Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines geologic hydrogen—molecular hydrogen formed naturally underground—as a potential low-cost, low-emissions energy source. It details three extraction pathways: natural accumulation, stimulated accumulation, and stimulated generation. While offering theoretical costs as low as $0.50 to $1.00 per kilogram and vast global reserves estimated at 5-6.2 trillion tons, the resource faces significant hurdles, including extreme resource uncertainty, a lack of commercial-scale extraction methods, and potential methane leakage during production.

The report finds that Indonesia's captive coal capacity tripled between 2019 and 2024, reaching 15.2 GW, with projections to hit 26.2 GW by 2026. This growth is primarily driven by the nickel, aluminium, and iron and steel industries. The authors argue that this trend contradicts Indonesia's climate goals and will cause significant public health burdens, including an estimated 27,000 additional deaths if captive plants are excluded from a 2040 coal phase-out. While some companies are adopting solar and hydro, the report emphasizes that renewable energy solutions are now cost-competitive with coal.

The factsheet examines the potential and risks of hydropower, including reservoir-based, run-of-river, and pumped-storage hydropower (PSH). While acknowledging PSH's role in grid stability, it highlights that hydropower is becoming less competitive than wind and solar due to higher costs and long construction timelines. The document details severe negative impacts on biodiversity, human rights, and the climate, specifically noting methane emissions from reservoirs. It concludes that new hydropower projects should be strictly conditioned on robust standards, with a preference for upgrading existing infrastructure over building new dams, particularly in Europe.

The report argues that natural gas is not a viable 'bridge' fuel but rather a risk to climate stability and shareholder value. It highlights that new gas infrastructure is increasingly incompatible with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal and faces significant economic threats from the falling costs of renewables and storage. The document details how utilities face 'stranded asset' risks, regulatory pressure from state and city decarbonization mandates, and customer defection to community choice aggregations and corporate clean energy contracts. It suggests that 'steel for fuel' strategies—replacing fossil fuel generation with capital investment in renewables—offer a more sustainable financial model. The report concludes by urging investors to demand better disclosure on emissions and transition plans and to support policies like performance-based regulation and securitization to facilitate a just and rapid energy transition.

The document highlights the continued financial support from Japan for coal power projects and references findings that new renewable energy will be cheaper to build than operating existing coal plants in Southeast Asia within a decade.

The document advocates for the integration of nature-based solutions (NbS)—categorized into green and natural infrastructure—as a resilient alternative or supplement to traditional 'gray' manmade infrastructure in the U.S. It details how NbS can mitigate coastal storm damage, inland flooding, and extreme heat while providing co-benefits like carbon sequestration and improved water quality. The text provides specific cost comparisons and case studies from various U.S. cities and states to demonstrate the economic and environmental efficacy of these approaches.

The document outlines the financial hazards of investing in new or retrofitted coal plants in the U.S., citing competition from natural gas and renewables, rising fuel costs, and the likelihood of future carbon pricing. It highlights that coal is no longer the low-cost option it once was and that many existing plants are inefficient and ripe for retirement. The report suggests that the U.S. can replace most coal power with renewable energy, demand reduction, and natural gas within 15 to 20 years.

The document advocates for the continued protection of Bristol Bay from oil and gas development, highlighting that the region's annual fishery value of over $2 billion far exceeds the estimated $7.7 billion total value of oil and gas over a 25–40 year project lifespan. It emphasizes the area's role as a critical habitat for the world's largest sockeye salmon run, 16 whale species, and essential Red King Crab habitat, warning that an oil spill would have devastating impacts on these resources and the thousands of jobs they support.

The report uses 2013 EIA Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) data to compare the cost per ton of CO2 abated for technologies including wind, solar, advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). It finds that displacing coal plants offers the strongest economic case for abatement. While on-shore wind is the cheapest overall, greenfield gas with CCS is a competitive baseload option at $65 per ton. The analysis notes that variable resources like wind and solar may be more expensive than shown due to omitted grid integration costs, which can double or triple marginal costs at penetration levels above 20%.