marine ecosystems and coastal communities.390
Large-scale circulation and precipitation response. The implementation of cloud
brightening could lead to potentially large-scale circulation responses with unanticipated
consequences.391 Darkening clouds in other locations, for example, could make an entire process
counterproductive. Studies have identified that cloud brightening can negatively impact rainfall
patterns in sensitive areas such as the Amazon—a major sink for CO₂.392 Assessing the risks of
MCB and defining what regions are “vulnerable,” and thus of greatest concern, as well as what
level of risk are “unacceptable,” will require a holistic collaboration among the fields of ecology,
social science, and ethics, as well as stakeholder communities.393
Financial uncertainty. The cost of MCB is largely unknown. The Royal Society
estimates £25 million ($33.5 million) and a further three years of research are necessary. Beyond
these figures, the Royal Society projects around £30 million ($40 million) for tooling, which will
allow a large number of spray vessels to be built rapidly in the event of a global emergency.394

Concluding Statement

390
Zarnetske et al., “Potential Ecological Impacts of Climate Intervention by Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth.”
391
Twomey, “The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds,” 1152.
392
Jones et al., “Climate Impacts of Geoengineering Marine Stratocumulus Clouds,” (2013): 8, assessed February
13, 2022, [Link]
393
Diamond et al., “Opinion,” 6.
394
Salter [Link]., “Sea-Going Hardware for the Cloud Albedo Method of Reversing Global Warming,” (2008): 4003,
assessed February, 16, 2022, [Link]
 With all the benefits and disadvantages in mind, geoengineering is still in dire need of
research and a global level of cooperation. In particular, proper financing and accounting for
traditionally underserved communities are critical for legitimate climate intervention research.
Advancements in the technical field are quite promising, bringing the scientific community
closer to understanding climate engineering potential. However, responsible research programs
must guarantee that all social feasibility checkpoints are promptly addressed. It is crucial to
holistically view the effects and consequences of all geoengineering methods in order to combat
climate change without creating “sacrifice zones”—places with the disproportional burden of
severe climate events as a consequence to modifying natural ecosystems or albedo effect. It is
also clear that none of the methods are effective enough to negate anthropogenic emissions on
their own. The system of several approaches would be more effective, given that safety is
guaranteed.

Chapter 4: Current Realities in the Geopolitics of Energy

Introduction
According to the IEA, by April 2021, the EU and forty-four other nations have pledged a
net zero emissions by a 2050 target. The pledges comprise nearly 70% of world carbon
emissions.395 Such a goal appears lofty, however, much as with international climate agreements,
the effort to transition away from carbon-based energy is a complicated affair. Global energy
realities present political obstacles to a consensus-based international movement to address
climate change.
The capability for nation-states to develop domestic non-carbon energy is highly variable
and unequal. Moreover, new resources of carbon fuel have emerged in abundance, including for
underdeveloped and emerging nations. This presents a distinct challenge to international climate
diplomacy, whose goal may be to convince these nations to leave such abundance in the ground.
These aims are also not helped by the fact that Russia, the United States, the EU, and China are
all large sources of carbon-based energy themselves. Still, the path to non-carbon energy must be
led by those who have the capital and capacity to lead the transition.
At present, the production of both oil and natural gas has continued to increase. Despite
real growth in non-carbon energy technologies, they remain comparatively small when placed
beside the levels of extraction and usage in the carbon energy sector.396 These increases are
unlikely to stop. The largest expansion in global energy consumption since the 1970s has
continued to be in Asia, as China, India, and other states have developed their economies. These
nations are poised to ensure that demand for oil, gas, and coal is unlikely to undergo rapid and
dramatic decline without profound changes.

395
IEA. “Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis.” International Energy Agency, October 2021.
[Link]
396
IEA. “Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis.” International Energy Agency, September 2021.
[Link]
 Sustainable development of a non-carbon energy sector is dependent on geography. Wind
and solar energy require particular weather conditions and large amounts of available land.
Weather, climate, and topography are factors that determine the possibility for hydropower, while
geothermal relies on specific conditions of geology and precipitation. Nuclear power, on the
other hand, requires large amounts of investment and technological expertise, which often only
exists in developed countries. The reality of non-carbon energy is therefore unequally
distributed. Developing it at a high level, though improving energy self-reliance, also comes with
reliance on non-domestic entities who are needed to invest in and build the relevant technologies.
The energy transition therefore will bring its own geopolitical impacts. While the United
States may lose strategic advantage in decreasing demand for carbon sources, Russia and
Organization of Petroleum Producing Countries (OPEC) will suffer a much greater loss due to
their own deep dependence on exports of oil and gas. To date, China has benefited significantly
from its global sales of solar and wind technology, even as it remains the world’s largest oil
importer.397 At the same time, Russia and China are positioned to gain considerable advantage by
the export of nuclear power technology, compared with the United States and Europe.
One can look to the future of addressing climate change with hope as new technologies
and alternatives surface. However, geopolitics will play a vital role in the success of non-carbon
energy. The aforementioned points represent some of the challenges and complexities already
evident. They offer strong evidence of the need for international diplomacy, cooperation, and
commitment to change. The transition away from carbon is not a matter of if, but how and when.

The New Carbon Rush

There has been hope that dwindling carbon fuel reserves would naturally incentivize
nations to look elsewhere for their energy. However, recent discoveries and the implementation
of new technological processes have revealed that the supply is anything but dwindling.398 If
nations are to effectively reduce carbon fuel use, there must be a focus on the fact that in the
future, fossil fuel sources may be cheaper and in more ready supply than ever before. Because of
the incentive for energy independence and rapidly growing demand for power and heat, new
reserves of oil and gas—as well as existing reserves of coal—will remain attractive for
developing nations in particular. The new carbon rush in these countries represents a
fundamental roadblock in the transition away from carbon fuels.
Oil and gas in particular, have grown rapidly in production in the United States. The
United States reported a 19% decrease in proved oil reserves in 2019. Similarly, natural gas
reserves declined by 4%.399 Looking to Figure 4.1, one may observe that reserves of both oil and

397
IEA. “Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis.”
398
Global Change Data Lab. (2021, July 8). Oil reserves. Our World in Data. Retrieved February 23, 2022, from
[Link]
399
Grape, S. G. (2022, January 13). U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2020. Energy
Information Administration. Retrieved February 23, 2022, from [Link]
natural gas have sharply increased since 1997. In Figure 4.2, the change corresponds with an
increase in oil production since 2010.400

Figure 4.1: U.S. Proved Reserves 1980-2020 (U.S. Energy Information Administration: U.S. Crude Oil and
Natural Gas Proved Reserves)

Figure 4.2 U.S. crude oil production surpassed 12 million barrels per day in April. U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA).
The figure reveals how hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques,
implemented since the 1990s, have allowed both natural gas and oil reserves to increase. The
increase is expected to continue as more fields are developed with the newly implemented
technology. In late 2014, rapid increases in U.S. production led to oversupply in the global
market, causing the price of oil to plummet.401 This increase of supply is not limited to one

400
Geary, E. (2019, July 8). U.S. crude oil production surpassed 12 million barrels per day in April. U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved February 23, 2022, from
[Link]
401
United States Energy Information Association. (2020, January).
country. Oil reserves throughout the world have increased since 1980. Virtually every
oil-producing country – both old and new – have had large increases. The greatest changes have
occurred in Africa, with a total increase of 134% since 1980.402 The importance of this cannot be
overstated. The largest discoveries and expansions of carbon fuel are occurring in the developing
world.
By 2018, the electrification rate in Africa was at 45%—81% of this electricity was
provided by carbon fuel.403 With a fifth of the world’s population and the lowest household
electrification rate, Africa’s energy consumption is in its infancy. The amount needed to develop
countries in Africa will mean an incredible increase in carbon fuel usage and emissions. The
increase will be facilitated by vast quantities of oil and natural gas discovered in places such as
Angola and the Congo, which saw 466% and 309% increases in oil reserves, respectively. With
reduced operating costs and increased efficiency in extraction across the board, developed and
developing nations will have little incentive to move away from carbon-based fuels.404
The new carbon fuel rush represents a key challenge in the incentive base for moving
away from carbon-based energy. Carbon, as it stands, is available in greater quantities every year.
There must be an intentional effort to mitigate this fact.

Geopolitics of Non-Carbon Energy

Geopolitical context factors massively into the use of carbon fuels. It has the overall
international affairs environment of the twenty-first century. Moving away from carbon fuels
represents an opportunity to rewrite the geopolitics of energy. However, the transition is just
that—a revision. Non-carbon fuel presents similar challenges and dependencies based not only
on geography, but international affairs. Remedying the need for non-carbon fuel requires large
amounts of land and investment, which is currently lacking. Sustainable non-carbon energy is
still based on geography and requires large allocations of resources. From fields of wind turbines
to deserts coated in solar panels, the cost is high. Every major non-carbon energy source requires
its own rare resources. Lithium, nickel, and other rare-earth metals must be extracted in
quantities larger than ever before. Additionally, the unreliable nature of such energy risks
dependencies on the importation of energy – primarily carbon-based, – which will work to undo
the transition away from fossil fuels. Potential supplemental energy sources such as nuclear have
come under controversy in many countries where implementation may mean a successful energy
independence. Counter to this, countries such as China seek to dominate these fields in
investment and research development. Without independent domestic development, nations risk
402
“Oil Reserves.” Our World in Data. Global Change Data Lab , 2021.
[Link]
403
Tekie, Bruk, Pedi Obani, Gerald Forkour, Ebenezar Amankwaa, Thelma Arko, Qondi Moyo, and Maria Ancilla
Bomband. “Africa’s Development - United Nations University.” United Nations: Institute for Natural Resources in
Africa . United Nations, 2019.
[Link]
d-Assets_INRAReport2019.pdf.
404
“Statistical Review of World Energy: Energy Economics: Home.” British Petroleum. The British Petroleum
Company Ltd., 2021.
[Link]
future dependencies on foreign technology. The future requires the confrontation of these factors.
It also requires the large mobilization of resources and international leadership on the methods of
non-carbon development.
In 2014, China surpassed the United States in the production of low-carbon energy. At
each country’s current yearly rate of increase, China will more than double the United States’
production by the end of the decade.405 This is possible due to massive government investment in
large-scale, low-carbon energy projects. Projects such as the Three Gorges Dam, with a cost near
$30 billion, produced energy constituting 4% of China’s total energy needs after the first three
years of operation.406 This project and others have become a focal point of energy development
in China. Comparative projects elsewhere in the world are hard to find, and reveal an emerging
dominance in China for non-carbon fuel. These projects additionally represent a preview of the
scale of mobilization needed to provide for a nation’s energy needs without carbon.
Although the overall cost of non-carbon sources has decreased in recent years, the cost of
transition away from fossil fuels will invariably be high.407 From 2010 to 2020, the United States
saw a decrease in research and development of renewable sources of energy.408 The IEA
estimates that by 2030, investment in non-carbon energy must reach $1.3 trillion in order to meet
the target of NZE 2050. This would mean surpassing the 2014 record-high $1.2 trillion invested
in carbon fuels.409 The simple reality is that the investment apparatus is not there. The largest
amounts of research and development strictly favor carbon fuels. Without a marked change in
this trend, the United States and others risk not only failing their emissions goals, but also being
left dependent on foreign technology and development for future non-carbon energy.
The reality of constructing a non-carbon system is that it will be resource intensive. Most
nations will have access to non-carbon sources of energy, but the distribution of suitable land and
resource areas is uneven.410 For example, areas such as the southwestern United States are
suitable for the development of solar, while northern Europe possesses the potential for efficient
wind power. Countries with high volcanic activity may make use of geothermal energy.
Conclusively, the development of non-carbon energy requires consideration of the economic and
security infrastructure connected to these regions.
Access to non-carbon energy will become a focus of domestic energy policy. However,
beyond simple maintenance lies other issues as well. There exists a significant discrepancy of
405
“Electricity Generation from Low-Carbon Sources.” Our World in Data. Global Change Data Lab, 2021.
[Link]
406
Ponseti, Marta, and Jordi Lopez Pujol. “The Three Gorges Dam Project in China.” Chinese Academy of Science ,
2006. [Link]
407
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Average U.S.
construction costs for solar and wind generation continue to fall - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA). U.S. Energy Information Administration , September 16, 2020.
[Link]
408
IEA. “Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis.”
409
“Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis.” IEA. International Energy Association, 2021.
[Link]
410
Timmons, David, Jonathon M Harris, and Brian Roach. “The Economics of Renewable Energy - Boston
University.” Boston University. Global Development and Environment Institute , 2014.
[Link]
power produced versus power generated in non-carbon fuels. Where a traditional carbon-based
energy plant may produce energy at about 90% of its capacity, a source such as wind may
struggle to reach 30%.411 This will take comparatively more land and resources to produce a
similar amount of energy. While in the future this technology is expected to improve, the reality
is that development must occur now.
The need for large amounts of land and resources for non-carbon fuel cannot be
understated. These resources will need to be procured on the international market and will create
unique geopolitical challenges. For example, key in the production of electric vehicles, lithium
represents a strategic resource poised to gain importance in the coming years. The worldwide
production of lithium increased by 21% in 2021. Nearly all of the U.S. supply is imported, with
54% of these imports coming from Argentina. While discoveries of lithium in the United States
account for nearly 10% of the world’s reserves, the United States relies entirely on
importation.412 The reality is that lithium represents only one of many precious metals which will
be required in the development of non-carbon energy. If the United States is to undergo a
transition, it will require secure methods of procurement of the materials required for
development. The fact represents an undeniable geopolitical challenge in the future.

Carbon Hegemony
In 2020, the United States led the world in crude oil production, with a total of 706 mt
(778.23 t) produced. During the same period, the United States was not even in the top ten of oil
exporters. 413At the same time, Russia was both number two in production and exportation.
Producing 12.4% of the world supply of oil and exporting just over half that number, Russia
represents a large player in the world market. It likewise leads the world in the export of natural
gas. Looking at renewables, Russia has a starkly different outlook. It is fifth in hydroelectricity,
fourth in nuclear energy, and most important of all, it produces comparatively miniscule amounts
of wind and solar energy.414 In the pursuit of non-carbon development, Russia has shown very
little progress. Despite having a high potential for both hydroelectric and wind power
development, the majority of their energy development is continually focused on carbon.415
Russia occupies a powerful position in the carbon export market and has little incentive to
jeopardize this position in favor of a transition away from fossil fuels.
This sentiment is not isolated to just Russia. OPEC, well known for its ability to dictate
the global market, has also disagreed with the assessment of a reduction in carbon fuels. In 2016,
its former secretary general Abd Salem Al-Badri stated that, “Fossil fuels will need to supply
more than three-quarters of the energy mix by 2040,” elaborating that “Fossil fuels remain

411
Timmons, David, Jonathon M Harris, and Brian Roach. “The Economics of Renewable Energy
412
Mineral Commodity Summaries. U.S. Geological Survey, 2022.
[Link]
413
IEA. “Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis.”
414
IEA. “Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis.”
415
Iusubova , Narmina. University of Northern Iowa . UNI, July 2017.
[Link]
abundant and are necessary for our future, just as they have been an essential part of our past.”416
While there is truth in the statement that carbon fuel will represent a key part of the future of
energy, that outlook represents a significant market resistance to transition. While this represents
a predictable attitude from one of the largest oil-producing organizations, OPEC can affect the
ability for a country to progress in non-carbon development. Carbon fuels are key, and market
manipulation of their supply can ensure dependency for the foreseeable future. This threat was
articulated by the current OPEC secretary general Mohammed Barkindo, who warned that, “If
the necessary investments [to fossil fuels] are not met, it could have not only implications as
viewed in current gas developments in Europe and elsewhere around the world, [but] leave
long-term scars, not only for producers but consumers as well”.417 The statement is real for
countries who have already been affected by a shortage of energy. Germany, relying on Nord
Stream 2 for natural gas from Russia, broke from the rest of Europe on its outlook toward
Russian aggression in Ukraine.418 Despite eventually momentarily halting the opening of the
pipeline,419 the moves have shown the influence carbon fuel has on international politics. Carbon
producers will not only disincentivize a transition through market power, but through hard power
as well. The geopolitical reality of the future will be to mitigate this influence.
Mitigation is possible, but only through the fulfillment of need. The United States, as one
of the largest producers of carbon fuel,420 could facilitate a movement away from countries like
Russia, and likewise away from a carbon future. This involves not only energy sources, but
material sources needed for non-carbon energy. The geopolitical reality of the future cannot rely
on the goodwill of the market nor the actions of those incentivized to continue exporting carbon
fuels. It requires a vanguard of policy which promotes the market viability of non-carbon energy.

Concluding Statement
Transition from carbon fuel creates geopolitical issues. New and robust sources of carbon
fuel discovered within the past decades reveal that the initial conception of limited amounts of
oil and natural gas is false. As a result, nation states will be continually incentivized to extract
from these reserves. In addition, some of the largest of these reserves are geographically
positioned in areas where countries are poised to enact the most economic development. Without
mitigation of market incentive to continually invest in these new sources of carbon fuel, the
reality of the future is an increase, not decrease, in use of carbon energy.

416
“Fossil Fuels and the Future.” Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries . OPEC, 2016.
[Link]
417
Suleymanova, Radmilla. “OPEC Says Oil Will Remain Number One, Despite Green Energy Push.” OPEC News
| Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, September 28, 2021.
[Link]
418
Eckert, Vera, and Kate Abnett. “How Much Does Germany Need Russian Gas?” Reuters. Reuters, January 20,
2022. [Link]
419
Eddy, M. (2022, February 22). Germany responds to Russia, halting Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. The New York
Times. Retrieved February 23, 2022, from
[Link]
420
IEA. “Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – Analysis.”
 In the scenario of transitioning into non-carbon sources of energy, there exists a similar
litany of geopolitical complications. Non-carbon fuel is restricted to its viable geography, and the
distribution of such fuel around the world is uneven. Each lacks the power generation capacity of
carbon fuels, which necessitate more land and resources than would otherwise be required.
Regardless of this technology progressing, the material cost of non-carbon energy will create
similar trade dependencies that countries experience today. More rare-earth metals such as
lithium will need to be extracted, traded, and processed, creating and expanding on commodity
trade routes. The resulting increase and movement of trade will hold high strategic significance
and represent potentials for conflict. Furthermore, the research and development of non-carbon
energy is vital to the potential success of a non-carbon system. With research being concentrated
in particular countries, there exists the possibility of the development of new dependencies and
strategic vulnerabilities.
Finally, the existing carbon hegemony will not disappear overnight. Its players, the
largest producers of carbon energy, are not currently incentivized to stop their exportation, and
will actively pursue efforts to halt the transition away from carbon energy. They each represent a
potential roadblock in the development of non-carbon energy. They threaten, both through
market power and more literally in their rhetoric, to leverage their position to maintain the status
quo. Without a reliable exporter of carbon energy who also seeks a transition to non-carbon
energy, dependent national economies could remain tied to carbon.
In undertaking the effort to move away from carbon energy, one also accepts the
geopolitical realities in the transition, implementation, and normalization of non-carbon energy.
Without confronting these realities, their efforts will inevitably fail.

Chapter 5: Energy Security

Definition of Energy Security

Energy security is defined by the IEA as “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources
at an affordable price.”421 Theoretically, energy security for a country means access to energy
regardless of events and circumstances in other states. In practical terms, this means each nation
should have backup supplies or alternatives in case of serious interruptions to the supply of a
critical source.
There are many potential energy security issues including, but not limited to,
geopolitical conflict or political instability in energy-exporting countries, attacks on supply
infrastructure, natural disasters, terrorism, and political manipulation by energy-rich countries.
Energy security is important to every country, since it defines an issue of national security and
economic stability. For governments, past energy crises have only highlighted the need for
energy security.
Experience shows that the majority of nations follow the policy of developing to a high
degree whatever energy sources exist within their borders. For a large number of emerging

421
“Emergency Response Exercises – Energy Security.” IEA. IEA. Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
countries, this includes the use of coal—the most widespread fossil fuel—which often plays a
central role in power generation and heating for both industry and residences.
Even as climate change becomes a more pressing problem, countries are still hesitant to
take the necessary steps to reduce their carbon footprint. Such is the case where energy security,
or the reliance on domestic resources, will contribute over time to forms of insecurity stemming
from growing climate impacts.422

Past Instances of Energy Security Issues

Historically, energy security issues for the United States were generally tied to oil or
other forms of carbon energy. In 2020, petroleum made up 32.2% of the United States’ energy
consumption by source.423 While still a significant percentage, oil’s share of energy production
within the United States has decreased over time, and since 2005, has also decreased in overall
volume.424 The United States still does not produce all the oil it consumes. Though imports have
fallen by more than a third, the country continues to import more than six million barrels per day
of crude oil, rendering it dependent primarily on neighboring Canada and Mexico.425 This has
drastically reduced the vulnerability to crises of the global market. In fact, rising oil production
and decreasing consumption has made the United States several times—on the scale of a
monthly basis—a net exporter of petroleum (crude oil and petroleum products) since 2019.426
Such is not the case for a majority of the country’s allies, both in Europe and East Asia. The
nations Japan and South Korea, as well as Europe, have endured energy security problems to
present.
The primary reasons for energy crises relating to oil imports are interruptions in supply
due to political instability in oil exporting countries, failures of infrastructure, lack of
development of new reserves, and manipulation of the global market through the withholding of
supply, among others. The most famous historical examples of such crises occurred in the 1970s,
such as the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. In 1973, Arab members of OPEC temporarily halted oil
shipments to the United States, the Netherlands, Portugal, Rhodesia (modern-day Zimbabwe),
and South Africa in response to their support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War.427 The
embargo had dramatic effects on these countries, including the price of a barrel of oil

422
IEA, “Emergency Response Exercises - Energy Security.”
423
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA). EIA. Accessed February 14, 2022. [Link]
424
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” U.S. petroleum
consumption decreased to a 25-year low in 2020 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
EIA. Accessed February 20, 2022. [Link]
425
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” As total U.S. crude oil
imports have fallen, imports from Canada have increased - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA). EIA. Accessed February 20, 2022.
[Link]
enezuela%20have%20generally%20decreased.
426
EIA, “U.S. petroleum consumption decreased to a 25-year low in 2020 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).”
427
“Arab Oil Embargo.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
quadrupling in the United States.428 In this situation, the dependence on the Middle East was
leveraged by Arab nations both punishing supporters of Israel and elevating oil prices in order to
capture more revenue. This prompted considerable changes in energy policy, including increased
domestic oil production in the United States and a greater focus on energy efficiency.429

Cyber Attacks and Energy Security

The economy as a whole is transitioning to a more digital landscape. The energy sector is
simply one part of this digitalization, albeit an important part. “Energy systems around the world
are becoming more interconnected and intelligent.”430 There are many benefits to this shift,
however, it does open up the possibility for new risks, notably cyberattacks. In 2021, there were
many high profile cyber breaches “such as Solar Winds, Colonial Pipeline and dozens of others
that had major economic and security related impact.”431 Governments around the world are
aware of this issue, yet it remains quite prominent. Studies show that “cybercriminals can
penetrate 93 percent of company networks.”432 This is quite a high degree of risk for the energy
sector, especially as a transition away from carbon sources to more variable non-carbon sources
necessitates further digitalization.
The U.S. government has taken steps to address the issue of cybersecurity. It organizes
drills through its Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER).
CESER runs numerous cybersecurity exercises such as Liberty Eclipse, which is “the
Department of Energy’s cybersecurity-focused exercise series.”433 It also runs CyberStrike,
“CESER’s professional cybersecurity training for operational technology environments.”434 More
money has been invested into developing tools to understand cyber risks and protecting against
them, as well as building more critical infrastructure.435 These strides are a step in the right
direction, and have already had an impact. On May 7, 2021, the Colonial Pipeline Company was
able to “proactively [halt] pipeline operations in response to a ransomware attack.”436 They were
then able to work in conjunction with the DOE, the FBI, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “to mitigate
gas shortages and resume operations as quickly, safely, and securely as possible.”437 This shows
428
Encyclopædia Britannica, “Arab Oil Embargo.”
429
Encyclopædia Britannica, “Arab Oil Embargo.”
430
IEA, “Energy Security - Areas of Work.”
431
Brooks, Chuck. “Cybersecurity in 2022 – a Fresh Look at Some Very Alarming Stats.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine,
January 24, 2022.
[Link]
tats/?sh=38497a256b61.
432
Brooks. ““Cybersecurity in 2022 – a Fresh Look at Some Very Alarming Stats.”
433
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “Energy Security.”
434
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “Energy Security.”
435
“2021: Ceser Made Huge Strides to Secure U.S. Energy Sector from Evolving Threats.” [Link]. Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response. Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
436
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “2021: Ceser Made Huge Strides to Secure
U.S. Energy Sector from Evolving Threats.”
437
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “2021: Ceser Made Huge Strides to Secure
U.S. Energy Sector from Evolving Threats.”
potential. However, amid the multiple other cyber attacks in 2021 that were not effectively
stopped, it is clear that what has been done to date is not enough. The shift to a more digital
future is not likely to stop. The U.S. government needs to devote considerable resources to
strengthening the energy sector’s cybersecurity system. Vulnerability in this area is not
recommended during a transition away from carbon sources.

The New Energy Security Issue: How Dependence on Renewables Impacts Energy Security
In the past, energy security was primarily related to oil embargoes or price manipulations,
but contemporary energy security has a new issue: renewables. While renewables like solar and
wind are non-carbon sources and thus help mitigate emissions, they are not constant sources of
energy. They are intermittent, so they require backups to fill in gaps in generation and are highly
dependent on weather conditions. The share of renewable generation in the United States is
expected “to increase from 20% in 2021 to 22% in 2022 and 24% in 2023.”438 The share in other
nations is much lower and will likely only increase as “countries that represent 70% of global
emissions of carbon dioxide” put in place actual policies “to reach net-zero emissions by
mid-century or soon after.”439 While this does not mean that 100% of energy will come from
renewable sources, a large portion will. Thus, issues of energy reliability need to be considered.
Renewable energy has been considered an energy security solution for dependence on
coal and oil. Its costs have fallen greatly since 2015, and it theoretically improves a country’s
self-reliance by replacing imports. However, even as it solves one problem, it introduces others.
These problems have been highlighted with the recent energy crisis in Europe. The EU’s “share
of renewable energy in energy consumption increased continuously between 2004 and 2019,
from 9.6% to 19.7%.”440 The energy shares of energy consumption between EU member states
are as high as 56.4% in Sweden and 43.1% in Finland.441 This increase is completed with an
attempt to dramatically cut the use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear power. This leaves these
nations highly vulnerable to environmental disasters. Dramatic weather changes coupled with a
resurgence in energy use as the pandemic eases has forced Europe to rely on other countries for
energy. The United States, for instance, has sent dozens of tankers carrying LNG to Europe.442
The policy effects of this crisis are clear, as Europe has moved to include nuclear energy and
natural gas as “green” in their new energy policies.
This crisis has illuminated the risks involved with renewable energy. The fear is that
countries might see the recent European energy crisis as a warning and put more focus on energy

438
EIA, “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.”.
[Link]
439
“Security of Clean Energy Transitions – Analysis.” IEA. IEA. Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
440
“Shedding light on energy on the EU. EuroStat.” Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
441
EuroStat, “Shedding light on energy on the EU.”
442
Blackmon, David. “How Europe's Energy Crisis Could Force the EU to Adopt More Sensible Policies.” Forbes.
Forbes Magazine, January 5, 2022.
[Link]
ore-sensible-policies/?sh=18b589c73ed3.
security as opposed to making dramatic shifts in their energy sources. At this moment in time,
coal is the primary resource for countries to maintain energy security. Coal has very well
established infrastructure, it is very widespread, and it is cheap. This makes it easy for both
developed countries and developing nations to rely on. Another issue is the lack of trust in
governments that this crisis has caused. The U.S. government acknowledged that public
confidence is a key aspect of energy security.443 To mitigate any potential hesitations of the
public about a shift to utilizing more renewable energy, the IEA recommended that governments
“provide credible step-by-step plans to reach their net zero goals, building confidence among
investors, industry, citizens and other countries.”444 This will be especially important following
Europe's energy crisis. A shift to primarily renewable energy introduces new energy security
risks, therefore a lack of understanding or even disagreement by the public should be mitigated
to the highest degree possible.
The final energy security risk involved with a transition to primarily non-carbon energy
sources is access to key minerals required for the production of those forms of energy. “Overall
mineral requirements for clean energy technologies almost triple between today and 2050 in the
STEPS, and up to sixfold in the NZE.”445 This is a significant amount, especially given that there
are far fewer and smaller countries exporting these critical minerals. Increases in the price of
minerals due to political unrest within these countries, or disruptions in the supply chain, “could
make solar panels, wind turbines, EV batteries and grid lines 5-15% more expensive, with ripple
effects on the costs of transitions.”446 This is concerning given the goal of providing energy at an
affordable price. Solar and wind are currently very cheap energy sources, but this could change.
This potential for disruption needs to be accounted for by policy makers. Similar mechanisms to
the existing energy security solutions for potential oil supply chain disruptions might function in
this case.

Climate Change and Energy Security

Excluding the looming transition to primarily renewable energy sources, climate change
introduces new energy security issues. Climate change not only increases the average
temperature, but increases the unpredictability of weather as well as the frequency of extreme
weather events. It is estimated that “around a quarter of the world’s electricity networks face a
high risk of destructive cyclone winds, while over 10% of dispatchable generation fleets and
coastal refineries are prone to severe coastal flooding and a third of freshwater-cooled thermal
power plants are located in high water stress areas.”447 This is quite a significant number. In the
case of extreme weather events, many would be faced with blackouts for extended periods of
time. In terms of energy security, this is one of the worst problems.

443
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “Energy Security.”
444
IEA, “Emergency Response Exercises – Energy Security.”
445
“Energy Security and the Risk of Disorderly Change – World Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis.” IEA. IEA.
Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
446
IEA, “Energy Security and the Risk of Disorderly Change – World Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis.”
447
“Electric Vehicles – Analysis.” IEA. IEA, November 1, 2021. [Link]
 The current state of electricity grids only compounds this problem. The current structure
of the electricity grid is very lean. This means that utility companies try to keep costs down by
having “few redundant power lines for critical nodes. Power lines also aren't buried in areas
where they might pose a risk (like sparking wildfires). As a result, failures are more likely to
create cascading outages or other problems.”448 The electricity grid has been streamlined,
opening it up to more potential failures in the case of extreme weather events, which are
increasing. In addition, as the world moves to mitigate climate change through clean energy
transitions, it transitions to more renewable energy technologies, “which are often sensitive to a
changing climate.”449 This problem was exemplified in the recent European energy crisis. The
current energy structure is not set up to deal with climate change. The government needs to take
action to ensure that energy structures can cope with the energy security risks that climate change
brings.
There have been limited steps taken by governments and organizations to address these
issues. Actions by the U.S. government primarily involve exercises to coordinate reactions
within the energy sector to extreme weather events or other natural disasters.450 These exercises
come in the form of the Clear Path series. This series helps address the possibility of damage or
complete failure to multiple critical infrastructure sectors.451 It does so by running exercises and
building upon and validating “improvements made in response to lessons learned from previous
exercises and real-world incidents.”452 This is a step in a positive direction. However, the IEA
stressed the need for even greater resilience to climate change impacts if the energy sector is to
be able to “cost-effectively meet the rising energy demands driven by global economic and
population growth.”453 While the United States' population is decreasing, the global population is
not, and global economic growth continues to rise. As a world leader, the United States plays a
critical role within this global economy. Therefore, increased resilience within the United States
energy sector would benefit the economy as a whole.

Markets Impact on Energy Security

The market can also impact energy security. Altering demand is a powerful tool that can
be used to help achieve goals. One specific area in which the market might address energy
security concerns is in relation to the demand for oil. Particularly in the United States, the
demand for oil in the transportation sector is quite high, as many people have personal cars. In
addition, much of the United States’ cross-country shipping is done by trucks, rather than
potentially more fuel-efficient methods such as trains.454 However, the potential for reducing oil
448
Arciniegas Rueda, Ismael, and Aaron Clark-Ginsberg. “The Downside of a Lean Electric Grid.” RAND
Corporation. RAND Corporation, October 13, 2020.
[Link]
449
IEA, “Electric Vehicles – Analysis.”
450
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “Energy Security.”
451
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “Energy Security.”
452
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “Energy Security.”
453
IEA, “Emergency Response Exercises – Energy Security.”
454
Kiersz, Andy. “Here's How Stuff Gets Shipped across America.” Business Insider. Business Insider, April 22,
2014. [Link]
demand in the transportation sector lies in the development and increased marketing of electric
cars. “Electric car sales reached a record 3 million in 2020, up 40% from 2019. This strong
growth was a stark contrast with general car market sluggishness globally, with overall car sales
down 16% due to the Covid-19 crisis.”455 While still a small fraction of the overall market, this
number is clearly increasing and has the potential to dramatically reduce fuel demand.
The EV sector is only going to increase, as “More than 20 economies have announced
targets to phase out internal combustion vehicles over the next 10-30 years.”456 For the United
States specifically, “the federal aim is for EVs to make up 50% of new passenger cars and light
trucks sold by 2030. At the same time, a number of individual states have announced more
ambitious targets.”457 This has potential in two areas: mitigating climate change and reducing
traditional energy security risks. Currently, because of the transportation sector, the economy is
reliant on oil. However, if internal combustion engines could be phased out—and it looks as
though they will due to increasing amounts of EVs—this reliance will be reduced. This would
further reduce the United States’ dependence on other oil producing countries. To address the
energy security issue of oil in this way, incentives need to be implemented to bolster demand.
Such incentives include “differentiated taxation of vehicle registration, depending on the vehicle
tailpipe CO₂ and/or pollutant emissions, spurs market penetration of zero-emission vehicles.
Fiscal incentives for vehicle purchases, as well as complementary measures that enhance the
value proposition of driving electric (e.g. preferential parking rates, road toll rebates and
low-emission zones).”458 The market will play a key role in mitigating climate change and
addressing energy security issues. Nonetheless, there needs to be incentives so that the market
reacts in the desired direction.
A switch to primarily EVs is not without risks. The two primary energy security issues it
introduces are the potential for increased volatility within the oil market and the need to increase
electricity production. In the former, the problem with oil is that it is not generally a variable
source of energy. In fact, it can take “years to develop new supply sources or vary production [of
oil], and it is very hard for consumers to switch to other fuels or increase fuel efficiency in the
near—term when prices rise.”459 This is significant, as plans to increase the production of EVs
calls for a dramatic decrease of oil production.
However, it is unclear if these goals will actually be met or if they will change. There are
many potential changes in policy settings that could come to be. If there are “no further changes
in today’s policy settings, as in the STEPS, oil demand in 2050 remains above 100 mb/d
[millions of barrels per day]. By contrast, if the world single-mindedly pursues a 1.5 °C
stabilization objective, then oil demand falls to 24 mb/d in the same year.”460 This is quite a

455
IEA, “Electric Vehicles – Analysis.”
456
IEA, “Electric Vehicles – Analysis.”
457
IEA, “Electric Vehicles – Analysis.”
458
IEA, “Electric Vehicles – Analysis.”
459
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Energy & Financial
Markets - Crudeoil - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA. Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
460
IEA, “Energy Security and the Risk of Disorderly Change – World Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis.”
significant potential for variability. Because the United States is an oil producer as well, it needs
to consider how this potential for variability might impact not only its consumers—who might
find themselves without oil—but its producers of oil and all their employees. Misjudging
necessary oil production could lead to significant issues for the U.S. economy. In addition,
electricity production will need to be ramped up to compensate for the increase in electricity
demand, as the transportation sector moves to electricity as its main fuel source.

Solutions to Energy Security Without Reliance on Carbon Energy Sources

Within the goal of mitigating climate change, the need for solutions to energy security
issues without relying on carbon energy sources is clear. The IEA has pushed many potential
solutions to these issues. Its current work has involved organizing “Emergency Response
Exercises on a biannual basis since 2002.”461 The U.S. government conducts similar exercises
within its government.462
However, there needs to be more proactive work. One primary area is boosting the
flexibility of power systems. This involves “increased investment in dispatchable generation,”
the “cost-effective use of existing energy infrastructure by using low-carbon fuels,” and
incorporating “mechanisms to reward flexibility in electricity systems, and to expand energy
storage, demand response and digital solutions as well as regional integration of electricity
markets.”463 Increased flexibility will address several new energy security issues. Primarily, it
will help address issues caused by the variability of energy production of renewable energy
sources like wind and solar. It will also help mitigate the effects of any interruptions caused by
extreme weather events. Finally, it will help reduce stresses on the oil and electricity markets
caused by a shift to EVs.
Two other areas that would dramatically help reduce energy security issues occurring
because of a shift to renewable energy would be increased investment in development and the
use of a wider variety of energy sources. To help mitigate the variability in wind and solar,
sources like nuclear energy can be used. Nuclear is an essentially non-carbon energy source that
produces energy more reliably than wind and solar, even if it is more expensive. Investment into
diverse low-carbon technologies such as “various forms of storage and demand-side response
technologies” would also greatly reduce the stress upon the electricity grid as more variable
energy sources are employed.464 Overall, while energy security is a pressing issue, there are
solutions already in place, as well as the potential for more solutions to be instituted. Ensuring
that adequate weight is given to energy security will foster a more smooth and peaceful journey
to mitigating climate change.

Chapter 6: The Growing Role of Emerging Economies in Global Emissions

Definition of Emerging Economies

461
IEA, “Energy Security - Areas of Work.”
462
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, “Energy Security.”
463
IEA, “Energy Security - Areas of Work.”
464
IEA, “Energy Security - Areas of Work.”
 While there is no standard definition of what makes a country an emerging economy, this
chapter draws on several characteristics that are particularly relevant to energy production and
consumption.
Various institutions and scholars have used different parameters in their definitions. Most
sources agree that emerging economies are diverse and that the line between emerging and
developing economies is fluid. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has three criteria for an
emerging economy: systemic presence, market access, and income level.465 Systemic presence
includes the size of a population, its economy, and exports, while market access denotes the
share of a country’s external debts; income level is a country’s GDP per capita. The Balance
defines emerging economies as “nations investing in more productive capacity.”466 These
countries are moving away from traditional economies, meaning an economy based on
agriculture and the export of raw goods. According to The Balance, emerging economies are in
the process of becoming industrialized countries.467 For the purposes of this report, an emerging
economy is a country that is increasing its GDP and production.
The IMF lists twenty countries as emerging economies that take up 34% of global GDP
and 46% of the purchasing power parity. Those countries are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China,
Colombia, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and the UAE.468

465
“Miles to Go: The Future of Emerging Markets – IMF F&D.” n.d. International Monetary Fund. Accessed
February 14, 2022.
[Link]
tm.
466
Kimberly Amadeo.“What Are Emerging Markets?” The Balance.
[Link]
467
Amadeo, “What Are Emerging Markets?”
468
“Miles to Go: The Future of Emerging Markets – IMF F&D.” IMF
 Figure 6.1: (Data from the IMF) Map of Emerging Economies—emerging economies are in dark gray.469
Increasing Energy Demand and Production
In the past 15 years, the center of global energy has shifted from wealthy developed
nations, the OECD, to the emerging economies of Asia. This is a historic change with profound
implications for energy supply and carbon emissions. By 2019, only two countries—China and
India—were using more coal than the rest of the world combined and generating more emissions
than all of the OECD nations, including North America, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. China
and India, however, are the largest countries amid dozens of emerging economies whose energy
consumption is rapidly growing and whose choice of sources has huge importance and
implications for global decarbonization.
Figure 6.2 shows that OECD energy consumption has largely plateaued since about 2006
while China, Asia, South and Central America, and Africa are all growing. The OECD accounted
for 61% of final world consumption in 1973, but by 2019 its share had fallen to 38%, and levels
of consumption remained steady. China, on the other hand, grew from 7.9% to 21% over the
same period. Non-OECD Asian countries have also seen a dramatic increase, from 5.8% to
13.6%.470 A major anomaly to these trends among emerging economies is Russia, which suffered
a major collapse in economic and industrial activity with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

469
“Miles to Go: The Future of Emerging Markets – IMF F&D.” IMF
470
IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2021: 37
 Figure 6.2: (Data from Key World Energy Statistics) Global energy consumption by region, 1971-2019.471
This trend follows in the production of different energy sources like natural gas. OPEC
took up 71.7% of natural gas production in 1973, but only 38.3% in 2019. The Middle East took
up 2.1% of natural gas production in 1973 and 16.1% in 2019.472 OECD decreased its overall
coal production as well as its share of global production, while in 1973 they accounted for 55.7%
and only 18.8% in 2019. China increased its share from 13.6% to 49.7%.473 Data shows that
emerging economies like China are increasing their production and are becoming a greater share
of the global use and production of energy. OECD countries no longer account for most of the
energy use, which shows the increasing global importance of emerging economies.

Why Energy Demand Is Increasing

Data shows that energy demand and consumption are increasing most rapidly in
emerging economies. Diverse factors contribute to rising energy demand. The primary factor is
positive economic growth, a defining feature of emerging economies, which has typically seen
annual increases in GDP and GDP per capita above 4% and as high as 10%.474
Economic growth drives energy use as more products are made, transported, and
delivered, incomes rise and allow individuals to purchase more goods, including
energy-consuming products, engage in new activities, and more.475 One-half of new consumption

471
IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2021:36
472
IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2021:15
473
IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2021 :17
474
“World Economic Outlook (October 2021) - Real GDP growth.” International Monetary Fund. Accessed
February 23, 2022.
[Link]
475
Woetzel, “Outperformers: High-growth emerging economies and the companies that propel them.”
of goods occurs in emerging economies.476 India’s number of “consuming class households” rose
from 3.5 million in 1995 to over 35 million in 2016.477 This can cause a “pro-growth cycle,”
where rising production increases income, which then increases demand, which then circles back
to increased production.478 Industrialization also means more production. In 1978, four out of
five Chinese workers were employed in agriculture, but by 1994, only one out of two were
agricultural workers.479 Increasing incomes leads to more consumption of goods; it also increases
the number of people consuming energy. As of 2013, 1.2 billion people were experiencing
complete energy poverty, as they had no access to electricity.480 Energy poverty is the lack of
“adequate, affordable, reliable, quality, safe and environmentally sound energy services to
support development.”481 Indonesia has made significant progress in reducing its energy poverty
issues. In 2000, only 50% of Indonesians had access to electricity, but by 2018, 95% had access
to electricity.482 As countries expand their electrical grid to include more people, the energy
demand increases.
Population changes influence energy demand as well. More people means more energy
use. Consumption will also increase with population, as there are simply more people who need
resources. Many emerging economies are also among the most populous countries, giving them a
boost in energy demand. Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, and
Russia all have populations well above 100 million people.

Increasing Emissions
Emerging economies tend to increase their carbon emissions over time. The main reason
for this is that they rely strongly on domestic energy resources, which are often fossil fuels.
China and India, for example, have large coal resources which produce the majority of the
energy in both countries, including about 50% of all electricity.483 China’s coal production—the
largest in the world—went up 4.7% in 2021.484 The government had called for “miners to work at

476
Jonathan Woetzel, “Outperformers: High-growth emerging economies and the companies that propel them.”
McKinsey, 2018,
[Link]
es-and-the-companies-that-propel-them.
477
Woetzel, “Outperformers: High-growth emerging economies and the companies that propel them.”
478
Woetzel, “Outperformers: High-growth emerging economies and the companies that propel them.”
479
Zulie Hu and Mohsin S. Khan, “Economic Issues 8 -- Why Is China Growing So Fast?” International Monetary,
1997 Fund[Link]
480
“What is energy poverty: definition, statistics & effects on society.” Habitat for Humanity. Accessed February 14,
2022. [Link]
481
“What is energy poverty: definition, statistics & effects on society.”
482
“What is energy poverty: definition, statistics & effects on society.”
483
Evelyn Cheng, “China has 'no other choice' but to rely on coal power for now, official says,” CNBC, 2021,
[Link]
Arshad R Zargar, “India making strides toward clean energy, but quitting coal isn't easy,” CBS News, 2021,
[Link]
484
Jillian Ambrose, “China's coal production hit record levels in 2021 | Coal,”The Guardian, 2022
[Link]
maximum capacity to help fuel the country’s economic growth.”485 As many as 153 coal mines in
China were approved for expansion in the second half of 2021.486
Many other emerging economies use coal as their primary energy source, such as
Indonesia and India. In India, coal has the same success rates as in China. Coal production in
2021 was up 6.7% compared to 2019.487 According to the IEA, China is the world's biggest coal
producer, followed by India.
Other countries have large oil reserves, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the
world’s largest producer of crude oil.488 It also has at least 15% of the world’s proven oil
reserves, meaning it has the second-highest amount of reserves globally.489 Iran has the
fourth-highest amount of oil reserves in the world.490 However, U.S. sanctions severely crippled
its oil industry, which only began to recover in February 2022.491 Many other emerging
economies are among countries with large oil reserves. Listed by increasing rank, they are:
Brazil, China, the UAE, and Russia.492
Natural gas is the most common fossil fuel in some countries as well. Russia is the
second-largest producer of dry natural gas, and natural gas is its largest energy source.493 Most
emerging economies have a lot of fossil fuel resources within their counties. For security and
economic purposes, they focus on using those resources to fuel their growing energy demands.
This leads to emissions growing with energy demand.

Fossil Fuel’s Wealth

Many emerging economies have very large or growing fossil fuel industries. For many of
these nations, oil and gas exports in particular are a key source of export revenue. Petroleum
exports accounted for about one-half of the UAE's export revenue in 2017.494 Russia also
received one-half of its export revenue from fossil fuels in 2017.495 Other nations with significant
oil, gas, or coal exports included Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brazil, and South Africa.
New fossil fuel reserves are also being discovered frequently. These can bring
considerable wealth and energy security to countries that lacked such resources. One of the

485
Jillian Ambrose, “China's coal production hit record levels in 2021 | Coal,”
486
Muyu Xu and Shivani Singh, “China's monthly coal output rises to highest since March 2015,” Reuters, 2021,
[Link]
487
“India's coal production stands at 74.8 million tonnes for December,” The Hindu, 2022,
[Link]
[Link].
488
“International,” U.S. Energy Information Administration,
[Link]
489
Samuel Stebbins, “The largest oil reserves in the world are found in these 15 countries,” USA Today, 2019,
[Link]
ds-oil/39497945/.
490
Samuel Stebbins, “The largest oil reserves in the world are found in these 15 countries.”
491
Alex Lawler, “As nuclear talks resume, Iran's oil exports increase,” Reuters, 2022,
[Link]
492
Samuel Stebbins, “The largest oil reserves in the world are found in these 15 countries.”
493
“Russia - Countries & Regions - IEA,” IEA, Accessed February 14, 2022, [Link]
494
Samuel Stebbins, “The largest oil reserves in the world are found in these 15 countries.”
495
Samuel Stebbins, “The largest oil reserves in the world are found in these 15 countries.”
largest regional examples of this is sub-Saharan Africa, where many new offshore and onshore
oil and gas fields have been discovered since 2010. Additionally, Turkey found new oil and
natural gas fields in the Black Sea in 2021.496
Countries are also opening new coal plants and mines. Russia plans to open new mines in
the Arctic, while India has been pushing for increasing coal production as well.497 These new
fossil fuels could bring in billions of U.S. dollars in revenue to states and enhance their
self-reliance in energy production. There is too much money in fossil fuels to expect emerging
economies to abandon it.

Efforts by Advanced Economies

Advanced economies have pledged to help other countries make the transition into
non-carbon sources. However, not all money pledged has been distributed. At the Copenhagen
summit (COP15) in 2009, advanced economies pledged $100 billion a year to less-developed
nations with emerging economies, but that pledge was not met. Donor countries claim they sent
$78 billion in 2018 and $80 billion in 2018, but estimates put the money at only about $20
billion in 2017.498 A second estimate argues that some loans given were not useful due to
repayment plans and that OECD countries were counting aid that did not go to relevant projects.
Several countries have accused donor countries of over inflating their contributions. The United
States has been giving far below what it should according to wealth-based estimates, while Japan
donates more than its wealth-based share, though primarily in loans.499 However, even if the
pledged amount was paid in full, developing countries claim that it would not be enough. At the
most recent climate summit, COP26, China, India, and other developing nations requested $1.3
trillion annually.500 The United States has pledged to double climate change aid by 2024.501
Increased funding may not be enough, as climate mitigation and adaptation are expensive, and
emissions continue to increase.

496
“Turkey discovered 60 mln barrels of oil equivalent reserves so far in 2021: Minister - Latest News,”Hürriyet
Daily News, 2021,
[Link]
ister-169059.; Ariel Cohen, “Turkey Finds Enormous Gas Field In The Black Sea — But Tricky Process Ahead,”
Forbes, Sep 18, 2020,
[Link]
ky-process-ahead/?sh=240a84a75a86.
497
Mike Eckel, “In Russia, Coal Is Still King. And The Government Wants Even More,” Radio Free Europe, 2021,
[Link] Leela, Jacinto “Behind a 'green
façade', Modi expands coal mining on India's tribal lands,” France 24, 2021,
[Link]
ad-of-cop26.
498
Jocelyn Timperley, “The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance — and how to fix it.”
499
Jocelyn Timperley, “The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance — and how to fix it.”
500
Matthew Dalton, “China, India and Other Developing Nations Seek $1.3 Trillion a Year in Climate Finance,”
Wall Street Journal, Nov. 4th, 2021, N[Link]
501
Valerie, Volcovici, “Biden pledges to double U.S. climate change aid; some activists unimpressed,” Reuters, Sept.
21st, 2021,
[Link]
09-21/.
 Chapter 8: Current United States Energy Situation

The United States’ Reliance on Fossil Fuels

Approximately 60% of electricity in the United States comes from fossil fuels.502 In 2020,
as shown in Figure 1.1, natural gas made up 40% of the U.S. portfolio of power sources, making
it the largest by a wide margin, with coal at 19%.503 Non-carbon sources, however, have grown
considerably at 40%, divided evenly between renewables, including hydropower and nuclear. At
present, natural gas and non-hydro renewables, especially solar and wind, are the fastest-growing
sources of electricity.504
Figure 8.1
As pictured in the table to the right, natural gas made up the majority of U.S. electricity generation in 2020.505
(Graphic by the United States Energy Information Association).
Fossil fuel production in the United States increased from 73 quadrillion Btu in 2018 to
77.14 Btu in 2021, and is expected to
rise.506 Based on the most recent
Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO),
fossil fuel production is projected to
continue rising, reaching a new record
in 2023.507 Correlating with this
increase in fossil fuel production, there
has been a rise in CO₂ emissions as
well. Global carbon dioxide emissions
from natural gas increased 30% over
the last decade. Natural gas now emits
over 7.5 billion metric tons.508
Fossil fuels will not be going
away any time soon. Even if the
United States reaches NZE 2050, it
would still be using approximately one-quarter to one-half as much oil and gas as it does
today.509 Looking to the future, with rising climate change advocacy and public pressure, the
United States could constrain its domestic output of fossil fuels. In April 2021, the U.S.
Department of Treasury declared that the United States would no longer fund natural gas projects

502
Jason Bordoff and Meghan O'Sullivan, “Green Upheaval: The New Geopolitics of Energy,” January 2022.
503
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Electricity in the U.S. -
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Accessed February 14, 2022.
[Link]
504
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” Renewables became the
second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), accessed February 24, 2022, [Link]
505
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Electricity in the U.S.”
506
U.S. Energy Information Administration “Independent Statistics and Analysis”
507
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Independent Statistics and Analysis”
508
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Independent Statistics and Analysis”
509
Bordoff and O'Sullivan, “Green Upheaval”
abroad due to increasing climate concerns. However, they revealed that they will make
exceptions and continue funding projects in Sierra Leone and several other developing nations to
help their economies thrive.510
Out of all fossil fuel sources, natural gas has become the most dominant. The United
States consumed approximately 31.5 quadrillion Btu of natural gas in 2020.511 Natural gas is
widely used and abundant. Gas now helps power the electric power sector, industrial sector,
residential sector, commercial sector, and transportation sector. An increase in natural gas
production in the United States has kept prices relatively low, though they have risen in 2022 due
to large exports of LNG to Europe, decreasing the overall amount domestically. The increase in
natural gas production can be attributed to more efficient drilling and production techniques
associated with multistage hydraulic fracturing. Over the past decade, the increase in supply has
led to a decline in prices, making the source more appealing.512 As a consequence of these low
prices, natural gas has outcompeted both coal and nuclear energy in many parts of the United
States. Coal and nuclear plants have shut down as a result, which has reduced emissions overall
but has also decreased the total amount of non-carbon power generated. As many as 500 coal
plants have closed over the past decade and a half.513 In 2020, coal consumption in the United
States was at the same level as in 1949. Coal production in 2020 was about 10.69 quads, the
lowest amount since 1965.514
The majority of energy lost by closing coal power plants has been replaced by natural
gas. By partially substituting coal production, natural gas has decreased emissions—natural gas
produces around 490 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually compared to coal, which
produces 820 tonnes annually.515 Natural gas also causes fewer deaths per year as a result of air
pollution in comparison to coal and oil. Furthermore, natural gas causes roughly 2.8 deaths per
terawatt-hour of energy production, in comparison to 24.6 deaths caused by coal and 18.4 by
oil.516 As noted, however, natural gas has also been partially substituting nuclear power, meaning
that emissions have increased relative to this non-carbon source. Nuclear energy produces only
three tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, and 0.07 deaths per

510
Bordoff and O'Sullivan, “Green Upheaval”
511
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” Use of natural gas - U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), accessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
%20about,of%20U.S.%20total%20energy%20consumption.
512
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” U.S. energy facts
explained - consumption and production - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), accessed February 14,
2022, [Link]
513
Rob Jackson, “Natural Gas Use Is Rising: Is That Good News or Bad News for the Climate?,” Scientific
American Blog Network (Scientific American, January 9, 2020),
[Link]
imate/.
514
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. energy facts explained”
515
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Electricity in the U.S.”
516
“Death Rates from Energy Production per Twh,” Our World in Data, accessed February 24, 2022,
[Link]
terawatt-hour—significantly less than natural gas.517 It is fair to say that in the United States, gas
is acting to slow carbon emissions, but that with continued increases, will reach a point where
emissions will surpass those from the decreasing number of coal plants and total carbon from the
power sector will rise once more.
The United States is in the precarious position of having enormous resources in every
form of carbon energy (oil, gas, and coal), while also attempting to become a global leader in
non-carbon energy production. Since 2015, the United States has become the world’s largest
producer of both oil and gas, and third in coal production. The United States is the largest crude
oil producer in the world, making up 17% of total production at 706 megatonnes.518 The United
States is also the world’s top natural gas producer, accounting for 23.6% of total production at
949 billion cubic meters.519 For the first time since 1957, domestic energy production exceeded
consumption in the United States in 2019.520 Energy consumption decreased by roughly 1%,
while energy consumption increased by 6% in 2019.521 Natural gas production equaled 95.75
quads, while consumption equaled 92.94 quads.522 A majority of domestic energy production in
2020 was fossil fuels, specifically petroleum, natural gas, and coal. These three sources
accounted for roughly 79% of total U.S. production in 2020.523

Energy and Emissions as a Political Issue

The topic of climate change has become politicized as disagreements arise regarding how
to best handle the situation. The Democratic Party favors new federal legislation and policies that
would rapidly lower emissions. Meanwhile, Republicans prefer to support fossil fuel industries
and create policies that would help stimulate energy-related innovation by the private sector.
Unlike the Republican Party, Democrats reject the notion that combating climate change
and maintaining a healthy economy are impossible to do simultaneously. The Democratic Party
approves the goal of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Democratic
National Committee has also emphasized the need to eliminate carbon pollution from power
plants by 2035.524 They support the development of technology for low and non-carbon energy
sources and have proposed the installation of 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines
within five years.525 They argue this would create domestic jobs. Democrats are in favor of
instituting a clean-electricity standard. This would shift power providers to hydroelectric,
nuclear, wind, solar, and other low-carbon forms of energy. The goal is to achieve 80%
517
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Electricity in the U.S.”
518
Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, “Energy Mix,” Our World in Data, November 28, 2020,
[Link]
519
Ritchie and Roser, “Energy Mix”
520
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. energy facts explained”
521
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. energy facts explained”
522
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. energy facts explained”
523
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. energy facts explained”
524
“Combating the Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice ,” The Democratic Party, accessed February
14, 2022,
[Link]
ce/
525
The Democratic Party, “Combating the Climate Crisis”
non-carbon electricity by the end of the decade.526 Meanwhile, the Republican Party is hesitant to
shift away from fossil fuels.
The Republican Party is concerned about the potential loss of jobs and the economic toll
that could occur with a shift away from fossil fuels. The United States is a major coal exporter,
which supports many jobs. The United States’ natural gas and oil industry provides 10.3 million
domestic jobs and makes up roughly 8% of the nation’s gross domestic product.527 Furthermore,
it is estimated that a total transition to low and non-carbon energy could cost nearly $100 trillion
in additional capital spending over the next three decades.528 The majority of the Republican
Party insists on continuing fossil fuel production. Over a dozen Republican state treasurers
drafted a letter to John Kerry, President Joe Biden’s climate envoy. The treasurers expressed
frustration that banks were being pressured not to lend to oil, gas, and coal companies. They said
the move would “eliminate the fossil fuel industry in our country.”529 The letter highlighted the
possibility that Republican states would pull assets from banks refusing to fund fossil fuel
projects. Riley Moore, treasurer of West Virginia, said the end of financing fossil fuels would
“devastate West Virginia and put thousands of families out of work.”530 A recent Yale survey
indicated that over the past 18 months, support among Republicans for non-carbon energy has
dropped.531 Rather than moving away from fossil fuels, Republican congressional leaders have
supported other measures to address climate change. Specifically, measures focused on the
private sector, such as planting about a trillion trees to help absorb carbon emissions and
providing financial incentives to businesses to improve carbon capture technology.532
A lack of major movement addressing emissions problems on the federal level has shifted
responsibility to the state level. All major U.S. cities and most states have now passed laws and
launched programs to seriously reduce carbon emissions in the next few decades. California
recently signed a COP26 commitment to have 100% zero-emission car sales by 2040.533 Hawaii
became the first state to enact laws implementing the Paris Agreement. Virginia passed its Clean
Economy Act, with ambitious goals for offshore wind energy and energy storage, as well as a

526
Dino Grandoni, Brady Dennis, and Juliet Eilperin, “Democrats Push Sweeping Climate Legislation amid a
Scorching Summer,” The Washington Post (WP Company, July 16, 2021),
[Link]
527
“Oil & Natural Gas Contribution to U.S. Economy Fact Sheet,” Energy API, accessed February 14, 2022,
[Link]
528
Bordoff and O'Sullivan, “Green Upheaval”
529
Oliver Milman, “Republicans Pledge Allegiance to Fossil Fuels like It's Still the 1950s,” the Guardian, June 7,
2021, [Link]
530
Milman, “Republicans Pledge Allegiance”
531
Milman, “Republicans Pledge Allegiance”
532
Alec Tyson, “On Climate Change, Republicans Are Open to Some Policy Approaches, Even as They Assign the
Issue Low Priority,” Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center, July 23, 2021),
[Link]
hes-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/.
533
Elliot Davis, “Some States Are Taking Action against Climate Change, but Is It Enough?,” U.S. News, January
2022,
[Link]
-but-does-it-matter.
commitment to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector.534 Washington state
passed a 100% clean energy law, which provides tax exemptions to promote clean energy
projects.535 Even Indigenous tribes in the United States have enacted emission-reducing
regulations. However, not all states are in agreement, as some continue to support oil and gas
production.
In order for significant changes toward reducing emissions to occur, “There absolutely
needs to be federal leadership on national and international goals and commitments,” according
to Ben Grumbles, Maryland’s environment secretary.536 Federal emissions regulations assist in
getting the country on the same page and working in unison toward making significant progress
on limiting emissions.

The Potential of Low and Non-Carbon Energy in the United States

While still in competition with natural gas, low and non-carbon energy sources have vast
potential in the United States. There has been an increase in national and state support for
nuclear energy in recent years, including by the Biden administration. From 2014 to 2018, even
though the number of operating nuclear reactors decreased, nuclear electricity generation
increased.537 Upgrades to nuclear power plants have increased their capacity and helped nuclear
plants consistently provide around 20% of total U.S. electricity generation from 1990 through
2019, even as total generation grew by more than 25%. Increased annual production is also due
to the shortened length of time needed for reactors to be offline and refueling.538 Nuclear power
generates over half of the country’s low-carbon electricity. This prevents over 470 million metric
tons of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere each year, equivalent to the pollution of
100 million cars.539 Currently, operating costs for nuclear power plants are relatively high.
However, the DOE’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program is working to
modernize plant systems. This would reduce maintenance and operational costs and improve
efficiency. The DOE is also working to develop accident tolerant fuels, which would have the
potential to increase plant performance and produce less waste.540 With the modernization of
nuclear power plants and improved efficiency, nuclear energy has great potential as a low-carbon
source of electricity in the United States.
Wind is another low-carbon energy source with large potential in the United States, both
onshore and offshore. Biden announced plans to develop new wind energy areas offshore the

534
Julia Cusick, “States Are Laying a Road Map for Climate Leadership,” Center for American Progress, November
20, 2019, [Link]
535
Cusick, “States Are Laying”
536
Davis, “Some States Are Taking”
537
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” U.S. nuclear industry -
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
0reasons,electricity%20generation%20was%20about%2020%25.
538
U.S. Energy Information Administration, ”U.S. nuclear industry”
539
“Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy,” [Link], 2021,
[Link]
540
[Link], “Advantages and Challenges”
East Coast, including Empire Wind south of Long Island.541 This would create 25,000
construction and development jobs between 2022 and 2030 and would support over 4,000
maintenance jobs thereafter. The DOE announced its goal of deploying 30 GW of wind power
capacity by 2030. This would trigger over $12 billion annually of capital investment in projects.
It would also provide energy to 10 million homes per year and prevent 78 million metric tons of
CO2 emissions.542 Efforts are underway to continually improve the potential of wind energy. The
National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium (NOWRDC) awarded $8
million to fifteen offshore wind research and development projects. This funding will “support
structure innovation, supply chain development, electrical systems innovation, and mitigation of
use of conflicts that will help reduce barriers and costs for offshore wind development.”543 Biden
sees wind energy as having an “enormous opportunity” to “address the threats of climate change
… create millions of good-paying, union jobs … [and] rebuild the middle class.”544
Solar energy, though less efficient in comparison to other low-carbon sources, also has
untapped potential. Solar energy has gotten cheaper, dropping 70% in cost since 2014.545 Solar
power capacity has grown from just 0.34 GW in 2008 to 97.2 GW today. Solar energy also
provides new domestic jobs, currently employing over 250,000 solar workers.546 Biden has
recognized that solar energy could potentially power 40% of U.S. electricity by 2035.547
However, grid integration challenges and “soft costs” (customer acquisition, permitting, and
financing) prevent solar from really taking off. In order to increase efficiency and further drive
down costs, technological advancements are needed.
Hydroelectric power also has potential in the United States. Hydropower takes up 37% of
total U.S. renewable energy electricity generation.548 Hydropower facilities can immediately
generate power to the grid, making it a good backup power source in the case of electricity
disruptions.549 Hydropower provides clean drinking water, flood control, and irrigation support to
communities. Construction costs remain relatively low when preexisting structures like dams,

541
“Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs,” The White House (The United
States Government, March 29, 2021),
[Link]
rts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/.
542
The White House, “Biden Administration Jumpstarts”
543
The White House, “Biden Administration Jumpstarts”
544
The White House, “Biden Administration Jumpstarts”
545
“Solar Energy in the United States,” [Link], accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
,18%20million%20average%20American%20homes.
546
[Link], “Solar Energy”
547
Ella Nilsen, “Biden Administration Says Solar Energy Has the Potential to Power 40% of US Electricity by
2035,” CNN (Cable News Network, September 8, 2021),
[Link]
548
“Hydropower Basics,” [Link], accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
549
“Benefits of Hydropower,” [Link], accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
fishing%2C%20swimming%2C%20and%20boating.
bridges, and tunnels can be utilized as a foundation.550 Approximately 74% of Washington state’s
electricity is generated by hydroelectric facilities.551 Hydropower facilities generally have a
longer lifespan than other energy sources. They often require fewer repairs and can operate for
longer periods of time.552 The DOE estimates that there is roughly 50 GW of untapped
hydropower in the United States.553
Geothermal is another potential source with a small environmental footprint. Facilities
consistently run twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The United States has the largest
worldwide geothermal capacity at 3.8 GW. Geothermal facilities employ around 35,000 workers
nationally.554 Geothermal energy could potentially supply energy to tens of millions of homes in
the United States. The U.S. Geothermal Technologies Offices (GTO) is currently funding
geothermal R&D to reduce costs and improve technology and efficiency.555 Geothermal
electricity generation alone offsets the emissions of 4.1 million tons of CO₂, 110,000 tons of
particulate matter, and 80,000 tons of nitrogen oxides per year.556
The transition to non-carbon energy in the United States is underway and needs the
backing of state and federal governments. In 2019, non-carbon energy consumption surpassed
coal for the first time in 130 years.557 The U.S. government predicts non-carbon sources will
supply twice as much to the total energy consumption by the middle of the century. The only
question that remains is “whether the completion of this switch will be delayed long enough to
risk triggering the worst impacts of disastrous global heating.”558

Trends in U.S. Energy Since 2000

550
[Link], “Benefits of Hydropower”
551
[Link], “Hydropower Basics”
552
[Link], “Hydropower Basics”
553
“The USA Is the World's Third Largest Hydropower Producer by Capacity after China and Brazil,” International
Association of the Year , accessed February 15, 2022, [Link]
554
“Digging into Geothermal,” [Link], accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
555
“Enhanced Geothermal Systems,” [Link], accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
556
“Geothermal Power Plants - Meeting Clean Air Standards,” [Link], accessed February 15, 2022,
[Link]
557
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” U.S. renewable energy
consumption surpasses coal for the first time in over 130 years - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), accessed February 15, 2022, [Link]
558
Oliver Milman, “Republicans New Favorite Study Trashes Biden's Climate Plans – but Who's behind It?,” The
Guardian (Guardian News and Media, March 9, 2021),
[Link]
 Figure 8.2. This graph illustrates the U.S. energy portfolio since 1965. (Graphic by Our World in Data).
It can be observed in Figure 2.1 that coal production has decreased significantly during
the last decade, while there has been an increase from low-carbon sources. Emissions in the
United States peaked around 2005 and have fallen since, largely due to the closure of coal plants.
As can be observed in Figure 2.2, consumption of low-carbon energy sources surpassed coal in
2020. The United States consumed around 4,359 TWh of nuclear, hydroelectric, and other
renewable sources combined in 2020, compared to just 2,556 TWh of coal consumed.559 The
rapid decrease in coal consumption has had a major improvement regarding emissions. Natural
gas has largely replaced coal, which has fewer greenhouse gas emissions but is not nearly as
sustainable as non-carbon sources. The increase in production of solar and wind power has also
substituted some of the decreases in coal consumption.

559
Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, “United States: Energy Country Profile,” Our World in Data, November 28, 2020,
[Link]
 Figure 8.3. The chart on the left shows energy production by source in the United States from 1990 to 2020,
with projections for the future. The figure to the right shows energy consumption by source in the United
States from 1990 to 2020, with projections for the future. (Graphics by the United States Energy Information
Administration).
The recent revolution in hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking,” has turned
the United States into the main exporter of natural gas and, increasingly, crude oil and petroleum
fuels. As Figure 2.1 illustrates, around the year 2010, the production of crude oil and natural gas
skyrocketed. This is due primarily to advances in technology in the fracking process. Oil
production in the United States reached an all-time high in 2018, surpassing Russia and Saudi
Arabia to become the world’s largest oil producer.560 This has freed the United States from
dependence on OPEC and has reduced the country’s dependency on its allies. According to the
White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), “record U.S. petroleum production has
helped stabilize the global price of oil and reduce the risk of huge price swings like the one that
damaged the economy in 2007-2008.”561 Crude oil is projected to level out as renewables
become increasingly central to the U.S. energy profile.

Trends in U.S. Energy Moving Forward

Looking to the future, non-carbon energy (nuclear, hydro, and other renewables) can play
an important role in improving U.S. energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Diversifying the energy supply will help diffuse reliance on any one energy source, reducing the
likelihood of a major energy crisis. As the world moves toward a decarbonized energy system,
many of the United States’ security risks will be significantly reduced. Some outcomes would
include that “the influences of the petrostates and Russia’s leverage in Europe will be

560
Jeffry Bartash, “Fracking Revolution That's Made the U.S. the Top Global Oil Producer Is Boosting the Economy
- and Keeping Emissions Down,” MarketWatch (MarketWatch, March 22, 2019),
[Link]
he-economy-and-curbing-emissions-too-2019-03-22.
561
Bartash, “Fracking Revolution”
diminished, prices for electricity will be less volatile, and conflicts over natural resources will
wane.”562
The largest source of emissions in the United States is currently transportation,
specifically light-duty vehicles. The electrification of these vehicles will have a major impact,
lowering U.S. emissions significantly. This change is already in motion, though it still has a long
way to go. In 2021, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles accounted for 11% of light-duty
vehicle sales in the United States.563 Biden made an ambitious goal that by 2030, half of all new
vehicles sold in the United States would be electric. Several big automakers have joined the
revolution, including General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, and Daimler, which have set goals
of phasing out petroleum-powered vehicles by 2035.564
The Biden administration has made new promises to reduce emissions, starting by
reentering the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, in February 2022, the Biden administration
announced new support across agencies toward clean manufacturing, “including low-carbon
production of the steel and aluminum we need for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar
panels, and the clean concrete we need to upgrade our transportation infrastructure.”565 Since the
industrial sector is responsible for nearly a third of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions,
targeting it will be significant.566 This can be done through efficiency upgrades and technological
innovations. Looking to the future, it is clear that under the Biden administration, the long
process of moving toward non-carbon energy is in motion.

Chapter 9: Realistic Opportunities for Reducing Carbon Emissions

Introduction
In the twenty-first century, it has become clear that the widespread use of fossil fuels is a
primary cause of climate change and environmental degradation. Meanwhile, the current era is
witness to increased technological development, which has begun to aid in initiatives to
remediate the damage from energy consumption and expand the use of non-carbon sources.
Consequently, this transition has resulted in fundamental changes in energy systems, from the
generation of electricity and other services to the consumer market. To fully address climate
change, the energy transition requires a comprehensive strategy addressing a number of dynamic
elements, such as energy sources, technology, and markets, with special emphasis placed on the
rise of non-carbon energy and its significant potential to reduce carbon emissions. The following

562
Bordoff and O'Sullivan, “Green Upheaval”
563
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” Electric vehicles and
hybrids surpass 10% of U.S. light-duty vehicle sales - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), accessed February 16, 2022, [Link]
564
The Staff Of The Morning, “A Push for Electric Vehicles,” The New York Times (The New York Times, August
6, 2021), [Link]
565
“Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Advances Cleaner Industrial Sector to Reduce Emissions and
Reinvigorate American Manufacturing,” The White House (The United States Government, February 15, 2022),
[Link]
dvances-cleaner-industrial-sector-to-reduce-emissions-and-reinvigorate-american-manufacturing/.
566
The White House, “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris”
will discuss some of the prospects in related technology, as well as its limitations and
significance to the future in the United States.

Emerging Technology Landscape for Carbon Reduction

Overview of Non- and Low-Carbon Energy Technologies
Non-carbon and low-carbon energy sources, often known as "clean energy," enable
countries to mitigate emissions and address climate change by advancing technology in energy
production and use. These technologies help mitigate negative environmental impacts by greatly
enhancing energy efficiency, resource sustainability, and environmental protection efforts.
Among these technologies is the smart electrification process, which attempts to reduce
emissions while improving consumer accessibility.

Smart Electrification
Smart electrification—an important component of non-carbon technology—enables
major increases in renewable power generation, electrification, and digitization to leverage
potential synergies. Furthermore, it provides the ability to make power systems more flexible and
resilient, while also making the overall energy system more secure and less reliant on fossil
fuels.567 Part of this is the electrification of energy services, including anything from transitioning
fossil fuel to electric or fuel cell vehicles, to replacing oil and gas furnaces with electric boilers
and heat pumps. Electrification is aided by increased investment in new and upgraded networks
of infrastructure for transmission and distribution (T&D) of energy.

Electrification of Energy Services in the Infrastructure Sector

As smart electrification has evolved, various technologies have become well-established
and highlight the benefits of this energy transformation. The infrastructure and building sectors
are prime examples of how these technologies are being deployed. There is now an effort to
enhance the use of renewable power to generate fuels such as hydrogen or e-fuels, which are
then distributed via existing or new gas T&D networks.568 In order to achieve this transition,
there are several relevant building, network, and end-use infrastructure upgrades that would
have to take place. This transition would primarily require the update of end-use equipment
such as gas boilers, the upgrade of natural gas T&D networks, the installation of smart gas
meters to allow smart building services, and the general introduction of smart building
services.569

T&D Network Upgrades

The energy T&D infrastructure in the United States is becoming a more complex and
interdependent system. It consists of over 2.6 million miles of interstate and intrastate pipeline,

567
IRENA (2022), Smart Electrification with Renewables: Driving the transformation of energy services,
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 11.
568
IRENA, 26.
569
IRENA, 29.
 as well as 640,000? miles of transmission lines.570 Since energy demand has increased, the
demands for this infrastructure have become more complicated, as it must support a diverse and
changing mix of energy sources and services.571 Aside from the overall rising demand for
energy, the present T&D infrastructure faces a number of additional issues. The majority of
T&D infrastructure is controlled by private sector actors, with certain infrastructure assets
operated by the Federal Government, indicating that substantial cooperation between the private
and public sectors are necessary.572 Additionally, T&D infrastructure's multi-state or
multinational reach adds another degree of complication. This multi-geographical aspect
necessitates additional significant collaboration to achieve modernization, stability, resilience,
and adaptation goals.573 Despite the numerous obstacles that T&D systems confront in the
United States, the need for enhancements is more urgent than ever. Notably, about half of all gas
transmission and pipelines in the United States were built in the 1950s and 1960s.574 As these
systems were developed several decades ago, they have not kept up with the volume of oil and
gas production or the increasing geographical demands for energy. In response to the changing
global energy and technological environment, there is an urgent need to modify our
infrastructure to meet current energy demands and improve distribution capacities.

Smart Digital Devices

Smart digital devices and associated operational systems have the potential to boost
efficiency even further by allowing for more flexibility and the optimization of the demand,
supply, and consumption of energy. Integration of these smart technologies into the energy
transition is crucial for decreasing the risk of higher peak electricity loads while also
maximizing new grid infrastructure investment.575 In the United States, electricity consumption
is measured by the base load and peak load of electricity use. The base load defines the minimal
amount of electrical demand required during a 24-hour period. Peak load, on the other hand, is a
period of high demand for electrical power.576 In the current energy state, there is great risk of
overloading our electrical grid by increasing the number of peak load times in a 24-hour period.
This is where smart digital devices are crucial. These devices allow users to program when they
would generally use power, allowing the market to capitalize on price signals and meet utility
demand.577 Subsequently, this lowers overall electrical prices and helps avoid peak overloads by
allowing this smart technology to determine energy consumption for consumers.

570
United States. Department of Energy, Issuing Body. Quadrennial Energy Review. Energy Transmission, Storage,
and Distribution Infrastructure. Washington, D.C.]: [U.S. Department of Energy], 2015, 2.
571
U.S. Department of Energy, 2.
572
U.S. Department of Energy , 3.
573
U.S. Department of Energy, 3.
574
U.S. Department of Energy, 5.
575
IRENA, 17.
576
“Peak Load & Base Electricity - Understand Differences.” EnergyWatch, February 28, 2017.
[Link]
y%20is%20in%20high%20demand.&text=The%20constant%20power%20needed%20by%20the%20electrical%20g
rid%20is%20the%20base%20load.
577
IRENA, 17.
Key Trends Influencing Capacity for Adaptation to Carbon Reduction Strategies
Dimensions of Adaptation
In the context of climate change and mitigation initiatives, adaptation entails minimizing
risks and vulnerabilities as well as strengthening the ability of governments, the private sector,
communities, and natural systems. These parts of adaptation work together to help manage the
effects of climate change, as well as render decisions and actions.578

Adaptation Needs
To address the fundamental adaptation concerns, it is necessary to incorporate people
with diverse skills, experience, and backgrounds from the economic, private, public, and the
climate sector to adequately address problems in adaptation. This includes addressing the gaps
between what could happen as the climate changes and the direction which citizens would aspire
climate change to go. Furthermore, proper risk and vulnerability information is essential for
adaptation in order to identify requirements and appropriate adaptation choices to reduce risks
and enhance capacity.
Although needs vary by group and location, they ultimately fall into several general
categories that must be considered: biophysical and environmental demands, social needs,
institutional needs, the need for private sector participation, and knowledge, capacity, and
resource needs.579 When all of these sectoral needs are met, a shared approach to resolving these
challenges becomes accessible, allowing for the greatest amount of adaptation to take place.

Adaptation Options and Actors

Identifying priorities resulting from climate risks and vulnerabilities lays the groundwork
for choosing adaptation options. A variety of choice categories have been discovered over the
years. These possibilities encompass a wide variety of structural/physical, social, and
institutional acts. Adaptation choices are rarely developed to solely address climate threats or
possibilities—rather, activities are frequently performed with other goals (such as profit or
poverty reduction) in mind, while also achieving climate-related co-benefits.580 Because
adaptation is inherently carried out in a single sectoral manner, focusing on how to handle
climate change while avoiding the necessity for present adaptation options has become critical.
Rather than focusing on adaptation solutions that address specific aspects of climate change,
increasing emphasis is being placed on mainstreaming climate change into broader development
policy and private sector operations.

578
Adaptation needs and options. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M.
Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R.
Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA, pp. 839.
579
Adaptation needs and options, 844.
580
Adaptation needs and options, 849.
 Maladaptation
Maladaptation, in general, refers to activities or omissions that may raise the likelihood of
unfavorable climate-related consequences, such as susceptibility to climate change or negatively
affected well-being, now or in the future. For example, the construction of well-engineered
climate-resilient roads designed to withstand current and future climate extremes may encourage
new settlement in areas highly vulnerable to the effects of future climates.581 Maladaptation
presents itself in a variety of ways, but many basic explanations may be recognized. Actions that
may help a certain group or sector at a specific moment may be detrimental to those same groups
or sectors in future climates, or to other groups or sectors in current climates. Another pattern of
maladaptation is the failure to account for diverse interactions and behaviors across systems and
sectors. As a result, information for establishing adaptive mechanisms is limited or inaccurate.
For example, an adaptive technique that has been adopted and shows great economic advantage
may fail to detect the environmental harm being done since the economic benefit is so
significant, resulting in maladaptive methods to solve the issue.582

Opportunities and Limitations of Adaptation

Opportunities for and limitations of adaptation, while discussed as two distinct actors in
adaptation, are complementary: adaptive capacity is influenced collectively by the extent to
which actors take advantage of available opportunities, as well as the extent to which those
actors or natural systems experience constraints.583 Furthermore, recognized limits may provide
excellent possibilities for adaptation interventions to increase adaptive capacity.

Adaptation Opportunities
Adaptation opportunities are components that enable actors to plan and carry out
activities to accomplish their adaptation objectives or to support natural systems' adaptive
responses to climatic challenges.584 Consequently, an opportunity varies from an adaptation
option, which is a specific method of achieving an adaptation aim or a conservation strategy.
Adaptation opportunities range from increasing awareness of climate change, its consequences,
and the potential costs and benefits of adaptation choices, to establishing specific
adaptation-friendly policies.
An additional component to adaptation options comes from the opportunity for ancillary
benefits (or co-benefits) to the implementation of adaptation strategies. Independent of direct

581
Adaptation needs and options, 857.
582
Adaptation needs and options, 858.
583
Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, pp. 908.
584
Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits, 908-909.
benefits addressed in an adaptation project, co-benefits occur with respect to reducing
vulnerability to climate change. The potential for these benefits provides two important
implications for adaptation. The first being that consideration of co-benefits may result in a more
favorable assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a specific adaptation option. Subsequently, this
consideration may help in efficiently integrating adaptation into existing management and
decision-making processes. Though ancillary benefits may occur in many ways, there are three
central manners in which co-benefits occur out of adaptation options:585
1. Stimulating adaptation to current climate variability;
2. Generating climate adaptation goods and services;
3. And advancing sustainable development

Adaptation Limitations
A limit in adaptation is reached when efforts are unable to provide acceptable levels of
security from risks to the existing objects and values, and are unable to prevent the loss of key
attributes and components of ecosystems.586 In order to effectively avoid the limits of adaptation,
it is crucial to address feedback that encompass social and environmental resilience. Eventually,
limits will be exceeded through cascading feedbacks that are characterized by social polarization
and conflict, ultimately resulting in social disruption.587

Major Perspectives in Technology and Adaptation

As the technology landscape emerges, there is great opportunity for innovation in the
clean energy technology sector and multisectoral involvement in the implementation of strategies
to mitigate carbon emission. National goals of climate mitigation can be achieved through a
systemic approach with technological opportunities, such as an increase in deployment of EV
technology and ICT controlled charging to mitigate power system overloads..

Chapter 10: Perception and Role of Consumer Choice in Carbon Emission Reduction

Introduction
The potential and limitations of innovation, improvement, and cost reduction are
undeniable driving factors in the present energy transition. As previously mentioned, the world
has reached the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions in 800,000 years, and the opportunity
afforded by non- and low-carbon technology, renewable energy sources, and a stronger emphasis
on co-beneficial enterprises is inescapable. However, there is a disparity in this concept between
the potential accessible to individuals and communities and the opportunity available to
governments. Consumer participation in the energy market is critical, since human activity is the
primary source of emissions to date. Although enormous advancements are being made in the
many energy markets available to consumers, much attention must be paid to how we make these

585
Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits, 910-911.
586
Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits, 919.
587
Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits, 920.
items or technologies efficient, cost effective, and available for purchase and use by the
individual consumer.

Consumer Behavior and Energy Choice

Lenses of Consumer Behavior
The question of whether consumers act logically or optimally when making energy use
and efficiency decisions is widely contested in politics and academia, with two competing
viewpoints on the subject. An economic viewpoint provides the initial perspective. Consumers,
according to economists who attribute high levels of competence to them, make energy-related
decisions rationally, weighing the costs-benefits of alternative schemes. As a result, effective
analysis motivates consumers to invest in clean and efficient energy solutions. Consequently, the
economic lens indicates that government interventions, such as performance standards and
demand-side management programs, hinder economic efficiency and deny consumers preferred
alternatives.588
The behavioral and technological perspectives are on the other side of the issue.
Considering behavioral psychology and consumers' actual understanding of technology,
behavioral psychologists and technology analysts claim that consumers' real-world decisions
diverge from the ideals of preference maximization. If the perspective provided here is accurate,
it would give justification for government involvement in the energy market to assist consumers
in making the "correct" product choice.589

Types of Consumer Rationality

Rational Inattention
The concept behind rational inattention is that when information is costly to acquire,
decision makers may choose to act on incomplete information rather than incur the cost to
become adequately informed. Essentially, rational inattention becomes similar to a cost-benefit
analysis, however, consumers are not weighing environmental implications of a product or
long-term cost benefits, but rather circumventing that need and weighing the benefit of finding
the information needed to make sound choices versus going to a store and purchasing a product
labeled ‘energy efficient.’ Additionally, rational inattention can prevail in the case of a firm
creating new technology that lowers long-term cost. To the consumer, the cost of adding new
technology — which compensates the firm’s loss on innovating this technology — will outweigh
the long-term benefit, since the consumer does not understand the long-term benefit. Though
rational inattention appears as a deficit in human behavior, it poses a strong incentive for
consumers to continue to purchase inefficient products, as they have not weighed the benefits
properly. Consequently, the concept of rational inattention poses several implications for policy
and research interventions.

588
Howarth, Richard B. "Consumer rationality and energy efficiency." 1994 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings: Human dimensions of energy consumption 1 (1994): 176-177
589
Howarth, 177.
 In empirical research, a significant implication of rational inattention is that it is possible
for consumers to accurately value energy-efficient products available on the market, however,
driving a presence of inefficient provisions of energy efficiency. The concept of inefficient
energy provision is that consumers who undervalue energy efficiency would underinvest in it,
resulting in investment inefficiencies and interventions to direct investments to more efficient
positions.590 In terms of policy design, rational inattention may lead to inefficient investment, but
it is vital to note that it implies that there are actual economic consequences associated with
paying attention. However, if making better choices requires exerted effort on the consumer's
side, then policy that coerces or incentivizes attention would need to address the cost at which
consumers feel would be worth trying to pay attention. Likewise, the apparent cost of effort
perceived by consumers would divert the emphasis of such policies away from corrective taxes
and toward an informational strategy of learning and knowledge sharing.591

Bounded Rationality
Individuals consistently depart from logical decision-making, according to the study of
bounded rationality.592 This entails two major insights. To begin, humans do not make proper
judgments because they are boundedly rational due to cognitive limitations, a lack of knowledge,
and a lack of motivation. Second, humans have limited self-interest, which means that while
making judgments, they are also motivated by other desires, such as fairness or reciprocity.593
There are two notions that extend from this type of cognitive constraint under the concept
of bounded rationality. Consumer choice under risk and uncertainty compose the first branch of
constrained rationality. This suggests that people frequently work under enormous uncertainty
and are forced to make risky and rather misinformed decisions. Choice in this branch is
reference-dependent, and probabilities are valued disproportionately. Intertemporal choice is the
second branch of bounded rationality, which states that people value the present more than the
future and make decisions accordingly.594

Managing Consumer Rationality in the Context of Carbon Reduction

As previously discussed, the variety of human rationality poses the problem of
understanding whether or not there is a necessity for intervention, political or otherwise, to assist
in the assurance of efficient investment in non-carbon technologies. As human behavior cannot
always be accounted for, the energy product marketplace is stabilized by focusing on
demand-side management programs and informational communication.

Demand-side Management Programs

590
Sallee, James M. "Rational Inattention and Energy Efficiency." The Journal of Law & Economics 57, no. 3
(2014): 811.
591
Sallee, 813.
592
Howarth, 178.
593
Gsottbauer, E., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Environmental Policy Theory Given Bounded Rationality and
Other-regarding Preferences. Environ Resource Econ 49, 263–304 (2011).
[Link]
594
Gsottbauer, 263-304.
 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, demand-side management
(DSM) programs consist of the planning, implementation, and monitoring activities of energy
use, designed to encourage consumers to modify their energy and electricity consumption and
usage patterns.595 Traditionally, the balance of supply and demand in power systems has been
served mainly through generating and network capacity planning. However, with growing
flexibility needs as a result of the increasing prominence of renewable energy sources, there is a
need to improve demand-side flexibility. Unlocking demand-side flexibility can provide system
advantages that include peak load reduction, resulting in increased generating capacity and
network upgrade postponement to reduced demand.596 More broadly, there are three categories of
DSM. The first is demand response, which is an attempt to stimulate a change in the amount and
pattern of energy use by consumers.597 The second category is concerned with energy efficiency;
this can be accomplished through a number of means, such as behavioral changes and
technological advancements.598 Finally, the third DSM category deals with distributed generation
and storage. Demand-side distribution generation implies that the same concern about the
environmental implications of energy that motivates energy efficiency may also inspire clean
technology adoption and help reduce energy used from the grid. Furthermore, distributed storage
produces an energy shift through similar price responsiveness characteristics when a consumer
utilizes energy during an off-peak time.599

Satisficing Energy Choice

As previously stated, assuming that customers would make rational decisions about
energy is naive. Because consumers rely on increasingly simple methodologies in the face of
complexity and uncertainty, various simplification strategies — such as making a desired action
easier, faster, and more convenient, minimizing the physical and psychological demands required
to perform the action, and reducing perceived uncertainties — may help reduce cognitive
overload and facilitate more effective decision-making in regard to energy consumption. By
framing communications in a clear, simple, and accessible way, unnecessary complexity may be
avoided. When it comes to reaching consumers, keeping things brief and simple is crucial for
good communication. For example, instead of overwhelming consumers with too many
energy-saving recommendations or too many options, offer them smaller quantities of the most
595
United States Agency for International Development & the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Preparing
Distribution Utilities for the Future- Unlocking Demand-side Management Potential: A Novel Analytical
Framework, by Killian McKenna, Kapil Duwadi, Shibani Ghosh, and Adarsh Nagarajan, Contract No.
DE-AC36-08GO28308: NREL, 2021. [Link]
596
McKenna, “Preparing Distribution Utilities for the Future- Unlocking Demand-side Management Potential: A
Novel Analytical Framework.”
597
McKenna, “Preparing Distribution Utilities for the Future- Unlocking Demand-side Management Potential: A
Novel Analytical Framework.”
598
McKenna, “Preparing Distribution Utilities for the Future- Unlocking Demand-side Management Potential: A
Novel Analytical Framework.”
599
United States Agency for International Development & the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Preparing
Distribution Utilities for the Future- Unlocking Demand-side Management Potential: A Novel Analytical
Framework, by Killian McKenna, Kapil Duwadi, Shibani Ghosh, and Adarsh Nagarajan, Contract No.
DE-AC36-08GO28308: NREL, 2021. [Link]
critical information.600 Behavioral tactics should focus on transmitting basic ideas that the
ordinary consumer can quickly and readily grasp, rather than offering information-intensive ads
and sophisticated consumer education programs.

Major Perspectives in Energy Choice

If consumer rationality provided a holistic account of human behavior, our current
understanding of economics would provide a unified approach to energy consumption
analysis.601 However, as previously indicated, consumers do not act rationally and thus require
some form of intervention to appropriately make sustainable and efficient energy decisions.
Moreover, an expanding field of research on consumer behavior and climate change has revealed
a complicated relationship between consumer choice and energy use, demonstrating that
individual consumers are incapable of recognizing truly beneficial environmental behavioral
changes.602 As a result, it is valid to suggest that governments and private entities should
prioritize making environmentally responsible behavior the simple behavioral choice for
consumers.603

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

As both the United States and the world tackle the complexities of mitigating climate
change while advancing global economic development, it is essential that governments
thoughtfully transition toward carbon neutrality. Post-industrial nations have an immense role
and responsibility in the coming decades to lead a transition away from high carbon producing
energy sources and to build out low to no-carbon systems of energy production. The United
States has an opportunity to position themselves as a leader in initiating revolutionary energy
research and building the technology to help both the United States and other nations reduce
carbon output. In the section below, this Task Force has developed fourteen policy
recommendations with actions that the United States should take to lead the necessary global
energy transformation in the coming decades.

Policies Related to Carbon Producing Energy Sources

Coal Mine Drainage Mediation | Meera Naomi Rynne

Coal mine drainage is water that is polluted from contact with past mining activity.
Abandoned mines impact water quality in several ways, including acid mine drainage, alkaline

600
Elisha R. Frederiks, Karen Stenner, and Elizabeth V. Hobman, “Household Energy Use: Applying Behavioural
Economics to Understand Consumer Decision-Making and Behaviour,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
41 (January 2015): pp. 1385-1394, [Link]
601
Howarth, 180.
602
John Thøgersen, “Consumer Behavior and Climate Change: Consumers Need Considerable Assistance,” Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42 (December 2021): pp. 9-14, [Link] 12.
603
Thøgersen, 12.
mine drainage, and metal mine drainage.604 This type of aftereffect pollution stems from
production company malpractice. We recommend companies who participates in or have been
involved in fossil fuel site production be required to invest in malpractice insurance to ensure the
clean up of existing pollution or to prevent further pollution at mining sites. In West Virginia, the
EPR coal company stopped running mines after declaring bankruptcy, abandoning pollution
control measures. The remaining mess created a disaster, because “it costs nearly $900,000
annually to pump and treat polluted water draining from the mine. ERP had only sporadically
maintained it’s pumps. The deteriorating situation compelled West Virginia to step in and begin
paying for pump maintenance on behalf of ERP, or else risk the system failing to contain the
pollution.”605 Negligence from mining companies has resulted in contaminated water discharge
in the drinking water for thousands of West Virginians. In all, required malpractice insurance will
allow for more consistent protection against water pollution and waste from coal plants, and will
prevent clean-up costs from falling on governmental bodies.

Market-Based Approaches to Reduce GHG Emissions | Meera Naomi Rynne

In recent years, it has been clear that connecting a personal buy-in for consumers helps
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Research shows that putting a price on carbon-based fuels, in
the form of a fee or tax, is an effective way of reducing GHG emissions and pollution levels
across the globe.”606 The United States should implement federal action to implicate consumers
in their daily GHG emissions. While some states have adopted market-based approaches, the
United States will see greater outcomes by mandating national taxes on carbon-based fuels. Not
only will this attach a personal stake in climate change, this tax would also produce a revenue
that could be put into more specific R&D projects, such as alternative energy sources and
CCUS.607 The United States needs to take a stronger stance on reducing carbon emissions and a
carbon tax is a great place to start.

Continue Investment in Natural Gas | Emma Thuau

While the development of low and non-carbon energy sources increases, natural gas
usage will continue to increase significantly to support energy demand. It is essential for the
United States to further the transition away from oil and coal through increased investment in
low-carbon energy alternatives like natural gas. Natural gas is a current, achievable, and realistic
alternative to oil and coal. Despite an increase in the development and integration of renewable

604
“Abandoned Mine Drainage,” EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, July 8, 2021),
[Link]
605
Mark Olalde, “Exposed: West Virginia and Other States Relying on 'House of Cards' to Pay for Coal Mine
Cleanup,” DeSmog (DeSmog, May 5, 2021),
[Link]
606
Aimée Dushime, “Addressing Climate Change through Carbon Taxes,” World Economic Forum (World Economic
Forum, June 16, 2021),
[Link]
hows%20that%20putting%20a,pollution%20levels%20across%20the%20globe.
607
“Market-Based State Policy,” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,
June 25, 2021), [Link]
energy sources around the world, Europe has demonstrated that solar and wind power cannot
sufficiently sustain whole nations. Due to the extensive use of natural gas throughout energy
markets in Europe, gas is in a remarkably strong position to lead the transition away from coal in
power generation, thus significantly reducing CO₂ emissions. The United States is currently the
largest producer of natural gas in the world and has a great opportunity to develop the energy
sector and economy by exporting natural gas to Europe—and thus minimizing their reliance on
Russian natural gas.
R&D incentives can promote additional efficiency in natural gas use, especially for
transportation. According to the DOE, natural gas powered over 175,000 vehicles and roughly 23
million vehicles worldwide in 2021.608 Natural gas as a transportation fuel has many advantages,
such as widespread distribution infrastructure, reduced gas emissions compared to gasoline and
diesel, and the fact that it is domestically available.

Create Fossil Fuel Reserves and Design More Efficient Energy Markets | Emma Thuau
Given the uncertainty about future energy demand, policymakers should be prepared to
keep legacy fossil fuel assets in reserve, in the case of a disconnect between energy supply and
demand during a transition toward low carbon sources. According to the report Crude Oil and
Natural Gas Proved Reserves, U.S. total natural gas proved reserves totaled about 473.3 trillion
cubic feet in 2020 (Tcf).609 Recently, Europe has demonstrated the necessity for energy reserves,
specifically when European countries had to revert to coal usage to maintain their energy
demand. In addition, to incentivize the switch to renewable energy, regulators of utilities should
adopt pricing structures that would compensate companies for providing energy reliability. For
example, in order to prepare for peaks in demand, regulators should design markets that pay
energy companies for maintaining capacity and supplies when reserves are not used. In order to
reduce demand, policymakers must enact measures to increase efficiency of renewable energy
sources, which will narrow supply and demand imbalances.

Phase Out Existing Coal Plants in Postindustrial Economies | John F. Reinhardt

The United States and other post-industrial economies should begin phasing out older,
least-efficient and most-polluting coal plants while mandating and funding CCUS for coal-fired
power stations globally. This will benefit the United States through amicable foreign policy and
placement on the cutting edge of the energy transition. This policy should be enacted in the short
to medium term (between 0 to 10 years), as time is of the essence in the climate and energy
crisis. Coal plants should be phased out, as there is little irreplaceable about coal, unlike other
carbon energy sources such as oil usage in jet fuel, plastics, and militaries. As the United States
608
Bordoff, Jason, and Meghan L. O'Sullivan. “Green Upheaval.” Foreign Affairs, February 19, 2022.
[Link]
_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=registered_user_welcome&utm_term=email_1&utm_content=2022
0228.
609
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” How much natural gas is
left - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Accessed March 1, 2022.
[Link]
and other post-industrial states move into transitioning energy systems, all coal plants should be
ultimately phased out. The United States and the West are uniquely poised, having the
resources— material, financial, and human capital—to fund the infancy of the energy
transformation by means of phasing out coal in the West and funding and mandating CCUS
globally.

Policy Related to Non-Carbon Energy Sources

Nuclear Revamping and Increased Investment in Nuclear Reactors | Jangshik Hwangbo

Nuclear energy is the most efficient non-carbon energy source, however, it has been
neglected due to the history of nuclear disasters. To work toward revamping nuclear energy, we
recommend investment into a nuclear waste disposal facility. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was
amended in 1987 as the sole initial repository for 70,000 tonnes of high-level waste. This
location is beneficial because its tunnel is located about 305 meters below the top of a steady
mountain, therefore, waste can be stored in a safer place than aboveground storage casks.
Current delays exist due to underfunding and political opposition in Nevada.610
Further, extending the lifetime of existing nuclear reactors and constructing new power
plants must be included to achieve net-zero carbon emission. In 2020, eleven reactors were slated
to receive an extention of an additional twenty years of life. This includes the replacement of
steam generators and upgrades of instrument and control systems. Instead of constructing a
conventional nuclear reactor, the United States should focus on building SMRs. It is much
smaller, with less radiation, and is economically feasible compared to conventional power plants.
Lastly, public awareness of the safety of nuclear power should be promoted. In 2018, a
collaboration between the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and Discovery Education helped to
develop a nuclear science curriculum for high schools. The program provides lesson plans,
career profiles, and a virtual field trip for students.611 Promoting public awareness on the safety
and benefits of nuclear energy will help the public feel safe and confident in the expansion of
nuclear energy systems.

Digitalization of All Current and New Hydropower Plants | Grace Chun

Despite being the oldest form of non-carbon energy and making up 37% of U.S.
electricity consumption in 2020, hydropower is not in line with current technological trends.612
The United States should invest in the physical modernization of hydropower plants (i.e.
advanced turbines) as well as implement digitization systems and advanced sensor suites to make
better-informed decisions through real-time data.613 The United States must take measures to
610
“Nuclear Power in the USA.” World Nuclear Association. WNA, February 2022.
[Link]
611
“Stem Resources.” [Link]. Department of Energy. Accessed March 1, 2022.
[Link]
612
Water Power Technologies Office, “Hydropower Program,” [Link], accessed February 28, 2022,
[Link]
613
Water Power Technologies Office, “Fleet Modernization, Maintenance, and Cybersecurity,” [Link], accessed
February 28, 2022, [Link]
protect its digital assets during the digitalization of hydropower. This includes creating proper
cybersecurity tools, investing in employee cyber education and training, and evaluating risk
management practices that can best mitigate cyberattacks. Cybersecurity will help deflect
nation-state actors who attack U.S. critical energy infrastructure with malicious intent and
monetary motivations. Through digitalization, hydropower plants can increase and improve
efficiency, essentialized by rapidly aging hydropower plants.

Increase Investment in R&D for Low-Carbon Technologies | Chihiro Kobayashi

Increasing investment in the R&D of energy, especially low-carbon energy, is essential to
reduce dependence on high-carbon fuel and to accelerate the installment of low carbon power.
The Advanced Manufacturing Office of the DOE has launched a variety of R&D projects that
have made significant impacts on national innovation and quantifiable energy savings.614
Policymakers should increase investment in R&D for new low-carbon technologies and
end-of-life technology for renewable energy plants. Since the lifetime of renewable energy plants
ranges from ten to forty years, it is important to be prepared for a wave of aging renewable
energy systems with additional research and development to end-of-life management.615 This
may include lifetime extensions and the reuse, recycling, and disposal of materials. R&D is
particularly needed in silicon purification processes for solar PV, recycling technologies for wind
turbine blades, methods to avoid waste in manufacturing, and lowering the recycling costs of
wastes.616 617

Policy Related to DAC and CCS/CCUS

Increase Federal Funding to the R&D of New DAC Programs | Jacqueline Days
The rapidly worsening climate crisis, coupled with the improbability of completely
eliminating energy-related carbon emissions in the near future makes it evident that carbon
removal is an essential technology to utilize. The IPCC and the National Academies of Science
claim that DAC is crucial and an optimal choice due to its potential for affordability and
non-disruptive manner of carbon removal.618 However, more investment in this technology is
needed to fully optimize it and mitigate the existing drawbacks, such as large energy use, cost,
and overall lack of deployment. Comparable to other nations such as Canada or Switzerland, the
state of DAC in the United States is subpar and more R&D must be employed. The DOE has
promised to allocate $14.5 million to DAC research, which is increased from past amounts, but is

614
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Research & Development,” accessed March 1, 2022,
[Link]
615
NREL, “Useful Life,” accessed March 1, 2022, [Link]
616
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “End-of-Life Management for Solar Photovoltaics,”
accessed March 1, 2022, [Link]
617
American Clean Power Association, “Wind Turbine End-of-Life Strategies,” June 2020,
[Link]
618
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Negative Emissions Technologies and
Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.[Link]
still a minuscule amount compared to other carbon-neutral technology investments. The
recommended amount of funding per year is $240 million.619 Investment in DAC to this scale by
the federal government would allow for the cost of DAC to break even, the neutralization of
emissions, the creation of a plethora of jobs, and to make the United States a world leader in this
technological field.

Expand the Marketplace and Demand for DAC and CO₂ | Jacqueline Days
Currently, the market and demand for CO₂ is low, which is a detriment to increasing DAC
implementation, as there is little incentive for companies or industries to deploy DAC.
Additional policy enacted to compel demand for CO₂ in the market would allow for DAC to
create a successful self-sustaining system. First, we recommend the establishment of a federal
mandate for fuels based on carbon captured from DAC.620 Considering fuel is still integral to the
U.S. economy, this would provide solid procurement of fuel while ramping up DAC technologies
that would mitigate carbon from the environment. Additionally, we recommend an additional
regulatory policy that would require the development of new industries and factories emitting
large quantities of CO₂ to build a small DAC plant, which would be subsidized. Next, the
existing 45Q tax credit, which credits companies anywhere from $12 to $50 per ton of carbon
captured, must be improved upon. Policies such as extending the commence construction period
to 2030, extending the payout credit to thirty years, increasing the value of the credit for geologic
storage to $180 per ton, and lowering the minimum capture and use thresholds to 10,000 tons per
year would make this tax credit even more valuable to companies.621 This tax credit improvement
would incentivize private companies to invest in DAC, thus opening up the market and
increasing competition.

Increase Investment in CCS & CCUS Technology | Sydney Sherk and Yelyzaveta Ismaullayeva
Increasing investment in CCS and CCUS technologies will be essential for offsetting the
effects of carbon output in the next decades. However, the benefits of CCUS and CCS are wholly
dependent on their ability to thrive in the marketplace. We recommend that the United States
increase investment in R&D for CCUS and CCS technology, as well as initiate public subsidies
to bring CCS and CCUS technologies to a profitable level in the next five to ten years. These
actions may be performed in conjunction with stricter enforcement of international climate
agreements or with added carbon taxes, and may also require other methods of geoengineering.
In the coming years the United States will act as a model for the success of CCS and CCUS at
decreasing carbon emissions created as a result of energy production. In the next decade, the
United States should also increase investment in CCUS and CCS technology for emerging

619
John Larsen et al., “Capturing Leadership: Policies for the US to Advance Direct Air Capture Technology,”
Rhodium Group (Rhodium Group, LLC, June 23, 2020),
[Link]
620
John Larsen et al., “Capturing Leadership: Policies for the US to Advance Direct Air Capture Technology,”
Rhodium Group
621
John Larsen et al., “Capturing Leadership: Policies for the US to Advance Direct Air Capture Technology,”
Rhodium Group
economies who need to develop with the usage of high-carbon energy sources. Financing of
domestic and international CCS and CCUS technology is estimated to cost between $655 billion
and $1,280 billion.622 With CCS and CCUS technology implemented around the world, the
global economy will have the space to allow for continued economic growth and increased
quality of life while continuing to tackle carbon emissions.

Policy Related to Geopolitics and Political Interactions

Expand Local Production of Rare Earth-Materials | Emma Kamb

We recommend that the United States expand its local production of rare-earth materials
such as lithium. Lithium and other critical minerals are paramount to the production of solar
technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, EV batteries, and grid lines.623 Currently, nearly
all of the U.S supply is imported, with 54% of these imports coming from Argentina.624 This
dependence on foreign countries presents an energy security issue. It leaves the United States
open to dramatic price increases. Since discoveries of lithium in the United States account for
nearly 10% of the world’s reserves, opportunities for expansion of a rare-earth material industry
is significant.625 This expansion would reduce energy security risks and benefit the U.S. economy
through job creation.

Non-Antagonistic Foreign Policy | John F. Reinhardt

The United States must refocus foreign policy toward non-antagonistic and
climate-forward ambitions by drastically increasing the funding and resources available at the
Department of State and other non-military entities — effectively redesigning foreign policy to
become diplomatically, scientifically, and policy focused. The United States’ F-35 Lightning II
jet program is comparable in costs to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and employs more
Americans than the State Department.626;627 It is not a radical conclusion to draw that the United
States has willingly foregone staying competitive on the world stage in favor of a
semi-operational jet. A state that spent about $10 trillion between losing a war in Afghanistan
and one jet program is near-definitionally unable or unwilling to lead or address the energy
transformation in the face of climate change.628 This reality provides an irreconcilable tension

622
Global CCS Institute, 2021. The Global Status of CCS: 2021. Australia. 12.
623
IEA, “Energy Security and the Risk of Disorderly Change – World Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis.”
624
Mineral Commodity Summaries. U.S. Geological Survey, 2022.
[Link]
625
Mineral Commodity Summaries. U.S. Geological Survey, 2022.
[Link]
626
Insinna, Valerie. "Watchdog Group Finds F-35 Sustainment Costs Could Be Headed off Affordability
Cliff." Defense News (Washington, D.C., US), July 7, 2021.
627
Hillman, Jonathon E. "How Big Is China's Belt and Road?" Center for Strategic & International Studies. Last
modified April 3, 2018. Accessed February 28, 2022. [Link]
628
Kimball, Jim. “Costs of the Twenty-year War on Terror: $8 Trillion and 900,000 deaths”. Brown University
(Providence, RI), September 1, 2021.
[Link]
versity%5D,War%20project%20at%20Brown%20University.
regarding addressing climate change, since the military is not equipped to lead this crisis. In
terms of emissions and related international cooperation, this is the wrong approach. The United
States should dedicate material and financial resources toward constructive measures such as
aiding countries to develop sustainably.

Market Solutions to Incentivize Industry Change | Joseph Najmolhoda

It is imperative to the transition away from high-carbon emitting fuels that the market
disincentivize continued development and usage of such fuels. Correspondingly, international
climate agreements must have independent enforcement functions. In this case, the United States
has a unique ability to leverage the market with its own resources to incentivize a transition. The
process requires an initial increase of natural gas and oil production to establish foreign trade
dependencies on American natural resources. This is followed by conditional allotment of
investment to foreign nations on the basis of a reduction of carbon fuel usage and
implementation of alternative energy forms. The investment can be constructed similarly to the
ERP, also known as the Marshall Plan, wherein policy is generated by the foreign country629 and
not IMF structural programs—which establishes a one-size-fits-all standard that ignores each
nation’s individual needs.630 If done successfully, American industry can fund carbon-free
transitions abroad, benefitting both economies. An increase of R&D, as well as the extraction of
raw resources, is needed to accomplish this goal—specifically, more funding allocated to
non-carbon sectors such as nuclear and the increased extraction of rare metals needed in
non-carbon infrastructure such as lithium.631 Recent events have shown that the United States
and the international community can enact meaningful economic deterrence policies.632 In fact,
the Russian invasion of Ukraine has given the United States the ability to leverage a position on
non-carbon energy. This position would prove integral in an international energy transition.

629
Tarnoff, Curt. “The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance .” Congressional Research
Service, January 18, 2018.
[Link]
630
Spraos, John. “IMF Conditionality: Ineffectual, Inefficient, Mistargeted.” Princeton University , December 1986.
[Link]
631
Mineral Commodity Summaries. U.S. Geological Survey, 2022.
[Link]
632
“Russia's Economic Reality Has Changed, Kremlin Says.” Reuters. Thomson Corporation, February 28, 2022.
[Link]
-28/.
 Bibliography

“2021: Caesar Made Huge Strides to Secure U.S. Energy Sector from Evolving Threats.”
“About CCUS.” 2021.
“Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors.” April 2021.
“Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy,” [Link], 2021,
Alec Tyson, “On Climate Change, Republicans Are Open to Some Policy Approaches, Even as They
Assign the Issue Low Priority,” July 23, 2021.
Alves, Bruna. “Net Electricity Consumption Worldwide in Select Years from 1980 to 2019.”
Amadeo, Kimberly. “What Are Emerging Markets?” 2021.
Ambrose, Jillian.“China's coal production hit record levels in 2021 | Coal.” 2022.
“Arab Oil Embargo.”
Arciniegas Rueda, Ismael, and Aaron Clark-Ginsberg. “The Downside of a Lean Electric Grid.” October
13, 2020.
“Backgrounder on Cyber Security.”July 13, 2021.
Belkin, Paul, Jim Nichol, and Steven Woehrel. "Europe’s energy security: options and challenges to
natural gas supply diversification."
“Benefits of Hydropower,” [Link].
Biamonte, Emilio. “Controlling the Risks from Liquefied Natural Gas.”
“Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs,” March 29, 2021).
Blackmon, David. “How Europe's Energy Crisis Could Force the EU to Adopt More Sensible
Policies.”January 5, 2022.
Bouckaert, Stephanie, Araceli Fernandez Pales, Christophe McGlade, Uwe Remme, Brent Wanner, Laszlo
Varro, et al. “Net Zero by 2050 .” May 2021.
Boulange, Julien, Naota Hanasaki, Dai Yamazaki, and Yadu Pokhrel. “Role of Dams in Reducing Global
Flood Exposure under Climate Change.”
British Petroleum Company. 2019.
Brooks, Chuck. “Cybersecurity in 2022 – a Fresh Look at Some Very Alarming Stats.” January 24, 2022.
“Carbon Capture and Storage: Challenges, Enablers and Opportunities for Deployment.” July 30, 2020.
“Charging Infrastructure Procurement and Installation.”
Cheng, Evelyn. “China has 'no other choice' but to rely on coal power for now, official says.” CNBC.
2021.
"'Clean Coal' Technologies, Carbon Capture, and Sequestration." Last modified November 2021.
“Clean Energy.”
"Coal Explained." Last modified October 19, 2021.
“Combating the Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice.”
“Construction of Test Disposal Tunnel under Way at Onkalo.” March 1, 2021.
“COPL Confirms Wyoming Oil Discovery | Oil & Gas Journal.”
“Country Energy Overview.”International Atomic Energy Agency, 2021.
“Country Nuclear Power Profiles.”International Atomic Energy Agency, 2020.
Cullen, David A, and Karren L More. “Heavy-Duty Vehicles an Ideal Entry into Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Use.” April 23, 2021.
Dale, Spencer, and Bassam Fattouh. “BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020.” 2018.
Dalton, Matthew. “China, India and Other Developing Nations Seek $1.3 Trillion a Year in Climate
Finance - WSJ.” 2021.
“Death Rates from Energy Production per Twh.”
“Department of Labor Logo United States Department of Labor.” United States Department of Labor.
“Digging into Geothermal,” [Link].
Dino Grandoni, Brady Dennis, and Juliet Eilperin, “Democrats Push Sweeping Climate Legislation amid
a Scorching Summer,” July 16, 2021.
“Discoveries - Oil & Gas Journal.” Oil & Gas Journal. Endeavor Business Media, 2022.
Donev, Jason, Bethel Afework, Jordan Hanania, and Kailyn Stenhouse. "Supercritical Coal Plant." 2018.
Donovan, Jeffrey, Henri Paillere, and Shant Krikorian. “IAEA's Grossi Calls for Nuclear Power for Net
Zero Emissions as Climate 'Clock Is Ticking'.” March 31, 2021.
Dwivedi, Vijay, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, and Sachchida Nand Pandey. “National Conference on Eco
Friendly Manufacturing for Sustainable Development.” 2010.
Eckel, Mike. “In Russia, Coal Is Still King. And The Government Wants Even More.” 2021.
Eckert, Vera, and Kate Abnett. “How Much Does Germany Need Russian Gas?” January 20, 2022.
EIA. “Biomass explained.” Last updated November 3, 2021.
EIA. “Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022.”
EIA. “Table 1.3 Primary Energy Consumption by Source.”
EIA. “U.S. renewable energy consumption by source and sector, 2020.”
EIA. “What is renewable energy?.” Last updated May 20, 2021.
Ella Nilsen, “Biden Administration Says Solar Energy Has the Potential to Power 40% of US Electricity
by 2035,” September 8, 2021.
Elisha R. Frederiks, Karen Stenner, and Elizabeth V. Hobman, “Household Energy Use: Applying
Behavioural Economics to Understand Consumer Decision-Making and Behaviour,” October 16,
2014.
“Electricity: from Oil.” Electricity from oil. Pace University.
“Electricity Generation from Low-Carbon Sources.” Our World in Data. 2021.
“Electric Vehicles – Analysis.” IEA. IEA, November 1, 2021.
“Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations.” Alternative Fuels Data Center
Elkafas, Ahmed G., Mohamed M. Elgohary, and Mohamed R. Shouman. "Numerical analysis of
economic and environmental benefits of marine fuel conversion from diesel oil to natural gas for
container ships." 15210-15222.
Elliot Davis, “Some States Are Taking Action against Climate Change, but Is It Enough?,” January 2022,
“Emergency Response Exercises – Energy Security.” IEA.
“Energy Economics: Home.” BP global.
“Energy Security - Areas of Work.” IEA.
“Energy Security.” Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response. “Enhanced
Geothermal Systems,” [Link].
“Eni Discovers Gas Offshore Abu Dhabi | Oil & Gas Journal.”
Environment America Research & Policy Center. “Renewables on the Rise 2021: The rapid growth of
renewables, electric vehicles and other building blocks of a clean energy future.”
“Environmental Impacts of Hydroelectric Power.” Union of Concerned Scientists. March 5, 2013.
“Equinor, Wellesly Find Oil near North Sea Fram Field .”
“Eurostat.” Electricity Production, Consumption and Market Overview.
“ExxonMobil Discovers More Oil Offshore Guyana.”
“Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Advances Cleaner Industrial Sector to Reduce Emissions and
Reinvigorate American Manufacturing,” The White House.
Fajardy, Mathilde. “IEA. CCUS in Industry and Transformation.” IEA, November 2021.
Folk, Emily. “Waste in the Renewable Energy Industry and How We Can Sustainably Power Our World.”
Foss, Michelle Michot. "Introduction to LNG." Center for Energy Economics.
“Fossil Energy Study Guide: Oil.” [Link]. US Department of Energy.
“Fossil Fuels and the Future.” Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries . 2016.
“Fracking: What Is Fracking?: Shale Oil and Natural Gas: IPAA.” Independent Petroleum Association of
America. July 24, 2018.
Frederiks, Elisha R., Karen Stenner, and Elizabeth V. Hobman. “Household Energy Use: Applying
Behavioural Economics to Understand Consumer Decision-Making and Behaviour.”October 16,
2014.
“Frequently Asked Questions (Faqs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” EIA, 2020.
“Fuels: Old and New – World Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis.” IEA. 2021.
Gardener, Andrew. “Russia Cuts Gas off to Ukraine.” June 16, 2014.
“Geothermal Power Plants - Meeting Clean Air Standards,” [Link].
Global CCS Institute, 2021. The Global Status of CCS: 2021. Australia.
Gsottbauer, E., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Environmental Policy Theory Given Bounded Rationality and
Other-regarding Preferences. 49, 263–304 (2011).
Gül, Timur, Samantha McCulloh, Uwe Remme, and Preaveen Bains. “Energy Technology Perspectives
2020.” September 2020.
Hamm, Susan. “Geothermal Energy: Solutions for a Zero-Emissions Sustainable Energy Future.”
Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions," 2020.
Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, “United States: Energy Country Profile,” November 28, 2020,
Holt, Mark, and Phillip Brown, R46820 U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy
Concerns § (2022)
Howarth, Richard B. "Consumer rationality and energy efficiency." 176-177
Hu, Zuliu, and Mohsin S. Khan. “Economic Issues 8 -- Why Is China Growing So Fast?” 1997.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office. “Hydrogen Fuel Basics.”
“Hydrogen Strategy. Enabling A Low-Carbon Economy.” U.S. Department of Energy, July 2020.
“Hydropower Basics,” [Link].
“Hydropower Pros and Cons.” EnergySage, November 10, 2021.
IEA (2021), Coal 2021, IEA.
IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA.
IEA (2021), Global EV Outlook 2021, IEA.
IEA and IRENA. “End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels.” June 2016.
IEA. “Hydropower.” IEA, November 1, 2021.
IEA. “Key World Energy Statistics 2021.” IEA. 2021.
IEA. “Net Zero 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” Last revised October 2021.
IEA. “Putting CO₂ to Use.” IEA, September 2019.
IEA. Rep. Climate Impacts on Latin American Hydropower, January 2021.
IEA. Rep. Climate Impacts on South and Southeast Asian Hydropower, December 2021.
International Hydropower Association. Rep. 2021 Hydropower Status Report: Sector Trends and
Insights, 2021.
International Hydropower Association. Rep. Strengthening Sustainable Hydropower to Support
the Covid-19 Recovery, May 28, 2020.
“Importance of Methane.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, November 15, 2016.
“India's coal production stands at 74.8 million tonnes for December.” The Hindu. 2022.
“International.” EIA. [Link] (2022), Smart Electrification with Renewables: Driving the
transformation of energy services, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani,
S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, et al
Iusubova , Narmina. University of Northern Iowa . UNI, July 2017.
Jacinto, Leela. “Behind a 'green façade', Modi expands coal mining on India's tribal lands.”
James D. Agresti, Steven Bukovec and Rachel McCutcheon, “Energy Facts: Coal,” Just Facts, last
modified August 25, 2021.
Jason Bordoff and Meghan O'Sullivan, “Green Upheaval: The New Geopolitics of Energy,” January
2022.
Jeffry Bartash, “Fracking Revolution That's Made the U.S. the Top Global Oil Producer Is Boosting the
Economy - and Keeping Emissions Down,” March 22, 2019.
Julia Cusick, “States Are Laying a Road Map for Climate Leadership,” November 20, 2019.
Klein, R.J.T., G.F. Midgley, B.L. Preston, M. Alam, F.G.H. Berkhout, K. Dow, and M.R. Shaw,
“Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits.” pp. 899-943.
“Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint.” July 9, 2015.
Lawler, Alex. “As nuclear talks resume, Iran's oil exports increase.” 2022.
Lawson, Ashley J. “Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture.” November 16, 2021.
Levitan, Dave. “First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved.” September 9, 2020.
Littlecott, Chris, Hanna Hakko, and Leo Roberts. "Explained: What Does 'Unabated Coal' Mean?"Last
modified June 24, 2021.
Looney, Bernard. “Statistical Review of World Energy: Energy Economics: Home.”
Lough, Richard, and Benjamin Mallet. “Macron Bets on Nuclear in Carbon-Neutrality Push, Announces
New Reactors.”
Madhumitha Jaganmohan, “Clean Energy - Global Investment 2019,” January 27, 2021,
Manpati, Tipakson. “Nuclear Power Trend in Southeast Asia and Its Contested Discourses on Climate
Change: Heinrich Böll Foundation: Southeast Asia Regional Office.” November 9, 2020.
McKenna, Killian, “Preparing Distribution Utilities for the Future- Unlocking Demand-side Management
Potential,” 2021.
“Membership - About.” IEA.
Merrill, Dave. “The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy.” June 3, 2021.
“Miles to Go: The Future of Emerging Markets – IMF F&D.” International Monetary Fund.
Mineral Commodity Summaries. U.S. Geological Survey, 2022.
Mitsubishi Power. "Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plants."
Montgomery, Scott L. "Coal: The Shakespearean Fuel (Tragedy)." April 26, 2021.
Montgomery, Scott L. "The Landscape of Emissions: Truths and Trends." January 6, 2022.
Montgomery, Scott L. "The Persistence of Coal: Why Is It so Difficult for Nations to Abandon the Largest
Source of Energy-Related Emissions?" Last modified December 2021.
“Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis.” IEA, 2021.
Noble, I.R., S. Huq, Y.A. Anokhin, J. Carmin, D. Goudou, F.P. Lansigan, B. Osman-Elasha, and A.
Villamizar, “Adaptation needs and options.” pp. 833-868.
NREL. “Biomass Energy Basics.”
“Nuclear Energy’s Economic Benefits — Current and Future.” Nuclear Energy Institute, April 2012.
“Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close.” U.S. Department of Energy,
March 24, 2021.
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. “Geothermal FAQs.”
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. “How an Enhanced Geothermal System Works.”
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. “U.S. Department of Energy Announces More Than
$64 Million for Biofuels Research to Reduce Transportation.” September 9, 2021.
Office of Nuclear Energy. “What's the Lifespan for a Nuclear Reactor? Much Longer Than You
Might Think.” April 16, 2020.
Office of Wind and Hydropower Technologies. Hydropower: Setting a Course for Our Energy
Future. 2004.
“Oil and Gas in Everyday Life.” IOGP. IOGP.
“Oil Majors' Net Zero Plans Still Far from Paris Targets.” Carbon Tracker Initiative, May 25, 2021.
“Oil & Natural Gas Contribution to U.S. Economy Fact Sheet,” Energy API.
“Oil Reserves.” Our World in Data. 2021.
Oliver Milman, “Republicans New Favorite Study Trashes Biden's Climate Plans – but Who's behind It?,”
March 9, 2021.
Oliver Milman, “Republicans Pledge Allegiance to Fossil Fuels like It's Still the 1950s,” June 7, 2021.
Our World in Data. “China: Energy Country Profile.”
Our World in Data. “Fossil fuel consumption.”
Our World in Data. “Primary energy consumption.”
Our World in Data. “Solar power generation.”
Our World in Data. “United States: Energy Country Profile.”
Pacala, S., and R. Socolow. “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years
with Current Technologies.” 968–72.
Patel, Sonal by POWER. “Rapid Advancements for Fast Nuclear Reactors.”
“Plans For New Reactors Worldwide.” World Nuclear Association, 2022.
Ponseti, Marta, and Jordi Lopez Pujol. “The Three Gorges Dam Project in China.” 2006.
“Population by Country (2022).” Worldometer. 2022.
“Power Systems in Transition – Analysis.” IEA. April 1, 2021.
“Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities.” World Nuclear Association.
“Radioactive Waste From Uranium Mining and Milling.” EPA United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
Rahimpour, Mohammad Reza, Mohammad Farsi, and Mohammad Amin Makarem, eds. 2020.
Reinhart, RJ. “40 Years after Three Mile Island, Americans Split on Nuclear Power.” November 20, 2021.
“Renewable Technologies Can't Escape the Issue of Waste Management.” Nuclear Newswire. Nuclear
Newswire, February 3, 2021.
Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. “CO2 Emissions by Fuel.” May 11, 2020.
Rob Jackson, “Natural Gas Use Is Rising: Is That Good News or Bad News for the Climate?,” January 9,
2020
“Russia - Countries & Regions - IEA.”
Rystad Energy. “Hydropower Cements Its Place As The World's Most Popular Renewable
Energy.”
Sallee, James M. "Rational Inattention and Energy Efficiency." 811.
Sallee, Kyle. “Regaining American Competitiveness in the Global Nuclear Power Market.”
Sanger, David E., and Nicole Perlroth. “Pipeline Attack Yields Urgent Lessons about U.S. Cybersecurity.”
“Security of Clean Energy Transitions – Analysis.” IEA.
“Security of Nuclear Facilities and Material.” August 2020.
“Shedding light on energy on the EU.”
“SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy.” June 29, 2021.
“Small Nuclear Power Reactors.” December 2021.
Smil, Valcav, and BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Global Primary Energy Consumption by
Source. 2019.
“Solar Energy Development Environmental Considerations.” Solar Energy Development
“Solar Energy in the United States,”
Statistia. “Global geothermal energy produced in 2020, by country.”
“Statistical Review of World Energy: Energy Economics: Home.” British Petroleum. 2021.
Stebbins, Samuel. “The largest oil reserves in the world are found in these 15 countries.” 2019. Suleymanova,
Radmilla. “OPEC Says Oil Will Remain Number One, Despite Green Energy
Push.” September 28, 2021.
Tekie, Bruk, Pedi Obani, Gerald Forkour, Ebenezar Amankwaa, Thelma Arko, Qondi Moyo, and
Maria Ancilla Bomband. “Africa’s Development - United Nations University.”
“The National Academies Presents: What You Need to Know about Energy.”
The Staff Of The Morning, “A Push for Electric Vehicles,” August 6, 2021
“The USA Is the World's Third Largest Hydropower Producer by Capacity after China and Brazil,”
Thomas, Joelle. “Refuting the Case for Nuclear in the Middle East.” April 23, 2021.
Timmons, David, Jonathon M Harris, and Brian Roach. “The Economics of Renewable Energy - Boston
University.”2014.
Timperley, Jocelyn. “The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance — and how to fix it.” nature.
Oct. 21st, 2021.
Turan, Guloren, Alex Zapantis, Christina Staib, Tony Zhang, Jamie Burrows, Angus Gillespie, et al.
“Global Status of CCS 2021.”
“Turkey discovered 60 mln barrels of oil equivalent reserves so far in 2021: Minister - Latest News.”
2021.
U.S. Department of Energy. “Advantages and Challenges of Wind Energy.”
U.S. Department of Energy. “Benefits of residential solar electricity.”
U.S. Department of Energy. “GeoVision: Harnessing the Heat Beneath Our Feet.” May 2019.
U.S. Department of Energy. “20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to
U.S. Electricity Supply.” July 2008.
U.S. Department of Energy. “Wind.”
U.S. Department of Energy. “Wind Market Reports: 2021 Edition.” 7-8.
U.S. Department of Energy. “Wind Vision: Detailed Roadmap Actions: 2017 Updates.” May 2018.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” September 16,
2020.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Coal Explained: Mining and Transportation of Coal." Last
modified December 10, 2020.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Electricity in the
U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” Electric vehicles
and hybrids surpass 10% of U.S. light-duty vehicle sales.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Energy
& Financial Markets - Crude oil.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Hydrogen Explained .”
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Proved
Reserves of Crude Oil and Natural Gas in the United States, Year-End 2020. January 2020.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” Renewables
became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” U.S. energy facts
explained - consumption and production
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Natural gas
explained
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” U.S. nuclear
industry
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis,” U.S. renewable
energy consumption surpasses coal for the first time in over 130 years - Today in Energy
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Short-Term
Energy Outlook
Vahdat, Amir. “Iran discovers new oil field with over 50 billion barrels.” 2019.
Volcovici, Valerie. “Biden pledges to double U.S. climate change aid; some activists unimpressed.” 2021.
Wade, Will. "The World's Three Biggest Coal Users Get Ready to Burn Even More." March 19, 2021.
Water Power Technologies Office. “Benefits of Hydropower.”
Water Power Technologies Office. “Types of Hydropower Plants.”
“What is energy poverty: definition, statistics & effects on society.”
Woetzel, Jonathan. “Outperformers: High-growth emerging economies and the companies that propel
them.” 2018.
“World Economic Outlook (October 2021) - Real GDP growth.” International Monetary Fund. Wolfe,
Michael. “The Comparison Between Hydropower & Nuclear Energy.” September 26, 2017.
Xu, Muyu, Shivani Singh, and Richard Pullin. “China's monthly coal output rises to highest since March
2015.” 2021.
Zargar, Arshad R. “India making strides toward clean energy, but quitting coal isn't easy.” 2021.