This article compiles and categorizes the various forms of climate risk facing the fossil fuel industry. The type and intensity of risk differs greatly among the three forms of fossil fuels, as well as between countries in the developing and developed world. The paper finds heightened risk for the coal industry and reduced risk for oil businesses, due to its lack of substitutes.

Burning coal, oil, and natural gas is the source of two-thirds of the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Sales of these fuels also represent the economic underpinning of resource-rich countries and the world’s largest firms. As such, steps taken to abate emissions undermine commercial opportunities to monetize fossil fuel reserves. Risks to the industry correlate with progress on climate goals.

This article analyzes recent literature on climate action strategy and finds that a new or intensified set of risks has arisen for the fossil fuel industry. These include government policies and legislation, financial restrictions among lenders and insurers, hostile legal and shareholder actions, changes in demand and geopolitics, as well as the onset of new competitive forces among states and technologies.

The exposure of carbon-based businesses to these risks and the potential for loss is neither distributed uniformly across the sector, nor adheres to a uniform time scale. Shareholder-owned firms in the developed world will be incentivized to react sooner than large state-owned resource owners in developing countries. The fates of the three fossil fuels also appear likely to play out differently. Demand for oil appears insulated by its lack of viable substitutes, while coal businesses are already undergoing climate-related action, pushed by decreasing social acceptance and constraining financial regulation. At the other end of the spectrum, climate action has improved the medium-term viability of low-carbon natural gas. What appears clear is that, as effects of climate change grow more pronounced, the industry faces a future that is less accepting of current practices.

The sustainability movement has more influence over company and government climate change actions than any treaty, law or regulation could possibly have, and results in quicker, measurable actions.

The sustainability movement is alive and well, and will continue to grow despite the outcry over some countries backpedaling from the Paris Accord. When one stops to consider just how much action companies from around the world have taken toward sustainability one cannot help but be amazed that so much was done without treaties, laws and regulations to force compliance. The primary driver of action is peer pressure—that which is derived from the actions of industry, and not the actions of government. This movement, found under a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) banner, will continue to grow by virtue of the continuous adoption of sustainability reporting, and in particular, supply chain reporting, benchmarking and risk management practices of industry, and the adoption of energy efficient (EE) projects. These actions have already resulted in significant positive changes to private company and government behavior, company value, lower emissions, greater operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One could argue that peer pressure is much more effective than any treaty, laws, or regulations could possibly be. But, it should be noted that the term “climate change” remains a contentious issue and companies would be wise to refer to all related actions as sustainability.

It’s hard to beat the energy density and convenience of liquid hydrocarbons. The product of energy used and journey time is another way to compare transportation systems. It is more practical to power electric cars from batteries than photovoltaics. Solar can be used to supply some of the energy needed to recharge the batteries. The primary energy used to make food, the fuel for the human cyclist, can be many times the calorific energy derived from the food.

Transportation is a major source of carbon dioxide emissions. Hermans makes some excellent points in his article “The challenge of energy-efficient transportation.” However primary energy to produce fuel should also be considered. The embodied energy of liquid hydrocarbon fuels is much less than their energy content. For a cyclist the fuel is food, and, depending on diet, the primary energy can be many times the food’s calorific energy. The article is over optimistic on the prospect of cars directly powered by solar photovoltaics. It’s more realistic to use batteries in electric cars and generate the electricity from a number of sources. For anything other than trains that run on fixed tracks it’s hard to beat the energy density and convenience of liquid hydrocarbons.

The development of Chicago and northeastern Illinois has been intimately tied to water, particularly Lake Michigan and the Chicago Area Waterways. The wastewater treatment plants of the past will become the power centers of the future by harnessing resources—including nutrients, energy, solids, and water itself—to bolster the economy and ensure regional sustainability.

The story of Chicago’s development is inextricably linked to its relationship with the natural environment, beginning 16,000 years ago when the land was covered and compressed by an enormous glacier. Ever since, urban planners and policymakers have grappled with how to manage a city built on flat, swampy land, and what to do with the animal and human waste that accumulates in urban environments. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the solution was to move waste as far away from the area as possible. The Chicago River, which originally flowed into Lake Michigan, was converted into an open sewer and reversed, sending the flow—and all the wastes dumped into it—downstream. Over the 20th century, sewage treatment plants were constructed to minimize the potential for harm to humans and the environment. Now, however, our thinking is changing. Rather than discarding waste products, wastewater treatment plants are beginning to recover the resources that flow through them—including nutrients, energy, solids, and water—and transform them into assets that generate revenue and protect the environment. This potential for resource recovery means that the sewage treatment plants of the past will become the power centers of the future.

Nuclear power is a crucial source of clean energy for India. In the near-term, India is focusing on thermal reactors using natural and enriched uranium. In the long-term, India is exploring various options to use its large thorium reserves.

India’s present nuclear installed capacity is 5680 MW, which contributes to about 3.4% of the annual electricity generation. However, nuclear power is an important source of energy in India’s aspirations for energy security and also in achieving its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), of 40% fossil free electricity, by 2030. India has limited uranium reserves, but abundant thorium reserves. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) lifted restrictions on trade with India, in 2008, enabling India to import uranium (natural and enriched) and nuclear reactors. In the near–term (2030), the nuclear capacity could increase to about 42,000 MW. This would be from a combination of domestic Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) and imported Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). For the long–term (2050), India is exploring various options for utilising its vast thorium reserves. This includes Advanced Heavy Water Reactor and Molten Salt Breeder Reactor. However, generating public acceptance will be crucial to the expansion of the nuclear power program.

Synroc has evolved over the last 40 years from the titanate full-ceramics developed in the late 1970s to a technology platform that can be applied to produce glass, glass–ceramic, and ceramic waste forms and where there are distinct advantages in terms of waste loading and suppressing volatile losses.

A first of a kind Synroc plant for immobilizing intermediate level waste arising from Mo-99 production is currently in detailed engineering at ANSTO.

Since the year 2000, Synroc has evolved from the titanate full-ceramics developed in the late 1970s to a technology platform that can be applied to produce glass, glass–ceramic, and ceramic waste forms and where there are distinct advantages in terms of waste loading and suppressing volatile losses. Furthermore recent efforts have focused strongly on waste form development for plutonium-bearing wastes in the UK, for different options for the immobilization of Idaho calcines and most recently developing an engineered waste form for the intermediate level wastes arising from 99Mo production, for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). A variety of other studies are currently in progress, including engineered waste forms for spent fuel and investigating the proliferation risks for titanate-based waste forms containing highly enriched uranium or plutonium. This paper also attempts to give some perspective on Synroc waste forms and process technology development in the nuclear waste management industry.

Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry’s commercialization successes can be identified and applied to the U.S. battery industry to potentially improve its discouragingly low startup success rates.

A carbon-neutral and sustainable society of the future necessitates the widespread use of battery technologies that are efficient, effective, and economical. Lower-cost and more energy-dense battery technology can help solve many of our energy challenges, such as balancing the intermittency problems of renewables and making possible electric transportation fleets. New advanced materials are crucial to such battery advances. However, bringing advanced energy materials to market in the United States remains a formidable challenge. Hurdles include high upfront capital requirements, long timelines to success, and few opportunities for technology risk-reduction. Such challenges impede startups from developing financially viable technologies. Consequently, recent advances in battery performance have come from incremental changes implemented by large companies. By contrast, the pharmaceutical industry has many similar technical challenges, yet has an established pipeline of U.S. startup successes. We review and compare the current market structures of battery and pharma innovation. We propose an updated model of U.S. battery commercialization, informed by the pharma model’s successes. The new approach’s benefits and potential pitfalls are discussed. We provide recommendations for entrepreneurs, investors, manufacturers, and policy makers to improve the battery innovation ecosystem. We hope that these ideas spur the battery community to more successfully commercialize and deploy transformative technologies.