Europe Leads the Charge in Nuclear Energy Expansion

By ZeroHedge - Jan 18, 2025

Global investment in nuclear energy has increased by over 50% in nearly every region over the last five years.

Europe leads with over $200 billion invested, while South America and Eurasia have more than doubled their annual investment.

The United States has pledged an additional $2.7 billion to the nuclear fuel supply chain, emphasizing the growing role of nuclear power in the global energy transition.



The vast energy potential and clean nature of generating power through nuclear reactions have caused a surge in global demand, with nearly every region increasing nuclear energy investment by at least 50% over the last five years.

For this graphic, Visual Capitalist has partnered with Global X ETFs to analyze the increasing investments in nuclear energy and identify the regions with the highest levels of investment.


Which Region Invested the Most?

Over the last five years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that over $300 billion has been invested in nuclear energy globally. Here’s how this breaks down by region:


Trends in Energy Investment


While all regions have invested significantly in nuclear energy, investment is growing further in advanced economies like the U.S., which has pledged an additional $2.7 billion to the nuclear fuel supply chain on top of the $7.5 billion it already invests in nuclear power yearly.

Growing global investment in nuclear energy emphasizes its essential role in the shift towards clean energy. South America and Eurasia, in particular, have seen the potential in nuclear power and have chosen to invest heavily, more than doubling their annual investment rates.
A Key Role in the Global Energy Transition

Nuclear energy’s high energy potential and near emission-less nature make it a key player in the transition toward clean energy.

Consequently, many nations are investing heavily in energy sources, and forecasts show that the demand for nuclear-generated electricity will only grow.

By Zerohedge.com

 

Maritime’s Nuclear “Tomorrowland”

"Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous impatience." – Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (Father of the U.S. Nuclear Navy)

Published Jan 17, 2025 6:47 PM by Sean M. Holt

 

(Article originally published in Nov/Dec 2024 edition.)

 

Imagine a world where the oceans are plied by vast, gleaming ships that leave no trace of pollution in their wake. No black plumes of smoke mar the skies, and no roaring diesel engines shatter the serenity of coastal communities. Instead, these vessels run silently and cleanly, fueled by the limitless potential of nuclear energy.

In this vision of the future, humanity no longer fights over limited resources. Cheap, clean and abundant energy has ushered in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity. Nations once mired in conflict over energy dominance now collaborate to propel innovation. Humanity has split the atom and learned to safely harness its energy for mutual benefit, creating a world where productivity thrives, economies flourish and modernization reaches even the most remote corners of the globe.

Floating nuclear power plants hum quietly in the Arctic, supplying energy to remote communities where sunlight and wind fall short. Desalination plants, powered by the same reactors, transform seawater into drinking water for millions. Global trade thrives, connecting continents with abundant, carbon-free energy. Resources and energy, once scarce, are now abundant, powering everything from automated ports to futuristic megacities.

At the heart of this transformation is nuclear fission, where the nucleus of an atom – typically uranium or plutonium – is split into smaller parts, releasing immense energy. This heat generates steam, which drives turbines to produce electricity or power ship propulsion systems. Nuclear energy is millions of times more energy-dense than fossil fuels, enabling ships and platforms to operate for decades without refueling while emitting zero greenhouse gases during operation.

The need for such transformative technology in shipping is clear. 

Despite being the most efficient mode of transport per ton-mile, maritime shipping still contributes a billion tons of CO2 emissions annually, accounting for nearly three percent of global emissions – a figure larger than the combined emissions of Germany and the U.K. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set a target to reduce these emissions by 50 percent by 2050, but achieving this goal will require breakthroughs in energy systems.

Growing Momentum 

For Mike Watt, Chairman of the Singapore Joint Branch of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, nuclear energy offers unparalleled potential for maritime decarbonization. Watt believes the industry is beginning to understand the scale of the challenge.

"With the focus on getting to net zero by 2050, people are starting to realize how mammoth a task that actually is,” he says. “Wind and solar alone are unlikely to supply the power required." Nuclear power, he argues, provides the scalability needed to meet global energy demands while supporting initiatives like synthetic fuel production.

Floating nuclear power plants, Watt explains, offer a practical starting point: "Floating nuclear power is not a new thing. The U.S. successfully operated one in Panama in the 1960s, and Russia's Akademik Lomonosov has proven the concept works today." 

Compact and cost-effective, floating reactors can address offshore energy demands while bypassing the challenges of land-based installations. Watt also points to existing nuclear-powered vessels like Sevmorput and the iconic Russian icebreaker Arktika as proof of nuclear's maturity and durability for safe maritime operations.

Watt also highlights the promise of small modular reactors (SMRs), which incorporate inherent safety features such as non-pressurized systems to reduce the risk of catastrophic failures. "Many SMRs are paper reactors,” he says. “They exist only in design form. For regulators to accept them, they need to achieve a technology readiness level (TRL) of six or higher."

He’s enthusiastic about cutting-edge technologies like Westinghouse’s eVinci microreactor, originally designed for extraterrestrial missions but now considered for maritime use. He describes it as “a next-generation microreactor that could replace onboard generators. It’s a standalone unit that runs for eight years before needing a change-out.” 

Despite the challenges, Watt senses a shift in public perception: "I'm starting to see real acceptance of the idea of nuclear. Educating people is critical, and countries like Singapore are exploring nuclear options cautiously." 

Collaborative efforts, such as lobbying by the Nuclear Energy Maritime Organization (NEMO), are helping drive the conversation forward.

No “Net Zero” Without Nuclear

For Mikal Bøe, Founder and CEO of Core Power, nuclear energy is not just an option, it's a necessity. "There's no 'net zero' without nuclear," he states. "It's not the answer to everything, but without it, net zero is impossible. That's a fact."

Regarding his own company, he says, "Core Power is building the maritime civil nuclear program – covering design, licensing, deployment, operations and eventual decommissioning. We aim to be the Boeing of maritime nuclear." 

Core Power focuses on molten salt reactors (MSRs), an inherently safe design capable of operating for 25–30 years without refueling. "If there's a leak in a molten salt reactor, the liquid fuel just sits in a compartment,” he explains. “The chain reaction stops, and nothing disperses into the environment." This feature reduces the emergency or hazard zone to the confines of the vessel's hull, allowing nuclear-powered ships to enter ports and transit canals safely.

"For a medium-sized container ship operating at full speed for 25 years, the nuclear waste generated is less than a ton – the size of a refrigerator," he notes. By comparison, the same vessel using conventional fuels would emit over 1.5 million tons of CO2. Scaling this impact, the adoption of 3,000 nuclear-powered vessels and 1,500 floating power plants could prevent an estimated 4.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions over their operational lifetimes.

Core Power also emphasizes the advantage of modular design for maritime applications. Smaller, scalable reactors enable quicker deployment, faster iteration and the ability to test new technologies in a dynamic environment. "Modular reactors are a game-changer,” Bøe says. “Every iteration improves safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, creating a faster pathway to public trust and acceptance."

By 2060, Core Power projects a $6 trillion market with its first vessels expected to be operational by 2035: "It's hard and expensive, but everything – regulations, technology, customer demand – is moving in the right direction. It's not a question of if, but how."

Nuclear's Next Horizon

The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) is at the forefront of creating the technical and regulatory frameworks necessary for the maritime industry to safely and efficiently adopt nuclear technologies. 

"Our job is to bridge the gap between innovation and safety," states Domenic Carlucci, Vice President of Global Government Services and a former Navy nuclear officer. "Nuclear technology offers transformative potential but requires a robust framework to ensure it can be deployed safely and responsibly."

ABS recently published Requirements for Nuclear Power Systems for Marine and Offshore Applications, the first comprehensive set of guidelines tailored to nuclear-powered vessels and floating power platforms. The guidelines define critical safety, operational and regulatory considerations and include a stakeholder interface document delineating the roles of classification societies, nuclear regulators, flag administrations and port authorities. 

"Clear accountability is critical," Carlucci emphasizes. “With nuclear, the complexity increases tenfold, so everyone needs to know their role in the process."

ABS is also deeply engaged in partnerships with leading organizations including the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering (KRISO), HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering (KSOE), and KEPCO E&C. Collaborations with the Liberian Registry (LISCR) and Herbert Engineering Corporation (HEC) have resulted in pioneering studies such as modeling MSR integration on LNG carriers. 

These studies demonstrate the potential for decades-long operational lifespans without refueling, increased cargo capacity and emissions-free operations.

Floating nuclear power platforms, Carlucci notes, represent an ideal starting point for nuclear adoption: "These platforms provide an immediate opportunity to address global energy needs in remote regions and industrial hubs. They're simpler than nuclear propulsion systems, which require integration into moving assets and coordination with transit ports."

He acknowledges the challenges ahead: "The industry achieving commercial insurability is pivotal. Without it, it’s unlikely that ports will allow nuclear vessels to dock, and shipowners won’t gain the confidence to invest. Insurability is one of the many keys in this entire ecosystem.”
ABS's commitment to advancing nuclear readiness extends beyond technical studies. It collaborates with international regulators like the IAEA and DOE to address critical regulatory and public perception gaps. 

"One of the biggest hurdles is public trust," Carlucci remarks. "We must educate people on how inherently safe modern nuclear technology has become. The maritime industry can't afford missteps in this area."

When asked about the timeline for nuclear integration, Carlucci offers cautious optimism: "This isn't going to happen overnight. The development and regulatory cycles are long, but we're seeing real momentum. With the partnerships and frameworks we've created, the foundations are being laid for a nuclear future in shipping." 

“Tomorrowland”

While Disney's “Tomorrowland” movie painted a utopian future powered by innovation and goodwill, the question remains: Can these modern advances in maritime nuclear innovation achieve “Tomorrowland's” vision? – MarEx  

Sean Holt is a regular contributor, U.S. Navy craftmaster and former class surveyor. 
 

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

 

Putin’s hybrid nuclear war on Ukraine

By Denys Bondar

Published 18 January, 2025

First published at Posle.

From the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the specter of nuclear weapons has loomed ominously. In his speech announcing the invasion, Vladimir Putin falsely accused Ukraine of aspiring to acquire nuclear weapons, citing this as a justification for war. Russian media amplified these claims, alleging that Ukraine was developing “dirty bombs” — devices combining conventional explosives with radioactive material intended to spread contamination without a nuclear explosion.

This nuclear saber-rattling isn’t just propaganda; it’s been a strategic military tool for Russia. While it hasn’t dampened Ukrainians’ resolve to defend their country, it has succeeded in delaying Western military aid. This hesitation has made the war more costly for Ukraine, both in lives and resources, and is also directly responsible for the current dangerous situation at the front. But to fully grasp Russia’s nuclear strategy, we need to revisit the history of Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament.

Thirty years ago, under the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine surrendered the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, inherited after the Soviet Union’s collapse. In exchange, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom provided “security assurances” to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders.

Yet, when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and again when it launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, these assurances proved hollow. Days before the full scale invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky invoked the Budapest Memorandum, seeking consultations with the guarantors. The Russian army heading toward Kyiv was the response.

Surprisingly, the Budapest Memorandum is rarely mentioned in Western discussions about aid to Ukraine. Many in the United States are unaware of it, even among policymakers. When I asked a congressional aide why the treaty isn’t cited more often, he responded, “That’s a good question.”

In Ukraine, the memorandum has become synonymous with betrayal. However, it is important to understand that Ukraine’s decision to disarm was influenced by multiple factors: the traumatic legacy of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, a desire for integration into the international community, the need of Western financial assistance, and intense political pressure from both Russia and the United States.

Zelensky’s recent “NATO or nukes” remark epitomizes the complete loss of faith among Ukrainians in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Western countries, shielded by the NATO nuclear umbrella, are only now beginning to grasp this reality.

Steven Pifer, a former U.S. negotiator of the Budapest Memorandum, warned in 2022 that “non-proliferation efforts may turn out to be another important casualty of the war.” Indeed, the New START Treaty, the only remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, is set to expire in February 2026, paving the way for a potential new era of an unrestricted nuclear arms race. This threat is compounded by the rapid expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal and Washington’s plan to modernize its nuclear weapons. Today’s generation faces the daunting challenge of a world once again shadowed by the specter of nuclear weapons.

In the shadow of a nuclear bomb

Will Putin use nukes? Experts believe it’s unlikely, but they also acknowledge that no one—not even Putin—truly knows.

A 2020 study on Russian escalation management concluded that, in a regional war—a smaller-scale version of a potential Russia-NATO conflict—the Russian military may resort to tactical nuclear weapons either on the battlefield or as an intimidating demonstration.

However, despite aggressive rhetoric, there’s no concrete evidence that Russia is preparing for such an escalation in Ukraine.

Professor of strategic studies Phillips O’Brien points out that according to academic models and war games, Russia should have already resorted to nuclear weapons. Yet, it hasn’t — likely due to pressure from countries like China and India. The prolonged conflict because of the West’s undersupply of military aid to Ukraine increases the risk. A drawn-out, bloody war heightens tensions and could push Putin toward desperate measures. This argument runs counter to the Western strategy of appeasing Putin by limiting support to Ukraine, as the “boiling-the-frog” war strategy may be even riskier. Furthermore, drawing on historical lessons from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mariana Budjeryn suggests that even if Russia were winning, it might still use nuclear bombs to shape Europe’s post-war dynamics.

I would like to emphasize that the likelihood of using non-strategic nuclear weapons is definitely not zero. Judging by past behavior (e.g., Russia’s unilateral suspension of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was followed by the 2008 invasion of Georgia, and the official recognition of separatist “republics” prior to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine), Putin operates with a legalist approach. Therefore, the amendments to Russia’s nuclear doctrine and the de-ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty indicate a nonzero probability of nuclear use.

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant as a nuclear noose

Perhaps the most immediate nuclear threat isn’t a bomb but the dire situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), Europe’s largest nuclear facility. Occupied by Russian forces since the start of the full-scale invasion, the ZNPP has posed far more serious leverage over Ukraine than Putin’s nuclear threats. Russian military personnel have been stationed on-siteat ZNPP, along with tanks, armored personnel carriers, and utility trucks. Russian forces have placed anti-personnel mines both inside and outside the plant. The ZNPP has effectively been converted into a military base, housing equipment and training artillery units that shell Nikopol without fear of Ukrainian retaliation.

The presence of military equipment and personnel not only increases risks to the plant’s safety systems but also restricts access to the facility, hindering nuclear engineers from performing their duties. Additionally, this situation creates a highly stressful environment for the plant’s staff, further jeopardizing operational safety.

History has shown that the safety of nuclear power plants heavily depends on their operators. Since the occupation began, Ukrainian engineers have been working under constant threats from the occupying forces, and the living conditions in Energodar, the city adjacent to ZNPP where workers live, have significantly deteriorated. Workers at ZNPP have been subjected to forced labor by Russian forces, with widespread reports of torture. Andriy Honcharuk, a diver at ZNPP, was tortured to death after he refused to assist the occupiers in their efforts to drain water from the cooling system and stop the pumps essential for reactor safety. Even when not generating electricity, nuclear plants require constant cooling to prevent a reactor meltdown — a grave accident similar to the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Honcharuk’s heroic sacrifice was recognized by President Zelensky posthumously awarding him the Order of Courage.

To maintain the cooling of the station, an uninterrupted supply of water and electricity is absolutely essential. The electricity supply has been interrupted multiple times due to damage to power lines from military activity. In such instances, the station relies on backup diesel generators. Should these generators fail, a meltdown would likely occur.

Since ZNPP draws cooling water from the Kakhovka reservoir, the water supply was jeopardized after Russia’s destruction of the Kakhovka dam. However, Ukraine’s Ministry of Energy reports that water levels in the cooling pond at ZNPP remain stable.

Another matter of concern is understaffing. Before the start of the war, there were 12,000 workers at ZNPP and in Enerhodar city, but 80% of Ukrainian workers have managed to evacuate. Currently, only 5,000 employees work at the plant. Recognizing the staffing problem, the occupying authorities plan to expand the workforce to 6,000, though the quality of these new recruits is concerning. I am aware of ten Ukrainian nuclear engineers who have been abducted by the occupying forces, with their whereabouts currently unknown. The remaining Ukrainian staff — upon whom the safety of the entire plant depends — are effectively being held hostage by the Russians and are being forced to adopt Russian citizenship to continue working at the plant and to access basic social services and healthcare.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has warned of catastrophic consequences if the plant is attacked. They also note that keeping reactors in shutdown modes with fuel in the core, as at Zaporizhzhia, is rare and raises risks due to untested conditions. A fire broke out at ZNPP less than a week after Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region, following multiple blasts that damaged the plant’s cooling systems. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Chief Rafael Grossi warned, “These reckless attacks endanger nuclear safety at the plant and increase the risk of a nuclear accident. They must stop now.” Grossi didn’t attribute blame. IAEA reports daily military activity in the vicinity and some explosions occurring close to the plant.

It is worth noting that the IAEA is not a neutral party — its Deputy Director General, Mikhail Chudakov, is a former manager at Russia’s Rosenergoatom nuclear utility, which raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. In March 2022, Greenpeace East Asia called on the IAEA to suspend Chudakov’s appointment to preserve the organization’s credibility, as his appointment likely required Putin’s support. Greenpeace Germany has also condemned the IAEAfor failing to identify Russia as the real cause of safety risks at ZNPP.

In the annals of nuclear history, ZNPP will stand as yet another example demonstrating why nuclear energy cannot be considered safe. This contrasts with the IAEA’s enthusiastic promotion of nuclear energy as a solution for climate change, despite abundant evidence that it is neither economically viable nor scalable, not to mention the significant safety concerns (to be fair, the IAEA is not alone in this effort). Just as international organizations, including the IAEA, downplayed the consequences of Chernobyl — the worst nuclear catastrophe — the IAEA is downplaying the situation at ZNPP.

What is to be done?

Russia’s actions at ZNPP, provocations at another Ukrainian nuclear plant, the 2022 occupation of the Chernobyl power plant as an integral part of its failed blitzkrieg, along with its nuclear rhetoric and withdrawal from key arms treaties, are part of a broader strategy aptly named “hybrid nuclear war” by Georgiy Balakan at the beginning of the full scale invasion. Russia’s hybrid nuclear war on Ukraine facilitates its openly genocidal war with conventional weapons. Just as the preceding conventional hybrid wars in Moldova, Georgia, and pre-2022 Ukraine, the nuclear hybrid war is making the world less safe.

What is to be done? The most effective solution is a Ukrainian victory, which could pave the way for a democratic transformation in Russia and lasting peace in Europe. In the short term, sustained military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine is essential.

Since the global nuclear arsenal has started increasing for the first time since 1985, we must draw inspiration from the mass mobilizations of past generations, whose efforts led to landmark arms control agreements. For example, if you are like me — a physicist (even if you are just an undergraduate student) — consider joining the Physicists Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction.

Another immediate step is supporting efforts to neutralize the nuclear threat at ZNPP. Celebrated Ukrainian progressive intellectual and soldier Taras Bilous has proposed that the United Nations General Assembly establish a demilitarized zone around the plant, similar to measures taken during the Suez Crisis in 1956. A petition supporting this initiative needs to be supported and distributed. While international institutions are currently ineffective — as highlighted by the ongoing catastrophic Israel-Gaza war — a call from the international community can still make a difference. This is especially important in light of the coming Trump administration, which may push for a Ukraine ceasefire. A U.N. resolution to demilitarize ZNPP would not only be a significant step toward reducing nuclear risks in the region, but also a significant victory for people’s diplomacy.

EU, Mexico Sign Trade Deal Ahead Of Trump Inauguration

By Alex Kimani - Jan 17, 2025



The European Union and Mexico have agreed to a revamped free-trade agreement days before Trump begins a second term. Mexico, in particular, has been working to revamp the trade deal with the EU ahead of Trump’s inauguration as a way to show strength before the review of the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, known as USMCA. The U.S. is, by far, Mexico’s biggest trade partner, accounting for 83% of Mexico’s trade relationship. Trump has criticized the EU’s trade practices and said he would impose duties on exports by the bloc. He’s also said he’d impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico.

“This landmark deal proves that open, rules-based trade can deliver for our prosperity and economic security, as well as climate action and sustainable development,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement.

Back in 2018, the Trump administration imposed a 25 percent levy on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum, arguing that cheap imports were a national security threat and were decimating whole communities. The former president called the tariffs a big win for the country, saying they had helped revive U.S. steel and aluminum industries and created thousands of new jobs. Yet, evidence for the same was tenuous or mixed at best.

American steel manufacturers did receive an initial boost, with the New York Times reporting that dozens of steel companies had re-opened or made new investments courtesy of the tariffs. However, the bounty was only short-lived, with steel prices rapidly falling back to pre-tariff levels. Shares of steel companies were beaten up pretty badly during the time Trump was president. The one thing the tariffs undoubtedly achieved was a deterioration in relations between America and its closest neighbors and trade partners.

However, after months of games of high-stakes brinkmanship, Trump finally ended tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico, marking the first time the former president backed down on protection once it had been imposed. Trump is not known to be this charitable, with a reworked trade deal with South Korea in the previous year resulting in tariffs being replaced with quotas which were just as punitive. Washington was actually pushing for a similar quotas-for-tariffs swap with Canada and Mexico, but they stood their ground.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

NOTHING Beyond Profit

BP Slashes Jobs, Bolsters Oil & Gas Operations

By Andrew Topf - Jan 17, 2025

British oil major BP is cutting 5 percent of its workforce.

The job reductions are part of a cost-cutting plan that began in October 2024.

The job cuts align with a renewed emphasis on bolstering BP’s oil and gas operations and steering away from renewables.



The backlash against renewable energies continued this week as oil major BP (NASDAQ;BP) announced it is cutting 5 percent of its workforce or 4,700 jobs and 3,000 contractors.

The UK-based oil company said the reductions are part of a cost-cutting plan that began last October, when it identified $500 million of cost savings to be delivered in 2025 — 25 percent of the $2 billion target set for the end of 2026.

New CEO Murray Auchincloss was quoted by The Associated Press as saying that the company is “focusing resources on our highest-value opportunities” and that it has stopped or paused 30 projects since June.

In a statement, BP said “Last year (2024) we began a multi-year programme to simplify and focus bp. We are strengthening our competitiveness and building in resilience as we lower our costs, drive performance improvement and play to our distinctive capabilities.”

Despite efforts to sugar coat the bad news, BP’s share price has lost about 20 percent since last spring. The company has pulled back from several renewable energy projects and abandoned a previous plan to cut oil and gas output by 40 percent by 2030, states AP.

For example in October, BP created a joint venture with JERA, Japan’s largest power firm, to bring about “one of the largest global offshore wind developers.” According to Euro News, BP and JERA agreed to invest up to $5.8 billion by 2030, with BP committing to spend up to $3.25B. That’s a far cry from the $10 billion it pledged to spend between 2023 and 2030 on renewable energy capacity.

Oil and gas giants have come under increasing pressure to invest in renewables like wind and solar as net zero goals loom. BP, though, has said it will return to its core competencies, oil and gas, and is matching words with deeds.

On Jan. 16, Offshore Technology reported that BP will sign a deal with Iraq to develop four oil and gas fields in the Kirkuk region.

The Deep Dive notes that the job cuts align with Auchincloss’s emphasis on bolstering BP’s oil and gas operations and steering away from renewables.

The pivot mirrors similar strategies by BP’s industry rivals like Shell, which recently said it would stop developing new offshore wind projects. But it hasn’t yet helped the bottom line. In a trading update published earlier this week, BP reported that weaker refinery margins and reduced turnaround activities are expected to reduce Q4 profits by an estimated $100 million to $300 million. Further declines in oil production are expected.

Net Zero Investor observes that BP’s scaled-back renewable ambitions leaves its capital expenditures misaligned with net zero goals. The site quotes a review of BP’s Financial Investment Decisions by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR). The report shows none of BP’s decisions in 2023 aligned with the International Energy Agency’s net zero emissions pathways for oil and gas.

The report also warns that if BP cuts less than its production targets, it is forecast to produce 84 percent more oil and gas in 2030 than it aimed to produce in 2020.

“BP claims its CAPEX is aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, if all oil and gas companies applied the same price-based framework as BP, they would sanction enough projects to exhaust the remaining carbon budget for a Paris-aligned world five times over,” according to Nick Mazan, UK company strategy lead at ACCR.

Net Zero Investor has an interesting explanation for why BP is cutting jobs now. BP, states the site, finds itself caught in the “valley of death” between the short-term demands of shareholders focused on profit margins, and the long-term expectations of investors prioritizing net zero targets.

With renewables currently accounting for under 10 percent of BP’s earnings, and with profits from oil and gas declining, BP like many of its peers is facing a vacuum.

“In a bid to keep investors at bay, the oil giant announced major job cuts, with some 4700 workers facing redundancies,” states Net Zero Investor.

By Andrew Topf for Oilprice.com

Big Oil Faces Wave of Climate Lawsuits from U.S. States and Territories

By Felicity Bradstock - Jan 18, 2025

Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico are leading the charge with lawsuits against Big Oil and the U.S. government over climate change damages.

These lawsuits challenge oil companies' deceptive practices and government inaction on climate change.

State-level legal action is gaining momentum and could reshape the landscape of climate litigation in the U.S.



Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico are some of the U.S. states and territories most affected by climate change, and they have all launched lawsuits against either the U.S. government or oil companies over the last year due to climate change challenges. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals from several oil companies attempting to quash a lawsuit from Hawaii that aims to hold firms accountable for climate change. The oil firms in question say that climate change is a federal issue and should, therefore, not be addressed at the state level. The municipality of Honolulu is now permitted to continue with its lawsuit against several oil firms, including Sunoco, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and 10 other companies, according to Hawaii state law.

The lawsuit focuses on what the claimants call “deceptive marketing and public statements” by oil companies. In 2020, the city and county of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply sued oil firms on the grounds that they violated state law for creating a public nuisance and failing to warn the public about the risks posed by their products. The Hawaii Supreme Court approved the lawsuit in 2023 saying that because it “does not seek to regulate emissions and does not seek damages for interstate emissions,” it does not fall under federal law.

In response to the Supreme Court decision, Ben Sullivan, the executive director and chief resilience officer for the city and county of Honolulu’s office of climate change, sustainability and resiliency, stated, “This landmark decision upholds our right to enforce Hawaii laws in Hawaii courts, ensuring the protection of Hawaii taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants’ misconduct.”

In response, Ryan Meyers, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, said, “This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless lawsuits against companies providing affordable, reliable and cleaner energy is nothing more than a distraction from these important issues and waste of taxpayer resources.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has also seen legal action from the oil-rich state of Alaska, which is under severe threat of climate change. In 2024, a group of eight young Alaskans between the ages of 11 and 22 brought a lawsuit against the government claiming a new fossil fuel project violated their state constitutional rights. The lawsuit was filed by the non-profit organisation Our Children’s Trust. The rights in question are the right to protected natural resources for “current and future generations” and the right to be free from government infringement on life, liberty and property.

State-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation has proposed a $38.7 billion gas export project, which is expected to triple Alaska’s greenhouse gas emissions for several decades if approved, according to the lawsuit. The project includes the development of a gas treatment plant on Alaska’s North Slope and an 800-mile pipeline and liquefaction plant on the Kenai Peninsula to export LNG to Asia.

The lawsuit states that global warming is negatively affecting Native Alaskan youth by “interfering with their natural development, disrupting their cultural traditions and identities, and limiting their access to the natural resources on which they rely”. Some of the risks of climate change in the regions in question include climate-induced flooding, rapid permafrost thawing, and severe coastal erosion.

Earlier in 2024, Montana’s supreme court upheld a milestone decision in a legal case filed by Our Children’s Trust that required state regulators to consider the climate crisis before approving permits for new oil and gas projects. That case has since been appealed and is waiting for a verdict, pending a court case in July.

Also in 2024, Puerto Rico filed a $1 billion climate lawsuit against oil companies. The lawsuit accuses oil and gas companies of continuing to promote their products using unfair and deceptive trade practices when they knew they would pollute the island and contribute to warming temperatures. The lawsuit says that the firms failed to give warnings about the environmental risks linked with fossil fuel production. Exxon Mobil, BP and Chevron are some of the companies involved in the legal case.

Justice Secretary Domingo Emanuelli Hernández said when announcing the lawsuit, “These companies have known internally for decades that greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuel products would have adverse impacts on the global climate and sea levels.”


Over two dozen U.S. cities, counties, and states are currently seeking compensation for the effects of climate change. Several non-profit organisations and state actors have launched lawsuits to bring awareness to the issue of climate change and accuse fossil fuel companies of directly exacerbating the problem through their actions. Depending on the outcomes of these lawsuits, it could set the precedent for future legal action to be taken at the state, rather than the federal, level.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Canada's Rare Earth Rush: A New Frontier in Green Energy

By Felicity Bradstock - Jan 18, 2025

Canada possesses significant reserves of rare earth elements, crucial for green technologies like electric vehicles and renewable energy systems.

The Canadian government is investing in and developing its rare earth mining and processing capabilities to reduce reliance on China and support its net-zero goals.

While Canada has great potential to become a major rare earth producer, challenges such as strict environmental regulations and long development timelines for new mines exist.



As Canada rapidly develops its LNG production and export capabilities and expands its oil industry, the North American country may also be looking to boost its reputation as a rare earth elements producer. Canada has produced rare earth elements (REE) for several decades and is thought to have extensive untapped reserves. It has supported other countries in the development of their REE industries and is now looking to expand its domestic mining activities to help achieve net-zero goals and develop a regional supply chain.

REE are a set of seventeen metallic elements that are commonly used in many electronic devices such as mobile phones, computers, and electric vehicles (EVs). In the early 1990s, the production of REE was distributed fairly evenly across the globe, with China accounting for 38 percent of output, the U.S. 33 percent, Australia 12 percent and Malaysia and India five percent each. Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Thailand also had REE-production capabilities, although contributed little to the total global output. Over the next two decades, production became more concentrated in China, which contributed around 97 percent of global REE output by 2011.

As Canada looks to strengthen its energy security and solidify its role in the global energy market, the government is hoping to exploit the country’s largely untapped potential to mine REE. If successful, this could support Canada’s green transition and counter China’s dominance in the global REE market. The government announced a $70-million investment for global partnerships to promote Canadian mining leadership, as well as several other initiatives to help establish Canada as a major REE power.

Canada’s 2024 Critical Mineral Strategy Annual Report outlines plans to mine for over 30 critical minerals, with a focus on lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, copper, and REE. The U.S. government has repeatedly stated concerns about the growing dependence on China for critical minerals and REE, as well as other energy sources and products, as it looks to develop more regional supply chains. The expansion of Canada’s mining industry could help it provide a stable domestic supply of REE as well as support the development of a North American supply chain. James Edmondson, the research director at IDTechEx, said “It is believed Canada has very large quantities of these materials, even if they have not yet begun processing them in significant quantities.”

The global demand for REE is set to grow exponentially in the coming years, as more countries invest in renewable energy projects and the consumer uptake of EVs rises sharply. An October Future Market Insights report predicted that the global REE market will increase from a value of $6.2 billion in 2024 to $16.1 billion by 2034, at a CAGR of 10.1 percent.

Canada has some of the world’s largest known REE reserves and resources. In 2023, it was estimated that Canada had reserves of over 15.2 million tonnes of rare earth oxide. It is thought to have abundant supplies of nickel, which is widely used in EV batteries and mainly produced by China and Indonesia at present. In addition to widely available rare earths, Canada also holds large quantities of highly valued ‘heavy’ rare earths, including dysprosium and terbium, which are in limited global supply.

Canada has been developing its capacity in processing and separation, to produce metal and alloy, as well as for recycling rare earth magnets. The sector has received significant amounts of public and private funding in recent years in the government's pursuit of a green transition. Canada also has the potential to develop its magnet-making capacity, particularly as it is already a well-established producer of steel and aluminium, has a low-cost power grid, and has a skilled manufacturing workforce.

Canada has also contributed to several REE projects around the globe, supporting rare earth separation and magnet manufacturing activities in Estonia, the U.S., and Namibia. The North American country could, therefore, become a leader in the responsible, inclusive, and sustainable production of REE and supply chain development, thanks to its expertise in the sector and involvement in various projects around the globe.

While there is great optimism around Canada’s REE potential, experts suggest that the country’s strict environmental regulations may hinder the rapid development of the industry. New mines can take anywhere from 10 to 15 years to be developed if approved. This has led many to suggest that greater REE progress may be seen in the U.S., China, and Australia in the short- to mid-term, despite the untapped REE potential in Canada.

To successfully and sustainably develop Canada’s REE industry, the government must improve access to sectoral investment and mine development without compromising core environmental standards. Canada’s extensive experience in REE mining and role in the international critical mineral market could help the North American power become a major regional REE hub in the coming decades.


By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Fire at Huge California Battery Storage Plant Forces Evacuations

By Charles Kennedy - Jan 17, 2025


A fire at the Vistra battery storage plant in California, one of the largest in the world, has prompted evacuations for hundreds of people, and part of a highway was closed early on Friday.

The battery storage plant in Moss Landing in northern Monterey County is some 77 miles south of San Francisco. The owner of the plant is Texas-based company Vistra Energy, whose shares fell in market pre-trade on Friday following the news of the fire.

The plant contains tens of thousands of lithium batteries, which could be difficult to put out once they catch fire.

“There’s no way to sugar coat it. This is a disaster, is what it is,” Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church told KSBW-TV.

However, the fire is not expected to spread beyond the concrete building in which it erupted, according to the county supervisor.

All personnel at the battery storage plant were safely evacuated, Jenny Lyon, company spokesperson for Vistra Energy told The Mercury News via email.

The cause of the fire has not been established yet, Lyon said. An investigation will be launched once the fire is put out, the spokesperson said.

This is not the first fire at the facility. The plant saw fires broke out in September 2021 and February 2022, according to The Mercury News.

These two fires were caused by a malfunction in a fire sprinkler system, which released water and resulted in several units overheating, according to the investigations into the previous incidents.

In recent months, battery storage installations have been soaring in the United States thanks to incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which offered, for the first time, tax credits for standalone storage capacity.

Total costs of batteries and storage systems have also dropped significantly over the past decade to incentivize more installations across America.

In addition, collocating battery storage with solar generating systems has become a more popular choice among clean energy developers in the United States.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

Biden erases more than $600M in final round of student loan forgiveness


President Joe Biden claps during a Department of Defense Commander in Chief Farewell Ceremony at Joint Base Myers-Henderson Hall in Arlington, Virginia on Thursday, when he also announced his final round of student debt relief.

 Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo


Jan. 16, 2025 / UPI

Jan. 16 (UPI) -- The outgoing Biden administration announced its final round of student loan forgiveness on Thursday, erasing more than $600 million in debt held by more than 8,000 borrowers.

In a statement Thursday, the Department of Education said 4,550 borrowers will receive loan forgiveness through its Income-Based Repayment Plan. Another 4,100 former DeVry University students will receive loan relief based on findings announced by the department in February 2022 that Devry made "widespread substantial misrepresentations about its job placement rates."

"For decades, the federal government promised to help people who couldn't afford their student loans because they were in public service, had disabilities, were cheated by their college or who had completed decades of payments. But it rarely kept those promises until now," Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal said in a statement.

"These permanent reforms have already helped more than borrowers, and many more borrowers will continue to benefit," he said.

Student loan forgiveness has been a priority of President Joe Biden and his administration, whose attempts to cancel billions of dollars in students loans have been met with staunch Republican opposition.

In the summer of 2023, the Supreme Court blocked Biden's plan to offer up to $20,000 in student loan relief to millions of eligible borrowers.

In response, the White House in February announced another plan, the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan, which had canceled some $5.5 billion in student debt held by more than 400,000 borrowers before an injunction prevented further implementation of parts of the policy.

According to the Department of Education, Biden, who leaves office on Monday, has provided a combined $188.8 billion in loan forgiveness for 5.3 million borrowers with 33 executive actions.

"For too long, millions of borrowers have been paying into a system that has not recognized their efforts. Now, thanks to this IDR Account Adjustment update and other Biden-Harris Administration efforts to fix this long-broken system, borrowers will finally receive the credit they've earned and be one step closer to relief, Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel of the Student Borrow Protection Center, said in a statement.

Along with the loan forgiveness, the Department of Education announced Thursday that it had completed the payment count adjustment for borrowers enrolled in the income-driven repayment play, allowed them to see their repayment counters when they log into their account.

Yu added that this change is "a critical step" to ensuring borrowers actually receive their loan relief.

"It gives borrowers the tools to hold servicers and the federal government accountable if they fail to deliver on the relief borrowers are entitled to under the law," Yu said.

With uncertainty hanging over the future of the loan relief programs with President-elect Donald Trump returning to the White House on Monday, Yu said they are encouraging all borrowers to screenshot their new count and save it in their records.

The announcement from the Biden administration comes just a few days after the president approved student loan relief for more than 150,000 borrowers.

Biden boosts loan for ioneer’s Nevada lithium mine to nearly $1 billion

Reuters | January 17, 2025 | 

Rhyolite Ridge South Basin. Image by ioneer Ltd.

The US Department of Energy has finalized a $996 million loan for ioneer’s Rhyolite Ridge lithium project, according to documents reviewed by Reuters, an increase of $296 million from a preliminary funding offer and a move aimed at boosting President Joe Biden’s green energy legacy.


Scant US production of lithium, an ultralight metal used to make batteries for electric vehicles and many consumer electronics, has left the country reliant on supplies from market leader China, an imbalance that the outgoing Biden has tried the past four years to offset.

The loan, details of which have not been reported, is nearly 50% larger than a conditional funding commitment made two years ago and cannot be reversed by incoming President Donald Trump.

Funds will be used to build a lithium processing facility in rural Nevada that will supply Ford and other EV manufacturers by 2028.

The increased funding was due to post-pandemic inflation and new geological studies showing the Rhyolite Ridge deposit, located roughly 225 miles (362 km) north of Las Vegas, contains more lithium than estimated two years ago, a senior Energy Department official told Reuters.

“That gave everyone more comfort that this was a far better resource than originally imagined,” said the official. The Energy Department also doubled the loan’s repayment timeline to 20 years.

Australia-based ioneer had estimated the mine’s cost at roughly $785 million in 2020. While company officials have acknowledged that figure is now much higher, they declined to provide an updated estimate.

James Calaway, ioneer’s chairman, said the loan closing represented an important milestone for increasing US lithium output.

Calaway said the company would now work to close a $490 million equity investment that South Africa-based Sibanye Stillwater agreed to in 2021. A Sibanye spokesperson said the company is in final due diligence related to ioneer’s project.

The government loan for ioneer comes less than three days before Biden leaves office and is one of the last actions taken by Biden-appointed Energy Department staff, who are returning government-issued laptops and cell phones on Friday.

Last August, Reuters reported that US mining projects were rushing to close government loans out of concern that Trump could block funding if reelected.
Loan details

The Rhyolite Ridge project aims to produce 22,000 metric tons of lithium annually, enough to produce 370,000 EVs, as well as boron, a chemical used to make soaps. That would give the project two sources of revenue, a key appeal to Energy Department loan officials. The US produces less than 5,000 metric tons of lithium annually.

The ioneer loan had been in review since 2021 and approval required the project to receive its federal permit, which Biden granted last October. Even still, the permit did not immediately lead to the loan’s closure and required more paperwork and negotiation.

The company will be able to access the funds in tranches once it raises additional equity, per Energy Department guidelines. Calaway said that ioneer is talking with other potential financiers.

Construction is slated to begin later this year. The loan includes $968 million of principal and $28 million of capitalized interest.

Biden officials in the past month have also finalized a $2.26 billion loan for Lithium Americas and announced a $1.36 billion conditional funding commitment for a direct lithium extraction project in California.

The Biden administration is “fully confident” that the three projects should be able to meet US lithium needs by the early 2030s, said the Energy Department official.

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Veronica Brown and Toby Chopra)

Biden Administration Makes Final Moves to Advance Offshore Wind Power

Biden administration takes final steps to push forward offshore wind farms (file photo)

Published Jan 17, 2025 3:48 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

On the final working day of the Biden Administration, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced the approval of one more offshore wind farm project. It has been pushing forward in recent weeks to aid the industry ahead of an anticipated change in policy under the Trump administration.

The current media reports are that Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Monday, Inauguration Day, that places at least a temporary moratorium on wind energy projects. House of Representatives member Jeff Van Drew reported he had drafted an executive order for the incoming administration to order more research into the issues that Trump asserts including “windmills” kill whales and the need for subsidies to make the industry viable  Reports indicate Trump will halt actions until the approval of his nominated energy secretary Chris Wright, an executive from the fossil fuel industry, and nominated interior secretary Doug Burgum, former governor of North Dakota.

BOEM however today announced it has approved the Construction and Operations Plan for the SouthCoast Wind, a project proposed by Ocean Winds, a joint venture owned by EDP Renewables and ENGIE. Project. This is the final approval needed for the project from BOEM following the Department of the Interior’s December 2024 Record of Decision and Massachusetts in October moved forward with local permit approvals. The Rhode Island Current news outlet however is reporting today that the state's power utility, Rhode Island Energy, yesterday delayed a deadline till March 31 for signing its portion of the power purchase agreement and other approvals are still required for elements such as the cabling onshore in Rhode Island.

SouthCoast Wind will be located about 26 nautical miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and 20 nautical miles south of Nantucket, Massachusetts. The project will be able to generate up to 2.4 gigawatts of offshore wind energy for Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

The approved project includes the construction of up to 141 wind turbine generators and up to five offshore substation platforms located at a maximum of 143 positions, and up to eight offshore export cables located in up to two corridors, potentially making landfall in Brayton Point or Falmouth, Massachusetts. Compared to SouthCoast’s original proposed project, the selected alternative removes six wind turbine positions in the northeastern portion of the Lease Area to reduce potential impacts on foraging habitat and potential displacement of wildlife.

“We are proud to announce BOEM’s final approval of the SouthCoast Wind project, the nation’s eleventh commercial-scale offshore wind energy project, which will power more than 840,000 homes,” said BOEM Director Elizabeth Klein. "Under the Biden-Harris administration, we have made remarkable strides in advancing a clean energy economy, including approving more than 19 gigawatts of offshore wind energy.”

BOEM also this week set a timetable to start the environmental review for the proposed Vineyard Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Project. It would be located south of New York with a total capacity of approximately 2 GW. The review is scheduled to run till March 1 putting it under the control of the new administration.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Energy also released the West Coast Offshore Wind Transmission Study and Action Plan for Offshore Wind Transmission Development in the U.S. West Coast Region. The study took two years to explore the costs and benefits of adding floating offshore wind turbines along the Pacific coast. The report shows that floating offshore wind could bring 33 GW of energy to the western United States by 2050 and asserts it would bolster the resilience of coastal communities.

In addition to the approval of the nation's first 11 commercial-scale offshore wind projects, BOEM held six offshore commercial wind lease auctions since 2022. It mapped a plan forward for additional permitting and auctions, but it will likely be stalled under the next administration.