The new Republican line in Congress is they accept climate change as real and are on board with efforts to curb harmful emissions and combat Earth’s warming. I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s a lie. 

I take no pleasure in saying congressional Republicans—for the most part—are guilty of uttering untruths. Moreover, I recognize that all Republicans are not climate deniers, just as all Democrats are not environmental defenders. 


Under common law, uttering is when a person offers as genuine a forged instrument with the intent to defraud.


The new Republican line in Congress is they accept climate change as real and are on board with efforts to curb harmful emissions and combat Earth’s warming. I don’t mean to be rude, but

I take no pleasure in saying congressional Republicans—

. Moreover, I recognize that all Republicans are not climate deniers, just as all Democrats are not environmental defenders.

I want to be clear about where I stand on bi-partisan action because what I’m about to say will sound like I’m painting all Republicans with the same brush. It’s not my intention.

I have great respect for Republican members of Congress like Senators Murkowski (R-AK), Collins (R-ME), and Romney (R-UT), as well as Representatives Kinzinger (R-IL), Cheney (R-WY), and Upton (R-MI).

Take note that my respect is not because I agree with all of their policy positions. I don’t. I respect them because of their integrity and understanding of how fragile democracy can be and the need to defend it at all cost.

I readily admit that I’m a liberal in the mode of President Biden. I am of an age and experience that believes government works best when it works collegially—or at least tries to, honorably.

I recoil at the tribalism of today and the intolerance it breeds. I question any culture with so little faith in itself that it is unwilling to broach any subject that might make it uncomfortable.

BUT—I believe there are times and circumstances that call for digging your heels in and saying enough is enough! We—as a nation—are at that point, especially in climate matters.

I’m more than a mite suspicious about the willingness of former climate science deniers like House Minority Leader McCarthy (R-CA) to acknowledge the possibility that Earth’s rising temperature is not a good thing. The truth of it is McCarthy and many others in the Republican House caucus are saying climate change is real as a ploy to keep the nation largely on a fossil fuel standard.

My assessment isn’t based on their being Republicans. It is what they are proposing in response to what climate scientists are saying. Under the rubric 

, they are offering some three dozen bills that in sum will make it easier for the nation to continue on the fossil fuel standard—with some nuclear thrown in for good measure.

I’m in perfect agreement with the website’s sub-heading that 

climate change shouldn’t be politicized or divide us. When the right policies protect our economy and jobs as well as our environment, America wins in every way

. It’s just that I think it rings hollow when what they’re proposing in the 36 or so pieces of legislation has so little to do with either the science of climate change or the marketplace.

Three themes run through the Republican Climate Plan.

Legislation under this title includes hamstringing President Biden in the nation’s return to the Paris Climate Accord. The 

 requires the president to report to Congress before taking any action under the accord and allows Congress to block any presidential action. Why something like this is considered environmental innovation is unclear.

Other proposals under the innovation heading have to do with mining minerals, nuclear energy, and carbon sequestration. The group of actions also implies support for 

Here there are several pieces of legislation on nuclear. However, most of the proposals are about making it easier to use natural gas, including through the permitting of pipelines like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline.

Proposals also include limiting a president’s ability to ban fracking on federal lands and modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA)requirements to prepare environmental impact assessments and studies. The Act was put on the books by the Nixon administration—with the full-throated bi-partisan support of a Democratic Congress.

The Act remains one of the cornerstones of the nation’s environmental protection framework. Could NEPA requirements be made more efficient? Yes, they could.

Do the Republican proposals maintain the level of protection in the current Act while streamlining the process? No, they don’t. At the least it’s unlikely.

I say this because the bill’s intent appears to be putting in place the procedural changes proposed by the Trump administration that wouldn’t pass legal muster. Like many other Trump administration proposals, its changes would defeat the Act’s purpose by making it easier for an administration to do shoddy work.

The Trump administration proposed over 100 changes to federal environmental regulations. No administration was sued more. None lost more. The Trump administration lost 80 percent of its cases generally for reasons having to do with the belief that a president has unfettered authority to do as he pleases.

The legislation under both the innovation and infrastructure titles is intended to limit President Biden’s efforts to put the nation squarely on a path to decarbonize the economy. I have to wonder what the sponsors and supporters of the Republican plan would do if Trump were to return to the Oval Office with a Democratic Congress. Would they cry foul if Congress used its powers under this legislation to curb Trump’s enthusiasm to open wide the fossil fuel spigots?

The policy area where I think Republicans and Democrats have the best chance of cooperating comes under the 

 heading. The proposals here focus on reforestation, forest management, soil management, research, and partnership projects between the public and private sectors to assist the economic development of agricultural and mining communities.

I would note, however, that natural solution projects should be as subject to environmental impact assessments and studies as any other project that involves the federal government. Reforestation, utilization of crops and croplands as carbon sinks, adaptation, and resiliency are all actions that impact existing ecosystems. Simply calling something a “natural solution” is not to say that anything goes.

Some years ago, I was living in a rural area on the side of a hill. My neighbor, whose house was above mine, built a pond. He had two objectives: catching runoff to cut down erosion in his front field and attracting wildlife.

In building his pond, he decided to run his overflow pipe in my direction. Predictably when it rained, his water flooded my garden. We almost came to blows over it. His reasoning was water runs downhill, and it wasn’t anything that I didn’t have to deal with before the pond was built.

Except it was different. The water flowing into my garden was now constricted and gushed with abandon. It turned out he never applied for a permit, nor did he submit an environmental assessment as required by the county.

Once I called the county and threatened to sue, he was more amenable to fixing the problem rather than risk having to tear out the pond. The fix was simple. All he had to do was run a longer pipe into his existing drain field.

Natural or not, the best-intentioned projects can cause trouble for the folks further down the mountain. Even Representative Westerman’s (R-AR) trillion tree initiative can’t properly be done without an initial assessment of its environmental impact. For example, reforestation with species not native to the area could turn into a nightmare. Think 

. A trillion trees of the same species open the possibility that blight would run like fire through the forest.

It is telling that the Republican Climate Plan doesn’t bring solar or wind into the conversation except perhaps under the mining and mineral proposals or as part of the NEPA streamlining. Lithium and other metals are essential to today’s technologies.

The nation is faced today with a binary world. Grey no longer seems to exist. Things are either this, or they’re that—a Republican or a Democrat, a progressive or a populist.

Ten years ago, it may have been a pipedream to power the nation with clean energy technologies. According to the Energy Information Administration, solar and wind will account for 70 percent of the new electric generating capacity in 2021.

Are solar and wind perfect technologies? No, they’re not. Improving them means new storage and battery technologies. New technologies, including carbon capture and sequestration, will drive the 21st-century economy.

The nation doesn’t need a series of laws to commit it further to fossil fuels. What it needs is a measured and just exit strategy that will replace them with clean alternatives.

 that the majority of congressional Republicans are serious about seeking bipartisan solutions when Mitch McConnell unabashedly says he is 100 percent focused on stopping the Biden administration.

Stopping it from what? If recent actions are any example from everything—from mask-wearing to protecting the nation’s environment and responding to climate change.

 House Republicans are earnest about their climate concerns and willingness to work across the aisle and introduce legislation called one thing but doing another.

Of all that I find difficult to believe these days

 are the protestations of the majority of congressional Republicans who swear an oath to the Constitution and continue to question whether the 2020 election of President Biden was legit.

 is the necessity of preparing the nation for what lies ahead, knowing what we now know about the causes and consequences of climate change. If that means acting unilaterally, then so be it.

of the linked legislation under all the headings lacks any detail, e.g., bill text or summary, are given.

Climate Policy in a Binary World: Uttering and Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors

If 2020 taught us anything, it is that we live in a hyper-turbulent world, where the only constant is change, and as we move towards the summer of 2021 things have not slowed down. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a socio-economic calamity, affecting the lives of many people in the maritime sector, (not least our seafarers caught up in it), whilst simultaneously altering the way we view the environment.

Nevertheless, there have been some positive effects on the natural world and the health of our oceans. There is evidence that the significant slowdown in the shipping sectors, coastal tourism and oil and gas industry have had a positive effect on marine ecosystems. A recent survey by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) showed reduction in global seafood production of 1.7% and the trade value of seafood will decrease by nearly $6bn. This is primarily due to lower demand from export markets.

COVID-19 has also had a dramatic effect on international shipping, where near-term cargo amounts have declined about 5 per cent year-on-year from March 2020.

However, this is only temporary and if we don’t act now, we will revert to the old ways and continue damaging our oceans and associated marine habitats. In the Q1 of 2021 we are already seeing an increase in activity and associated increase in emissions. As we continue to emerge from the global pandemic we need to assess how the blue economy can support the global economy but more importantly how this can be done sustainably.

So, what exactly do we mean by the Blue Economy – given it means different things to different people –and how can it positively impact marine ecosystems?

In essence, the Blue Economy is wealth creation from ocean resources. Economic activity may include energy, either from hydrocarbons or from the renewable sector, transportation, shipping, and logistics ensuring continuation of global trade. Aquaculture, food supply (both wild caught and farmed fish) and harvested seaweed. It can even include digital transformation in the form of subsea data centres.

Oil and gas production will be with us for years to come. However, it is the responsibility of all industries, both onshore and offshore, to decarbonise their operations, which can only be done by removing or limiting the use of hydrocarbons.

Hydrogen has been heralded as a fuel that can drive energy transition. Blue hydrogen is created by the reforming of methane into hydrogen, with associated emissions removed via carbon capture and storage (CCS). Green hydrogen is produced when clean electricity from renewables is used to electrolyse water. Both blue and green hydrogen have massive offshore potential.

More importantly, the knowledge and experience in the oil and gas industry can easily be transferred to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of offshore hydrogen infrastructure.

The hydrogen produced can be used to decarbonise one of the hardest to abate offshore emission sectors – maritime shipping. Work has already been undertaken to assess hydrogen or its derivatives as an alternative to marine diesel and heavy fuel oil. Adoption of clean fuel technology in shipping will help to ensure that the IMO meets a 50 per cent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. Shell have recently announced a feasibility study into hydrogen shipping for their vessels in Singapore. Similarly companies like Ardmore shipping are looking to decarbonise the marine auxiliary power generation on board their ships through the use of hydrogen this is being developed with Element 1 Corporation and backing from Maritime Partners LLC.

The activity levels of marine aquaculture are only set to increase, but how do we balance sustainability with the needs of consumers, build economic growth and conserve marine ecosystems? It’s quite a task – but there are great examples where this is already being done.

World Economic Forum Virtual Ocean Dialogues 2020

 conference, entrepreneurs addressed a breakout session of the event called, ‘Harnessing the Power of Innovation to Achieve Sustainable Delivery Goal, (SDG) 14’.

nextProtein, uses food waste to mass-produce insect protein to feed farmed fish in place of fishmeal

, the traditional method of using fisheries’ by-catch, which can lead to the depletion of ecosystems and the collapse of local fisheries.

 is an offshore developer of sustainable marine projects. As well as working in floating wind and wave energy, they also develop aquaculture projects. By combining these sectors, SimplyBlue can power their farms from marine renewable energy, supporting the sustainable growth and development of fish farming with reduced impacts of GHG emissions.

Could reef credits be the new carbon credits?

Global bank HSBC and Australia’s Queensland Government recently became the first ever private and public buyers of reef credits.

, an environmental developer and investor, created the Reef Credit scheme. It explained: “The Reef Credit Scheme is a new environmental market that pays landholders for on-farm actions that improve water quality by reducing pollutants entering the Great Barrier Reef, without compromising the productivity of their land.”

It involves a tradable unit which, for buyers, provides a measurable, audited water quality outcome tracked against internationally recognised targets.

GreenCollar estimates that the market could be worth over 6 million reef credits by 2030. It opens the door for more businesses to invest in the future of the reef as a part of their environmental, social and governance, (ESG) strategies and develop a diversified income stream at the same time.

The Blue Economy has the potential to emerge from the pandemic as a sustainable marketplace that drives marine biodiversity and supports wealth creation.

However, it means marine sectors have to work together in a connected blue economy using the skills and technologies in adjacent sectors to drive development and adoption of innovation.

There is no reason why oil and gas and renewable industries cannot work symbiotically for production of green hydrogen. This, in turn, can support the decarbonisation of the maritime industry, with zero emission fuels the goal.

The use of innovative credit schemes like Reef Credits, can help companies achieve their ESG goals while investing in the future and protection of marine reefs. Renewable energy can power fish farms, subsea data centres [link], and the electrification of oil and gas platforms – all of which supports decarbonisation.

One thing is for sure, the Blue Economy needs to be disruptive, breaking down barriers between marine sectors. It is only by doing this that we will create a more environmentally sustainable, efficient, and profitable marine economy.

After COVID: Our chance to rebuild the Blue Economy

It may sound strange to suggest the fate of President Biden’s climate agenda will parallel that of Liz Cheney, Wyoming’s at-large Republican congressional representative, but hear me out. 

Liz Cheney was first elected in 2017 and is currently the House Republican Conference Chair. The Chair is considered the Number 3 position in the House Republican pecking order. Only the Republican Whip, Steve Scalise (R-LA), and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) outrank her—at least for the moment.

We’re different political parties. We’re not sworn enemies. We’re Americans.

It may sound strange to suggest the fate of President Biden’s climate agenda will parallel that of Liz Cheney, Wyoming’s at-large Republican congressional representative, but hear me out.

Liz Cheney was first elected in 2017 and is currently the House Republican Conference Chair. The Chair is considered the Number 3 position in the House Republican pecking order. Only the Republican Whip, Steve Scalise (R-LA), and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) outrank her—at least for the moment.

Cheney is a stand-up Republican conservative in the mold of John Boehner and Paul Ryan. Her father, Dick Cheney, was George W. Bush’s vice-president. When called to task by for cordially fist-bumping President Biden on his way into the House chamber for his State of the Union address she replied: We’re [of] different political parties. We’re not sworn enemies. We’re Americans.

True to her Wyoming roots, Cheney supports the coal industry. In March, she co-sponsored “Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions” or the “SCALE” Act. According to her website, the proposed Act would support the buildout of the infrastructure necessary to transport CO2 from where it is captured to where it can be utilized in manufacturing or safely and securely sequestered underground.

The SCALE Act, it should be said, is a bi-partisan proposal. The prime sponsors are David B. McKinley (R-WV) and Marc Veasey (D-TX). Also on the bill are Representatives Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Liz Cheney (R-WY), Pete Stauber (R-MN), and Terri Sewell (D-AL). The same bill was introduced into the previous Congress.

Through technological advancements, we know we can continue to expand its [coals] use as a clean and reliable tool to power our economy and support families… this bipartisan legislation…will help support the coal industry by advancing the availability and use of carbon capture.

If Cheney’s loyalty to coal were not already enough to make environmental defenders shudder, there are her 

 to consider. For some perspective the highest possible LCV score is 100 percent. Among others, Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL) had a 100 percent score in 2020, while Bradley Byrne (R-AL) had a score of “0.” Cheney's score in 2020 was five percent, with a lifetime rating of two percent.

Any self-respecting climate champion would be asking themselves about now why I’m bothering about Liz Cheney—more to the point—why they’re bothering to read about her? I’m getting to it Patience, please.

Cheney is about to be ousted from her leadership position for daring to denounce Donald John Trump. Cheney was one of the 

who voted to impeach the 46th president for 

Had Cheney stopped at voting to impeach, she wouldn’t be in the “trouble” she is now. It seems that Minority Leader McCarthy and many of the members of the Republican House Caucus are a might miffed over her recent statements about the 2020 presidential election.

Over this past weekend, Trump told a group of supporters that the 2020 election results might be overturned due to the potential findings of the firm “

Cyber Ninjas,” which has been enlisted by Republican leaders in the Arizona State Senate 

to undertake a recount of Maricopa County's 2.1 million ballots.

According to various reports, the former president alluded to the fact that once the thousands and thousands and thousands of votes for him were finally counted in Arizona, the results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and elsewhere would be overturned, and he—Trump—would be returned to the Oval Office with all the pomp and circumstance he deserved.

Representative Cheney was unconvinced. Following Trump’s predictions, Cheney went public, tweeting clearly that the 2020 election was not only over—it was 

anyone who claims otherwise was spreading 

, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system. (emphasis added)

In rebuttals to Cheney’s claims, Trump called her a big-shot warmonger and said no one in Wyoming ever liked her anyway. It was not the first time that the former president and the representative had unkind things to say to each other.

The reason it matters is found in the response of House Republicans—including Minority Leader McCarthy. Cheney’s vote to impeach Trump wasn’t well-received, and an effort was made following it to oust her from her leadership position. The attempt failed, mainly because she continued to have McCarthy’s support.

From everything now being said in Republican circles, it appears that Cheney’s days as third-chair of the caucus are numbered—perhaps in single digits. Scalise, the Number 2 House Republican, has been reported saying:

This idea that you just disregard President Trump is not where we are — and frankly, he has a lot to offer still.

Representative Cheney’s story is a tell-tale of things to come not only in Congress but on the hustings leading up to the 2022 midterm elections. The tale it tells is that the mainstream Republican Party remains in Trump’s hands and is willing to live 

Take, for example, Cyber Ninjas, the firm hired by the Republican-controlled Arizona senate to lead the recount. The firm appears without experience in this type of work and to be biased in favor of Trump. The firm’s founder, Doug Logan, is 

 to have repeatedly echoed the former president’s own conspiracy theories on a now-deleted 

Cheney wasn’t the only one finding themselves in the Republican dog house. The same weekend Cheney spoke of the BIG LIE, Senator Romney (R-UT) was 

 by some 2,000 members of the Utah State Republican Party.

The willingness of Republicans to turn the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Trump likely means that bi-partisan climate action is an increasingly elusive possibility. The most serious threat to climate policy at the national and state levels is not necessarily in the policy arena.

Over the course of the next year or so, state legislatures will be redrawing congressional districts based on the just-released 2020 census. Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, California, and West Virginia will each lose one seat.

Wyoming, Arizona, and Utah are three of 23 Republican trifecta states. The term trifecta is used to describe a state whose governor, legislature, and attorney general are all of the same party. There are 15 Democratic trifecta states.

When it comes to redrawing the borders of congressional districts, Republican and Democratic legislatures alike will look to favor their respective parties. Something the US Supreme Court believes is none of its business—having labeled the matter a political question. If Georgia is any example, the nation has only just begun to see the breakout of fights over voting rights laws—with Republican states more likely to limit mail-in balloting and other voter-friendly measures.

It’s unclear at this point when congressional Democrats and the president will say 

of their trying for bipartisan compromise 

going on instead to pass as much of Biden’s climate agenda as possible while still retaining nominal control of Congress. What is clear is that the Party of Trump will continue canceling moderate and even conservative Republicans like Romney and Cheney.

My advice to the climate community is to brace itself against these troubling trends and keep track of the time. By my watch, there are 

s to get done what needs to be done on Capitol Hill to put the country firmly back on the road to a low-carbon economy.

A Very Uncivil Notion: Climate Activism and the Party of Trump

Great excitement and interest accompanied Somalia’s recent launch of its first offshore oil and gas exploration licensing round with more than 250 energy companies and investors attending the virtual roadshow.

Enthusiasm is being fuelled by promising geology, top quartile fiscal terms, reduced concern about security issues offshore and the backdrop of a much improved political and economic situation in Somalia.


Great excitement and interest accompanied Somalia’s recent launch of its first offshore oil and gas exploration licensing round with more than 250 energy companies and investors attending the virtual roadshow.

Enthusiasm is being fuelled by promising geology, top quartile fiscal terms, reduced concern about security issues offshore and the backdrop of a much improved political and economic situation in Somalia.

Somalia has adopted a refreshingly professional approach to the licensing round, with legislation that ensures the sanctity of contracts and is more transparent and investor friendly than many other established petroleum provinces around the world. Encouragingly, two of the largest integrated oil companies, Shell and ExxonMobil, are already present, having paid US$1.7m last year to lease offshore blocks for 30 years.

Despite some recent faltering investor confidence in oil and gas projects, there is the strong conviction by existing players that oil and gas demand will continue for years to come, even if it peaks in the next decade. To meet that demand in the face of declining existing production and a lack of material oil discoveries globally, there is a need for new fields to be opened. The combination of rock bottom exploration costs and highly advanced seismic imaging helps reduce the risk adjusted cost for new projects, with many breaking even at sub-$40/bbl Brent.

Frontier exploration is still very much alive, demonstrated by the recent discoveries by TOTAL and partners in South Africa. Moreover, Shell and Qatar Petroleum have entered multiple different frontier exploration licences in Africa.

Somalia represents one of the last truly unexplored oil frontiers globally, albeit highly prospective, with only one offshore well and nothing in deep-water along its vast coastline. Shell, ExxonMobil, Eni and Chevron all had blocks in Somalia in the 1950s, suggesting its exploration potential has been evident for the best part of a century, but conflict has prevented further investigation.

Geographically, there are large oil and gas accumulations in the wider region. Evidence is growing for a working petroleum system offshore Somalia, which is expected to be oil prone, unlike the massive gas finds further to the south in Mozambique and Tanzania. The extensive 2D seismic data (shot without security incidents) has revealed "extraordinary" and "gigantic" structures according to seismic company Spectrum. Industry data and insights group TGS believes there is a strong possibility of oil-prone prospects offshore the whole length of the Somalian margin, potentially holding 30 billion barrels. The geological data also reveals that there are four source rocks mature for oil and gas generation and there have been offshore oil seeps (80 individual non-anthropogenic sea surface slicks) and oil and gas shows in several onshore wells in Somalia.

Source rock presence, distribution and maturity are largely de-risked for oil plays. There are many potential reservoirs to house the hydrocarbons, with a rich variety of trapping configurations – both sandstone and carbonate with large potential closures. In addition there are huge limestone reefs (>1,000 km2) and sandstone tilted fault blocks providing excellent reservoirs and another positive is the presence of direct hydrocarbon indicators such as visible flat spots.

Somalia itself has seen rapid and historic change. After 20 years of conflict and violence, the country adopted a provisional constitution in 2012 and has since enacted a wide range of positive fiscal, political, social and economic reforms allowing it to re-engage with creditors. In 2020, the IMF recognised Somalia had taken the necessary steps to begin receiving debt relief, allowing a return to the international financial system after 30 years of exile. This should allow the country to reduce its debt as a percentage of GDP to just 9%, from 111% at the end of 2018. Somalia has further committed to maintaining macroeconomic stability and putting in place a set of reforms focused on fiscal stability, improving governance and debt management – all of which give confidence to foreign investors.

The Government clearly recognises the need for a fiscal and regulatory regime that is internationally competitive to attract investment. The new fiscal framework in place for the upcoming licensing round uses best practice from production sharing agreements globally. Governance is also strong – with the Governing body (The Somali Petroleum Authority) separate from the Somali National Oil Company. Importantly, Somalia will recognise all contracts signed over the last 30 years.

Through foreign investments and partnerships, many African countries are strategically harnessing their recently discovered oil and gas resources to make far-reaching and sustainable improvements for their people and communities.

Somalia is well placed to join this transformation.

Somalia: licensed to drill

Levelized costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a strongly oversimplified viewpoint, a narrow focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.

This article will elaborate by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.

Levelized costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a strongly oversimplified viewpoint, a narrow focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.

This article will elaborate by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.

When technology is new and exciting, people only see the positives. It’s only when we reach meaningful market shares that undesired impacts are felt, and public opinion turns negative.

In the case of nuclear, the global expansion was handicapped by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and the nascent developing world expansion was interrupted by Fukushima in 2011. As shown in Figure 1, Chernobyl happened when nuclear reached about 5% of the global energy supply. Today, we are at 4.2%.

Figure 1: Comparison of the global expansion of wind and nuclear from 

 data. Both wind and nuclear electricity output are multiplied by 2.5 to convert it to displaced primary fossil energy.

Deaths from Chernobyl are estimated somewhere between 

, with 574 for Fukushima. For perspective, it is estimated that one future premature death results from every 

 or 1100 to 11000 tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Hence, if we assume that the 93,000 TWh of nuclear power generated to date displaced coal at 0.8 ton-CO2/MWh, the 74 billion tons of CO2 avoided by nuclear has already saved 7–70 million lives, not counting the additional impact of avoided air pollution.

Nuclear has already saved 7–70 million lives, not counting the additional impact of avoided air pollution.

Clearly, the public backlash against nuclear was not rational from a big-picture view. But that doesn’t matter. The effects of public resistance are real, whether it’s rational or not.

As Figure 1 shows, wind is currently expanding at about half the pace of nuclear in the seventies and eighties. Although wind does not face risks from 

 like nuclear, it faces its own brand of public resistance, both to the turbines themselves and the large network expansions required to integrate higher wind shares.

As our societies become more advanced, we increasingly demand an invisible energy system. Over here in Norway, the usually reserved population is 

 to onshore wind expansion plans. Turbines dotting the pristine Norwegian landscape are simply unimaginable to this wealthy society, 

 notwithstanding. In Germany, resistance to turbines and grid expansions has almost brought onshore wind expansion to a halt at levels around 7% of total energy demand.

Wind’s greatest challenge: It’s the most visible energy technology we have.

That is wind’s greatest challenge: It’s the most visible energy technology we have. As wind continues to expand and turbines grow ever larger, its visibility will only grow while society’s tolerance for highly visible energy technologies continues to decline. Advanced societies also become increasingly concerned with nature preservation, leading to additional hurdles related to 

Offshore wind can help, but it will need to be built far from shore to be sufficiently invisible, making it more costly. It also faces further economic challenges from 

 as total installed capacity increases. In addition, offshore wind requires large grid expansions to serve inland regions. Making these expansions invisible (underground cables) is very expensive.

Like nuclear, this resistance is not rational from a big-picture viewpoint. Surely, seeing the occasional wind turbine in the wild is worth the climate benefits. But again, the rationality of this resistance doesn’t matter. What matters is the effect it has on clean technology deployment.

The Undervalued Issue of System Complexity

Megaprojects that involve many interconnected technical, economic, political, and social challenges are extremely difficult to execute on time and within budget. Nuclear offers a prime example with many stories of budgets and timelines that were widely missed, increasingly stringent safety regulations being 

In comparison, the modular construction and installation of a wind turbine is child’s play. For decades, the simple and standardized construction and installation of wind and solar have been a big driver behind their impressive growth and falling costs.

In comparison to a nuclear plant, the modular construction and installation of a wind turbine is child’s play.

But this will not last. Higher wind market shares require vast grid expansions (often into neighboring countries) and lots of integration with other sectors that previously operated independently. In the longer term, this includes a large hydrogen transport, storage, and end-use sector that needs to be built from scratch. Executing this enormous integrated project in a shifting policy-technology landscape with impossibly tight climate timelines and increasing public resistance can easily surpass the scale and complexity of nuclear projects.

As the nuclear example shows, sub-optimal execution is to be expected in such a large, complex, and multifaceted project, inflating overall system costs and slowing the energy transition.

The coupled electricity-hydrogen system model is run for different cost assumptions for wind transmission and nuclear plants:

Wind transmission costs are increased relative to the baseline assumption of €300/kW to account for the factors discussed above

Nuclear costs are varied from €2000/kW (perfectly executed project in a welcoming market) to €8000/kW (complex execution in the West)

Scenarios with and without CO2 capture and storage (CCS) are included. In each scenario, the model optimizes investment and hourly dispatch of all the technologies listed in the Appendix of this article to minimize total system costs. A high CO2 price of €200/ton is assumed in all cases.

Electricity production and consumption from the optimal technology mixes for different cases are shown in Figure 2. Starting from the left, we see that higher wind transmission costs strongly reduce the deployment of wind power in the optimal energy mix. With the base costs (€300/kW), almost all required hydrogen is made locally using electrolysis. However, this scenario requires 250 GW of installed wind capacity — quadruple the current installed base in Germany where public resistance is already having a large negative impact on wind expansion plans.

The base scenario requires 250 GW of installed wind capacity — quadruple the current installed base in Germany where public resistance is already having a large negative impact.

When wind transmission costs are tripled, almost all hydrogen needs to be imported as green ammonia. Quadrupling of costs to €1200/kW (about the same as the turbine costs) brings substantially more unabated gas power plants into the generation mix despite the high CO2 price of €200/ton. Solar power is cheap, but its role remains limited due to the large seasonal variation and mismatch with the seasonal electricity demand profile.

Figure 2: Optimal electricity generation and consumption in the different cases. OCGT = open cycle gas turbine; NGCC = natural gas combined cycle; GSR = gas switching reforming; CCS = with CO2 capture and storage; PEM = polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis. GSRH2 = electricity consumption by GSR when producing hydrogen (

Allowance of nuclear into the system creates a 100% nuclear system when nuclear projects are perfectly executed (€2000/kW). Even at a cost of €6000/kW (triple the technical potential), nuclear still dominates. However, at €8000/kW, costs become excessive, and the optimal solution is the same as the base case in the scenario without any nuclear.

When CCS is allowed into the system, the 

 starts playing a large role. Electricity demand is also much lower because all hydrogen is generated using natural gas reforming that only consumes a small amount of electricity using the GSR technology. When grid costs are doubled, wind is pushed out of the optimal technology mix.

In a scenario with both nuclear and CCS allowed, nuclear remains responsible for essentially all the power production up to €4000/kW plant costs. However, GSR is still responsible for generating most of the hydrogen. When nuclear costs are inflated to €6000/kW, nuclear is pushed out of the system, and the optimal mix reverts to the base case in the scenario without the availability of nuclear power.

The minimized annual system cost of each case is shown in Figure 3. For the scenario without nuclear or CCS, the base case shows that direct costs of renewables account for only about 40% of total system costs, even though they supply 83% of total energy, illustrating the high system costs of integrating such high shares of variable renewables and producing a large quantity of green hydrogen. When grid costs are increased, more hydrogen is imported in the form of green ammonia (included in “Other” costs). The system-scale levelized cost of energy is high in this scenario, ranging from 120–133 €/MWh.

The direct costs of renewables account for only about 40% of total system costs, even though they supply 83% of total energy, illustrating the high system costs of integrating such high shares of variable renewables.

The ideal nuclear case (€2000/kW) reduces costs by more than half. For perspective, the difference between the cases with and without €2000/kW nuclear is about 2% of German GDP — twice the GDP growth rate since the turn of the century. However, total system costs rise steeply as nuclear plant costs increase. The system with €6000/kW nuclear is only about 10% cheaper than the case without nuclear.

Figure 3: Optimized costs of the energy system in the different cases. LCOEH = levelized cost of electricity and hydrogen. “Other” costs are broken down in Figure 4.

The addition of CCS reduces costs substantially when nuclear is not allowed. It also prevents any significant cost increases when wind is rendered uneconomic by rising grid costs. However, a system that is so dependent on natural gas is undesirable, and substantially higher shares of renewables and nuclear would be preferred from the perspective of energy security and long-term sustainability.

When combined with nuclear, CCS can slightly reduce system costs by taking care of hydrogen production via reforming. The benefit of this blue hydrogen becomes larger when nuclear costs increase from 2000 to 4000 €/kW, and CCS also takes over in the power sector when nuclear plants cost €6000/kW.

More insights about the other (not energy supply) system costs are given in Figure 4. The transmission cost that is increased in the wind cases is the “VRE transmission” component. As grid costs are increased, the system limits this cost by importing more hydrogen in the form of green ammonia instead of generating it from local wind power. Clearly, the cost of these green ammonia imports grows very large in cases with high wind grid costs.

Figure 4: Outline of the “other” costs in Figure 3. T&D = transmission and distribution; VRE = variable renewable energy; PEM = polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysers.

The simplified energy system facilitated by nuclear is also clearly visible. Electrolyser costs are lower due to the possibility to operate electrolysers at maximum capacity factor from the steady supply of nuclear power, and no battery storage is needed. Grid costs are also lower because nuclear plants can be constructed where energy demand is highest. Hydrogen transmission and storage costs also reduce because hydrogen is produced at steady state.

Cases with CCS simplify the system further, mainly because no electrolysers are needed and the electricity grid can be smaller.

An over-reliance on wind can be just as challenging as an over-reliance on nuclear. The socio-political hurdles facing wind and nuclear are very different, but both are highly significant. As wind continues to expand to the level where nuclear peaked (it’s currently about one-third of the way there), public resistance and system complexity will continue to mount, causing substantial headwinds.

As wind continues to expand to the level where nuclear peaked, public resistance and system complexity will continue to mount, causing substantial headwinds.

 of all other energy technologies, but the plateau may well come earlier than proponents believe. For this reason, nuclear and CCS should be encouraged for parallel deployment, especially in regions with limited and/or seasonal solar availability. The ability to construct these technologies where energy is demanded and dispatch them according to demand results in a much simpler energy system.

An all-of-the-above approach to the energy transition guided by technology-neutral policies remains the rational choice. Each technology class has its limits and weaknesses, and we need a balanced mix to allow each technology to do what it does best. Wind and solar are great at moderate deployment levels, but other clean technologies will be needed to reach net-zero. Nuclear is one of these options, while CCS has an important role to play in system balancing and clean fuel provision.

Each technology class has its limits and weaknesses, and we need a balanced mix to allow each technology to do what it does best.

The global energy transition is a clean energy team effort. All the players deserve our support.

The energy systems model discussed in a 

 is used in this study to illustrate the large effects of cost inflation caused by the range of techno-socio-economic factors discussed above. The model is loosely based on Germany and is designed to optimize investment and hourly dispatch of a range of technologies, including:

 onshore wind, solar PV, nuclear, pulverised coal, and natural gas combined-cycle plants with and without CCS, open cycle gas turbine peaker plants, hydrogen combined and open-cycle plants, and the novel 

 GSR, steam methane reforming (SMR) with CCS, and polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysis

 cheap salt caverns with slow charge/discharge rates and locational constraints and more expensive storage tanks without such limits and constraints

Hydrogen can also be imported in the form of green ammonia

 that is reconverted to hydrogen in reconversion plants included in the model

In addition, transmission costs for electricity and hydrogen are included in the model. In this assessment, the transmission costs for wind (set to €300/kW in the base case) will be increased to assess the effects of cost inflation caused by factors such as:

The need to build turbines in more isolated sites or far offshore to satisfy local stakeholders

Avoiding public resistance to grid expansions via expensive underground transmission lines

Having to resort to sites with lower quality wind resources

Paying fees to local communities to allow the construction of turbines closer to demand

A sub-optimal buildout of the complex and highly interdependent systems required to integrate high shares of wind

In addition, the effect of cost inflation of nuclear power will be investigated by changing nuclear plant capital costs between €2000/kW and €8000/kW. The lower bound represents well-executed nuclear projects in more welcoming environments like China and South Korea. The upper bound accounts for the vast complexity and inefficiency of constructing nuclear plants in the West.

Latest on Energy