Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Greenpeace threatens to sue crown estate for driving up cost of offshore wind

News Feed
Monday, October 13, 2025

Greenpeace is threatening to sue King Charles’s property management company, accusing it of exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed.The environmental lobby group alleges the crown estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights.The crown estate, as the legal owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is responsible for auctioning offshore wind rights. It has benefited from the huge growth in the industry, commanding hefty option fees from renewable energy developers to secure areas of the seabed to build their windfarms.It made a £1.1bn profit in its financial year ended in March, double its level just two years ago.Will McCallum, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said the estate should be “managing the seabed in the interest of the nation and the common good, not as an asset to be milked for profit and outrageous bonuses”.“We should leave no stone unturned in looking for solutions to lower energy bills that are causing misery to millions of households,” he said.“Given how crucial affordable bills and clean energy are to the government’s agenda, the chancellor should use her powers of direction to ask for an independent review of how these auctions are run. If the problem isn’t fixed before the next round, we may need to let a court decide whether or not what’s happening is lawful.”Greenpeace argues the crown estate has a legal duty not to exploit its monopoly position as owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that it is now in breach of this.The lobby group said it was concerned the crown estate was rationing supply of the seabed to protect high prices, and argued this could harm the development of offshore wind power in the UK.The crown estate has reportedly rejected Greenpeace’s claims, arguing the lobby group has misinterpreted the estate’s legal duties.About 12% of crown estate profits flow to the monarchy to fund its work. This was lowered from 25% in 2023 to offset the rise in profits from offshore wind projects.skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe UK’s wind industry is at a critical juncture as the government plans to double onshore wind and quadruple offshore wind power capacity by the end of the decade.The crown estate, which also includes a portfolio of London properties and rural real estate, is worth £15bn. The property assets in London, which is concentrated around Regent Street and St James’s, are valued at £7.1bn.A spokesperson for the crown estate said: “Greenpeace has misunderstood the crown estate’s legal duties and leasing processes. Option fees are not fixed by the crown estate. They are set by the developers through open, competitive auctions and reflect market appetite at the time. As our net revenue is returned to the Treasury, option fees help to ensure that taxpayers benefit from the requisite value from the development of our scarce and precious seabed resource.“The crown estate is accelerating offshore wind in line with government policy to move forward the energy transition at pace and improve energy security.”The Treasury was approached for comment.

Environmental group accuses king’s property management company of ‘milking for profit’ its monopoly ownership of seabedGreenpeace is threatening to sue King Charles’s property management company, accusing it of exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed.The environmental lobby group alleges the crown estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights. Continue reading...

Greenpeace is threatening to sue King Charles’s property management company, accusing it of exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed.

The environmental lobby group alleges the crown estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights.

The crown estate, as the legal owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is responsible for auctioning offshore wind rights. It has benefited from the huge growth in the industry, commanding hefty option fees from renewable energy developers to secure areas of the seabed to build their windfarms.

It made a £1.1bn profit in its financial year ended in March, double its level just two years ago.

Will McCallum, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said the estate should be “managing the seabed in the interest of the nation and the common good, not as an asset to be milked for profit and outrageous bonuses”.

“We should leave no stone unturned in looking for solutions to lower energy bills that are causing misery to millions of households,” he said.

“Given how crucial affordable bills and clean energy are to the government’s agenda, the chancellor should use her powers of direction to ask for an independent review of how these auctions are run. If the problem isn’t fixed before the next round, we may need to let a court decide whether or not what’s happening is lawful.”

Greenpeace argues the crown estate has a legal duty not to exploit its monopoly position as owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that it is now in breach of this.

The lobby group said it was concerned the crown estate was rationing supply of the seabed to protect high prices, and argued this could harm the development of offshore wind power in the UK.

The crown estate has reportedly rejected Greenpeace’s claims, arguing the lobby group has misinterpreted the estate’s legal duties.

About 12% of crown estate profits flow to the monarchy to fund its work. This was lowered from 25% in 2023 to offset the rise in profits from offshore wind projects.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

The UK’s wind industry is at a critical juncture as the government plans to double onshore wind and quadruple offshore wind power capacity by the end of the decade.

The crown estate, which also includes a portfolio of London properties and rural real estate, is worth £15bn. The property assets in London, which is concentrated around Regent Street and St James’s, are valued at £7.1bn.

A spokesperson for the crown estate said: “Greenpeace has misunderstood the crown estate’s legal duties and leasing processes. Option fees are not fixed by the crown estate. They are set by the developers through open, competitive auctions and reflect market appetite at the time. As our net revenue is returned to the Treasury, option fees help to ensure that taxpayers benefit from the requisite value from the development of our scarce and precious seabed resource.

“The crown estate is accelerating offshore wind in line with government policy to move forward the energy transition at pace and improve energy security.”

The Treasury was approached for comment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Mark Carney reaches deal with Alberta for oil pipeline opposed by First Nations

Prime minister says deal ‘sets the state for an industrial transformation’, but project is likely to face wide oppositionMark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast, a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said. Continue reading...

Mark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast – a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the beaming Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but also nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said.The agreement was praised by Smith for its potential to “unleash” investment in Alberta.Carney and Smith made the announcement after weeks of negotiations, which mark a dramatic shift in relations between the federal government and Alberta.. The two have sparred in recent years amid accusations from Alberta that Ottawa is harming its economic potential by restricting carbon emissions.The premise of the agreement is to increase oil and gas exports while attempting to meet the federal government’s climate targets. Carney’s government will exempt a possible pipeline project from the existing coastal oil tanker moratorium and emissions cap. In exchange, Alberta must raise its industrial carbon pricing and investing in a multi-billion-dollar carbon capture project.Critically, however, no company has expressed an interest in backing the project, which would probably face stiff opposition from the province of British Columbia and among First Nations communities on the Pacific coast.The move also reflects a political shift by Carney, who, before entering politics, developed credentials as an economist guiding capital markets towards a net zero future. Now, he must sell a plan that appears at odds with those values.The agreement has already prompted grumbles from lawmakers within Carney’s Liberal party. The cabinet minister Gregor Robertson, for example, argued against the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion when he was mayor of Vancouver, calling the project environmentally irresponsible. Carney must also convince the former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, a longtime environmental activist who now serves as minister of Canadian identity and culture.Talks between Alberta and the federal government notably excluded neighbouring British Columbia, whose leader has voiced strong opposition to a new pipeline passing through his province. The BC premier, David Eby, has said he opposes a pipeline and also the prospect of allowing tanker traffic through the narrow, tempestuous waters of the north coast. Instead, his government offered to expand the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.But Alberta’s government is adamant it wants a new pipeline, not just expanded capacity, and has repeatedly pledged to submit a proposal by spring.Before passing a bill in June that gave his government the power to override environmental regulations and fast-track projects in the national interest, Carney said any new pipeline would have to have the support of First Nations whose territory is unceded to provincial or federal governments.Even before Carney and Smith made their announcement, however, First Nations said any new pipeline was effectively dead on arrival.“We are here to remind the Alberta government, the federal government, and any potential private proponent that we will never allow oil tankers on our coast, and that this pipeline project will never happen,” said Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations (CFN), a group that represents eight First Nations along the coast.Slett, the elected chief of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, has previously warned about the risks of an oil spill in a sparsely populated region with little rapid-response infrastructure. She saw the effects first-hand in 2016, when 100,000 litres of diesel spilled near her community. Slett warned that no deal could “override our inherent and constitutional Rights and Title, or deter our deep interconnection of mutual respect for the ocean”.

The long, fun list of things we could do with unlimited clean energy

What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on […]

What we could do with cleaner energy is more than you can imagine. | Lucy Jones for Vox; Getty Images What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on up, marbled, textured, and flavored to perfection. You could visit a nature preserve on land reclaimed from mines and farms, teeming with once-endangered animal life. You could get whisked comfortably and quietly anywhere by robots, whether down the street or the other side of the world. You could plan every weekend outing for the next month, counting on reliable, far-reaching weather forecasts. And all of your garbage would break down into its constituent elements, destined to be reassembled into new shoes, cars, and refrigerators. Key Takeaways Harnessing energy has been a key driver of increasing prosperity — life expectancy, wealth, productivity. But availability, cost, and environmental impacts have long been major constraints on the energy we can use. Now, a new generation of clean energy is providing vastly more power and rapidly scaling up. With ample cheap power, we can solve some of our most pressing problems and begin to think of new applications. Abundant clean energy can enable vastly more food, water, travel, and industry while undoing greenhouse gas emissions. However, more energy cannot simply get around major social concerns like inequity, job losses, and regulatory hurdles. This is all speculation, but the pace of improvement in clean energy and the scale of its deployment put these ideas within the realm of possibility. Energy shapes the limits of what a society can build, sustain, and imagine, and the more of it we have at our disposal, the further we can push those boundaries. What we would decide to do with vastly more energy has huge implications for our politics, our economy, our environment, and our prosperity.  This year, the world is poised to spend $2.2 trillion on clean energy — power from the wind, the sun, the water, and splitting atoms. It also includes upgrades to the power grid, new forms of energy storage, and increased efficiency.  This investment has mostly been trumpeted as a way to help limit climate change. Humanity’s collective deployment of clean energy and increasing efficiency so far has already helped take some of the worst-case scenarios off the table.   However, climate change is a low political priority now. A more compelling case for clean energy is that it’s often the best way to get cheap energy, and to get a lot of it. The deployment of wind and solar power around the world continues to defy expectations, while the growth trajectory of energy storage is following close behind. This suite of technologies is taking off around the world — not because of a carbon tax or even environmental concerns, but because clean energy is simply better at meeting the needs of a moment when energy appetites are growing.  Suppose we alter the framing and approach solving climate change not as a task merely of curbing emissions, but of increasing access and lowering costs of better ways to power the world even further. It’s an approach that leads with prosperity and quality of life, while creating a more stable climate in the process.  If we make it a priority to get more clean energy, that raises the interesting — and fun — question of what we should do with it. After all, we’re not collecting energy for the sake of energy but to do stuff.  Cheap, clean, plentiful energy doesn’t just help people save money on their power bills; it unlocks new industries, makes thorny political problems moot, and helps repair the planet. These use cases are important motivations for why the transition to clean energy needs to happen and how it can bring about a better world for all of us. It’s why we’re doing this at all.  What abundant clean energy can unlock We can exchange heat and electrons for just about anything on Earth. How much energy a person uses is an effective proxy for how well off they are — how much food they can eat, how comfortable they are at home, how educated they are. We can see this play out in the cost and quality of lighting, which, in the UK alone, dropped 99.9 percent since 1700, tracing how economies grew as people shifted from campfires, to kerosene lamps, to LED bulbs, and beyond.  Energy by the numbers The global energy landscape is changing rapidly. Fossil fuels are still the dominant ways we heat, power, and get around the world, but renewable energy capacity is rocketing upward.  Total global energy consumption is about 186,000 terawatt-hours per year, or about 58 times the total output of every nuclear power plant on Earth right now. The top three sources of energy are oil, coal, and natural gas, meeting 76 percent of the world’s energy needs. The world emitted a record 53.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2024. Energy consumption accounted for 37.8 gigatonnes of CO2, about 70 percent of the total.   Burning fossil fuels for energy accounts for 75.7 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by 11.7 percent from agriculture, 6.5 percent from industry, 3.4 percent from waste, and 2.7 percent from changes in land use. About 21 percent of the world’s energy consumption goes toward producing electricity. Wind, solar, and hydropower accounted for 92 percent of new electricity capacity added worldwide in 2024. The world will need anywhere from double to triple the amount of electricity by 2050, depending on the economic growth trajectory. “Energy is prosperity,” said Eric Toone, chief technology officer at Breakthrough Energy, a high-tech clean energy funding firm founded by Bill Gates in 2015. “Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy is the capacity to build things, to make things, to move things.” The potential of near-unlimited energy has been tantalizing researchers for decades, since the last big energy revolution, the dawn of the nuclear age.  “It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age,” said Lewis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in 1954. “This is the forecast for an age of peace.” Nuclear power didn’t make this dream come true. It did provide huge amounts of electricity, but its construction and operating costs rose as other energy sources got cheaper. Meanwhile, environmental activists and some policymakers shifted their energy strategy to conservation rather than expanding the pool of power. Yet, the prospect of producing energy in such vast quantities that its cost is a minor concern is still one that lures scientists, engineers, and investors. And the recent technology trends do give some observers hope that this dream is within reach. “Long-term, I think there’s good reason to think that at least lots of places in the world will have much less expensive and more stable energy, especially once they’ve made the investment in the next generation infrastructure,” said Daniel Vermeer, a researcher at Duke University studying the future of energy. “And I think that’s going to happen in a lot of places.” How much more energy? “I think we’re looking at double the electricity production,” Vermeer said. So, in the best tradition of economic thought experiments, let’s assume a can opener. What do we open first?  Transform our food system If we vastly increase our energy supply from current levels, food and water are where we can get the most bang for the British Thermal Unit (BTU). “It’s so fundamental to human prosperity,” Vermeer said. “It’s also where people will see benefits the fastest.” First, we can get a lot more out of our existing farms We already spend a huge amount of our energy to produce food, and agriculture accounts for one-third of humanity’s greenhouse gas output. The fertilizer used to grow crops alone accounts for 5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than aviation and shipping combined — and most fertilizers rely on natural gas as a feedstock. If we had the power and materials to produce more zero-emissions fertilizer, farmers could extract greater yields from the same amount of land. And decarbonizing the supply chain with electric tractors and trucks to bring food to markets would further increase efficiency. Getting the most out of our existing farms will be essential to feeding the world’s growing population. Otherwise, expanding farms will continue to devour forests and wildlands.   Your tastiest fruit will grow closer to you The next generation of farming techniques could create similar yields on even smaller plots of land, allowing food to be produced year round, nearer to major population centers or even within them. One approach is vertical farming, where crops are grown vertically in controlled indoor environments instead of horizontally across fields. Many vertical farming techniques are already being used today. But with more cheap energy to run pumps, lights, and fans, we can scale this up further.  We can sip from the seas Water is essential to all life as we know it, and we haven’t been doing a great job of judiciously using it. In recent years, some major cities have been teetering on the brink of running out of water. And with average temperatures rising, many regions are poised to see more severe droughts.  However, two-thirds of the world is covered in water, and widespread desalination would allow the world to tap into that vast, currently undrinkable supply. The main techniques for desalination are distillation and reverse osmosis, and right now, both require a lot of energy. But, if there’s a lot of cheap power on tap, then desalination could be a primary source of water for some communities, allowing freshwater rivers and aquifers to recharge. It would also resolve many of the political conflicts around water.  Our meals can give us perfect nourishment Unlimited energy could allow us to bioengineer our food sources from individual nutrients to maximize nourishment. Precision fermentation, or electro-food, is an emerging technology that uses specially designed microorganisms like yeast or bacteria to make proteins, fats, or nutrients like those found in animal products. Instead of raising cows or chickens, you could “brew” milk, eggs, or meat ingredients in fermentation tanks — just like the process of making beer. Cheap, clean electricity can power these breweries as they use captured carbon and hydrogen as ingredients. Companies are already selling animal-free dairy and egg proteins made this way. As renewable power becomes abundant, precision fermentation could scale up, feeding growing populations with a fraction of the land, water, and emissions of traditional agriculture Imagine grilling the perfect burger Now, let’s take precision fermentation even further. Cultivating cells into whole steaks is starting to become possible, but it’s an expensive and involved process. If this could truly get off the ground, it would have huge knock-on benefits for the environment. Raising livestock right now draws a huge toll in terms of land use, energy and water consumption, and waste production, not to mention the immense ethical problems embedded in raising and killing animals for food. If we can turn energy into meat that replaces conventional livestock, that would solve so many environmental issues all at once. But, convincing people to eat it remains a barrier. Already, there are seven states that have banned lab-grown meat. “Laboratory agriculture and producing things without animals is possible from a technical perspective, but we have to get a lot more sophisticated about how people make those decisions,” Toone said.  Can AI play a positive role here? Whether or not you’re bullish on AI, it’s clear that more of our jobs and lives hinge on access to computing power and storage. Right now, data centers are a big part of the story of growing electricity demand, and speculation about their future energy needs is already starting to drive up electricity prices for ordinary people.  But with fewer energy constraints, more computing tools could become available to more people, and these resources can then be used to resolve some of our biggest energy and environmental challenges. It may also be a necessary investment for the US to retain a competitive edge. “I, for one, have become completely convinced that it’s necessary to win at AI for national security,” said Neil Chatterjee, a former commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “How do we generate the power to win the AI race while keeping electricity affordable and not backsliding? There’s no simple solution, but I’m confident we can get there.” How can we mitigate their worst effects?  Utilities can require tech firms to pay a deposit to for their future power needs so they don’t over-inflate their needs. Data centers can also face mandates to bring their own generation and energy storage, which could also support the broader grid.  Operators of these facilities can shift energy-intensive tasks to low-demand periods, though this flexibility may be limited. Their size incentivizes efficient electricity use, and computing will likely grow more energy-efficient over time as the technology improves.  AI can further accelerate the clean-energy transition by streamlining permitting applications for wind and solar projects, improving materials design, enhancing weather forecasting, and strengthening models of energy demand. More energy will help us clean up our mess With food and water sorted, we can then start to chip away at the root cause of climate change: the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that are heating up the planet. Halting climate change thus means stopping these emissions entirely. And in the increasingly likely scenario where we overshoot our goal of limiting global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, it also means deliberately pulling carbon back out from the environment. It’s not enough to simply produce more energy; the world needs negative greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin to undo climate change on a planetary scale Humanity currently spews more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. So, to move the needle, we need to think about carbon management solutions that can work on this scale.  There are a few ways to do this. One is capturing carbon dioxide at the source. At conventional coal and natural gas-fired power plants, carbon capture systems currently impose a large parasitic load, around a quarter of the generator’s power output. That makes it hard to build a business case for carbon capture at fossil fuel power plants. But other industrial processes, like steel production, also emit carbon dioxide, and point-source capture can decarbonize this and other processes that don’t currently have an easy zero-emissions alternative.  We can also capture carbon dioxide straight from the air. There are already companies developing machines that can filter carbon from the atmosphere. Some businesses are also working on ways to pull carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater. The challenge is that it requires a lot of energy to move the amount of air and water needed to draw out significant amounts of carbon, which in turn raises the cost.  “Two things have to happen: One is that we have to continue to work to bring down the cost of air capture,” Toone said. Currently, it costs around $500 per ton to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. The goal is to get it down to $100 per ton or less. “Then societies have to become affluent enough that they’re willing to do it and recognize the dangers caused by climate change,” Toone added. Another approach is enhanced weathering, which speeds up natural processes where rocks like limestone react with carbon dioxide in rainwater, forming a chemical bond that permanently locks it away. If you don’t lock away carbon dioxide, you can put it to work. It’s an important raw ingredient for chemicals and materials. You can use it to make fuels reconstituted from the air, polymers, enzymes, concrete, as well as make your drinks bubbly. This has the potential to become a trillion-dollar industry. All of our waste could be renewed Waste is a mounting problem, and many synthetic materials like plastics have no natural mechanisms that break them down, making them a problem that can last for generations. Recycling plastic materials has largely failed to live up to the promise, and the bulk of plastic waste ends up in landfills. To meaningfully reuse and reconstitute polymers, the process needs to be competitive with producing virgin materials, which means the energy you use for recycling has to be dirt cheap. When we get there, we may be able to close the loop, making, unmaking, and remaking everything we need with minimal extraction from the Earth.  We can travel the world and only leave behind a tiny footprint The next place to look is transportation. Cheap fossil fuels have shrunk the world, allowing people to cross continents and oceans in hours rather than months. How we get around is now the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Four-wheeled vehicles already have a glide path to zero emissions with electrification. The tougher challenges are going to be electrifying or decarbonizing bigger vehicles like ships and airplanes.  Cleanly cruise the high seas Container ships are the gargantuan worker ants of the global economy, transporting just about every tangible good around the world. Right now, most container ships burn some of the cheapest and dirtiest fuels imaginable, but with abundant clean energy, they could draw on cleaner sources of power. These ships may be too big to run on batteries, but with much cheaper, clean electricity, shipping companies can generate hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, or synthetic versions of conventional fuels, moving cargo without the carbon footprint.  Take to the skies Climate-friendly flying is still trying to get off the ground. Right now, there aren’t any batteries that come anywhere close to the energy density of fossil fuels. Some airlines are deploying electric aircraft on shorter routes. However, without a breakthrough, long-haul flights will need to run on synthetic zero-emissions fuels, which demand vast quantities of low-cost energy. Or, they’ll need a mechanism like direct air capture to offset their emissions.  The really far-out ideas With even more energy, we can begin thinking about commercializing promising innovations that exist only in labs or are still on the drawing board. Many of these ideas sound far-fetched, but abundant clean energy moves them into the realm of possibility.  Materials built molecule-first Imagine designing stuff the way you’d build a playlist: starting from tiny pieces and crafting exactly what you need. Shoes that bounce just right. Home insulation that actually understands seasons. Skin grafts that heal without scars. We already 3D print things, but scaling it is pricey and slow. Smarter, custom materials could make industrial printing faster, cleaner, and way less wasteful. Space that’s closer — and cleaner Getting to orbit still takes a ton of energy, and today’s rocket fuels leave a pretty heavy carbon footprint. Pulling carbon dioxide out of the air could help offset launches, and cleaner electricity can make low-carbon fuels from the start. The result: space access that’s not just cheaper, but easier on the planet. Solar power that never sleeps Above the atmosphere, sunlight doesn’t quit. Space-based solar collectors could soak up that uninterrupted energy and beam it back to Earth via microwaves. No clouds, no sunsets — just steady power when we need it. Become a spacefaring civilization And instead of dragging every nut and bolt off Earth, we could mine asteroids for the raw materials already floating out there. That opens the door to building more in space — moon bases, deep-space missions, the whole sci-fi starter kit — without the crushing cost of launching every ounce from Earth. An immense surge of clean energy will have unintended consequences, too Even if we could realize all of the exciting potential of this clean energy-powered future, some new problems could emerge if we’re not careful. First, there will be a big dislocation in the job market. There are almost 2 million people in the US working in coal, oil, and gas sectors — mining, building, transporting, and combusting these fuels. They will need new jobs or a soft landing pad that will help them move or retire. “We’re potentially seeing huge shifts in governance and unionization around the world,” said Adam Cowart, who is on the faculty of foresight at the University of Houston. Additionally, “abundant” does not necessarily mean “equal” when it comes to energy. In the year 2025, there are still 685 million people in the world who don’t have access to electricity, and there’s no guarantee that increasing the global supply of energy will benefit them without concerted policies to match. Having more energy could also end up indulging people’s worst impulses. Already, we’ve seen across much of the world that as fuels and electricity get cheaper, people end up driving bigger cars over longer distances, running their thermostats less efficiently, and eating more meat. Valerie Thomas, professor of industrial engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, noted that our recent history shows that we have not used the energy we already have in a judicious way. “If we look back in history just a little bit, what do we do? We use it up on things maybe we don’t even understand, like bigger houses with more air conditioning, or we would commute even longer distances,” Thomas said. It will take concerted effort to make sure new energy doesn’t just go to frivolous uses. And in her work looking at some of the poorest populations in the world, Thomas said she found that the key limits to prosperity are often things like local corruption, a lack of prenatal care, not enough vaccines, political instability, and bad economic policies. “What tends to be the barrier to the good life? I don’t think it’s energy,” Thomas said. That said, the world’s poorest stand to gain the most from the transition to clean energy, not just for having more useful power in their lives but breathing in less pollution and having more economic autonomy.  The post-energy abundance world is not one where every problem is solved, but it’s one with greater prosperity, improved human welfare, and generally a more stable climate. It will raise its own challenges, so there’s no scenario where we can take it for granted.  The fossil fuel era, and much of human history, was governed by constraints. The age of clean energy is poised to be one that’s more limited by imagination and choices, and the remaining solutions will be much more fun to implement.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

Small but mighty grid batteries take root in Virginia amid energy crunch

Two new battery projects on Virginia’s remote eastern peninsula could signal a growing trend in the clean-energy transition: midsize energy-storage units that are bigger than the home batteries typically paired with rooftop solar, but cheaper and quicker to build than massive utility-scale projects. The 10-megawatt,…

Two new battery projects on Virginia’s remote eastern peninsula could signal a growing trend in the clean-energy transition: midsize energy-storage units that are bigger than the home batteries typically paired with rooftop solar, but cheaper and quicker to build than massive utility-scale projects. The 10-megawatt, four-hour batteries, one each in the tiny towns of Exmore and Tasley, represent this ​“missing middle,” said Chris Cucci, chief strategy officer for Climate First Bank, which provided $32 million in financing for the two units. Batteries are a critical technology in the shift to renewable energy because they can store wind and solar electrons and discharge them when the sun isn’t shining or breezes die down. When it comes to energy storage, ​“we need volume, but we also need speed to market,” Cucci said. ​“The big projects do move the needle, but they can take a few years to come online.” And in rural Virginia, batteries paired with enormous solar arrays — which can span 100-plus acres — face increasing headwinds, in part over the concern that they’re displacing farmland. The Exmore and Tasley systems, by contrast, took about a year to permit, broke ground in April, and came online this fall, Cucci said. Sited at two substations 10 miles apart, the batteries occupy about 1 acre each. Beyond being relatively simple to get up and running, the systems could help ease energy burdens on customers of A&N Electric Cooperative, the nonprofit utility that owns the substations where the batteries are sited, said Harold Patterson, CEO of project developer Patterson Enterprises. Wait times to link to the larger regional grid, operated by PJM Interconnection, are up to two years. So for now, the batteries will draw power only from the electric co-op, Patterson said. Once they connect to PJM, the batteries will charge when system-wide electricity consumption is down and spot prices are low. Then, the batteries’ owner, Doxa Development, will sell power back when demand is at its peak, creating revenue that will help lower bills for co-op consumers. “That’s the final step to try to drive down power prices” for residents of Virginia’s Eastern Shore, Patterson said. ​“Get it online and increase supply in the wholesale marketplace.” Moving away from gas Though the batteries aren’t paired with a specific solar project, they are likely to lap up excess solar electrons on the PJM grid. And since they’ll be discharged during hours of heavy demand, they could help avert the revving up of gas-fired ​“peaker plants.” “Peaker plants are smaller power plants that are in closer proximity to the populations they serve, and [they] are traditionally very dirty,” Cucci said. ​“They’re also economically inefficient to run. Battery storage is cleaner, more efficient, and easier to deploy.” Gas peaker plants are wasteful partly because of all the energy required to drill and transport the fuel that fires them, said Nate Benforado, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy group. “Then you get [the fuel] to your power plant, and you have to burn it,” Benforado said. ​“And guess what? You only capture a relatively small portion of the potential energy in those carbon molecules.” Single-cycle peaker plants, the most common type, can go from zero to full power in minutes, much like a jet engine. Their efficiency ranges between 33% and 43%.  “Burning fossil fuels is not an efficient way to generate energy,” Benforado said.  “Leaning into batteries is the way we have to go. They’re efficient on the power side but also on the price side.”

‘It’s hell for us here’: Mumbai families suffer as datacentres keep the city hooked on coal

As Mumbai sees increased energy demand from new datacenters, particularly from Amazon, the filthiest neighbourhood in one of India’s largest cities must keep its major coal plantsEach day, Kiran Kasbe drives a rickshaw taxi through his home neighbourhood of Mahul on Mumbai’s eastern seafront, down streets lined with stalls selling tomatoes, bottle gourds and aubergines–and, frequently, through thick smog.Earlier this year, doctors found three tumours in his 54-year-old mother’s brain. It’s not clear exactly what caused her cancer. But people who live near coal plants are much more likely to develop the illness, studies show, and the residents of Mahul live a few hundred metres down the road from one. Continue reading...

Each day, Kiran Kasbe drives a rickshaw taxi through his home neighbourhood of Mahul on Mumbai’s eastern seafront, down streets lined with stalls selling tomatoes, bottle gourds and aubergines–and, frequently, through thick smog.Earlier this year, doctors found three tumours in his 54-year-old mother’s brain. It’s not clear exactly what caused her cancer. But people who live near coal plants are much more likely to develop the illness, studies show, and the residents of Mahul live a few hundred metres down the road from one.Mahul’s air is famously dirty. Even behind closed car windows, there is a heavy stench of oil and smoke.“We are not the only ones facing health challenges in the area,” said Kasbe, who is 36. “It’s all covered with filth.”Two coal plants plant run by the Indian multinationals Tata Group and Adani were due to close last year in a government push to cut emissions. But late in 2023, those decisions were reversed after Tata argued that electricity demand was rising too fast for Mumbai to go without coal.Neither company responded to requests for comment.Buildings shrouded in smog in Mumbai, India, in January. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty ImagesEconomic growth and the need for air conditioning in climate change-linked extreme heat have seen India’s electricity demand soar in recent years. But an investigation by SourceMaterial and the Guardian reveals the biggest single factor in the city’s failure to end its dependence on fossil fuels: energy-hungry datacentres.Leaked records also reveal the scale of the presence of the world’s biggest datacentre operator, Amazon, in Mumbai.In the city’s metropolitan area, Amazon, on its website, records three “availability zones”, which it defines as one or more datacentres. Leaked records from last year seen by SourceMaterial from inside Amazon reveal the company used 16 in the city.As India transforms its economy into a hub for artificial intelligence, the datacentre boom is creating a conflict between energy demand and climate pledges, said Bhaskar Chakravorti, who researches technology’s impact on society at Tufts University.“I’m not surprised they’re falling behind their green transition commitments, especially with the demand growing exponentially,” he said of the Indian government.Kylee Yonas, a spokeswoman for Amazon, said Mumbai’s “emission challenges” were not caused by Amazon.“On the contrary – Amazon is one of the largest corporate investors in renewable energy in India, and we’ve supported 53 solar and wind projects in the country capable of generating over 4m megawatt hours of clean energy annually,” she said. “These investments, which include our 99 megawatt wind project in Maharashtra, are enough to power over 1.3m Indian homes annually once operational.”Amazon is building hundreds of datacentres around the world as it vies with Microsoft, Google and others for leadership of the booming AI market.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd office in Mumbai, India. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty ImagesThe company is failing to take responsibility for its role in prolonging the use of the most polluting energy sources, said Eliza Pan, a spokeswoman for Amazon Employees for Climate Justice.“Amazon is using the shiny thing of AI to distract from the fact that it’s building a dirty energy empire,” she said.Yonas denied this, saying: “Not only are we the leading datacentre operator in efficiency, we’re the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy for five consecutive years with over 600 projects globally.”Amazon’s claims on green energy are controversial: the company has been criticised for using “creative accounting” by buying renewable energy certificates alongside direct purchases of green energy, as described by a member of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice.‘Everything is contaminated’Mahul, where Kasbe drives his rickshaw, is a former fishing village now home to tens of thousands of people who moved there after slum clearances elsewhere in the city.Kiran Kasbe’s mother. Photograph: Courtesy SushmitaKasbe and his mother arrived there in 2018 after their home in the suburb of Vidyavihar was bulldozed. She had been healthy before the move but deteriorated rapidly until eventually she was diagnosed with brain cancer, he said.Gajanan Tandle, who lives nearby, said pollution-linked illnesses were common. “There are so many cases of skin and eye irritation, cancer, asthma, TB and more, and no assistance from the government,” he said.Another local, Santosh Jadhav, has lobbied the government to move people away from Mahul.“Everything is contaminated. We are tired of fighting for a decent means of living,” he said. “It’s hell for us here.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHidden datacentresAmazon, an online marketplace that processes 13 million customer purchases each day, according to research by CapitalOne, has bet billions of dollars on an expansion of its lucrative cloud computing business and expansion of AI-assisted services, from automated coding to translation.The reason so many of its Mumbai centres have slipped under the radar is that they are leased rather than owned by the company. Whereas in the US Amazon tends to own its facilities outright, elsewhere it often rents either entire data farms or server racks in centres shared with other companies.Shared “colocation” units account for a larger increase in datacentre energy use worldwide than owned or wholly leased, according to Shaolei Ren, a computing specialist at the University of California, Riverside.“Most of the energy in the datacentre industry is going into colocations,” he said. “They are everywhere.”Workers near Amazon Prime branding in Mumbai, India, on September. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty ImagesAmazon’s Mumbai colocation datacentres used 624,518 megawatt hours of electricity in 2023, enough to power over 400,000 Indian households for a year, the leaked data shows.India is poised to overtake Japan and Australia to become the second-largest user of datacentre electricity in the Asia-Pacific region, S&P has forecast. By 2030, datacentres will consume a third of Mumbai’s energy, according to Ankit Saraiya, chief executive of Techno & Electric Engineering, an Indian power infrastructure supplier.‘Toxic hell’As it scrambles to keep ahead of demand for power, the state government of Maharashtra has extended the life of Tata’s coal plant in Mahul by at least five years. At the same time, it also postponed the shutdown of a 500-megawatt station operated by Tata’s rival, Adani Group, north of the city.When Tata argued for the extension in a petition to the state energy board, the biggest single factor the company cited was increased energy demand from datacentres. Adani said most anticipated new demand in the five years after the date by which its station was due to close would be from datacentres.The power stations are just two of many polluters in Mumbai’s Mahul district. The area is also home to three refineries and 16 chemical factories, according to a 2019 report published by India’s Centre for Policy Studies which called the neighbourhood a “toxic hell”.But the Tata station, opened in 1984 and like other older power stations subject to laxer emissions rules, is “one of the key sources of air pollution in Mumbai”, according to Raj Lal, chief air quality scientist at the World Emission Network.It contributes nearly a third of local PM2.5 pollution, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. PM2.5 refers to airborne particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter that can cause significant health problems when inhaled.Smoke rises from a chimney at the Tata Power Co Trombay Thermal power plant in Mumbai, India, in August 2017. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty ImagesToxic heavy metals in coal ash from the plant are likely to cause “respiratory diseases, kidney issues, skin problems, cardiac issues”, said Shripad Dharmadhikary, founder of the environmental organisation Manthan Adhyayan Kendra.Even with the Tata plant kept running, Mumbai’s power grid is creaking under the strain of surging demand. To guard against blackouts, Amazon’s colocation datacentres in the city have bought 41 diesel generators as backup and are asking for approval to install more, documents show.In August a report by the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) identified diesel generators as a major source of air pollution in the region.The presence of datacentres that require constant power and diesel generators for backup “will naturally exacerbate emissions”, said Swagata Dey, air quality specialist at (CSTEP), asserting that datacentre operators should be required by law to power them with pollution-free solar electricity.One Amazon site in particular, just across the Thane Creek from Mahul, hosts 14 generators. One of the company’s partners received permission earlier this year to install 12 further generators at the site.“Public health impacts must be a central consideration when siting datacenters and choosing energy sources,” said Ren of the University of California, Riverside, who co-wrote a recent paper assessing public health risk from diesel generators at US datacentres.Sushmita does not use a surname because in India a surname indicates the caste–a hierarchical and discriminatory social structure.

New England kicks off $450M plan to supercharge heat pump adoption

New England winters can get wicked cold. This week, five of the region’s states launched a $450 million effort to warm more of the homes in the often-frigid region with energy-efficient, low-emission heat pumps instead by burning fossil fuels. “It’s a big deal,” said Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s…

New England winters can get wicked cold. This week, five of the region’s states launched a $450 million effort to warm more of the homes in the often-frigid region with energy-efficient, low-emission heat pumps instead by burning fossil fuels. “It’s a big deal,” said Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. ​“It’s unprecedented to see five states aligning together on a transformational approach to deploying more-affordable clean-heat options.” The New England Heat Pump Accelerator is a collaboration between Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The initiative is funded by the federal Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, which was created by President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The accelerator’s launch marks a rare milestone for a Biden-era climate initiative amid the Trump administration’s relentless attempts to scrap federal clean energy and environmental programs. The goal: Get more heat pumps into more homes through a combination of financial incentives, educational outreach, and workforce development. New England is a rich target for such an effort because of its current dependence on fossil-fuel heating. Natural gas and propane are in wide use, and heating oil is still widespread throughout the region; more than half of Maine’s homes are heated by oil, and the other coalition states all use oil at rates much higher than the national average. The prevalence of oil in particular means there’s plenty of opportunity to grow heat-pump adoption, cut emissions, and lower residents’ energy bills. At the same time, heat pumps have faced barriers in the region, including the upfront cost of equipment, New England’s high price of electricity, and misconceptions about heat pumps’ ability to work in cold weather. “There’s not a full awareness that these cold-temperature heat pumps can handle our winters, and do it at a cost that is lower than many of our delivered fuels,” said Joseph DeNicola, deputy commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. To some degree, the momentum is shifting. Maine has had notable success, hitting its aim of 100,000 new heat pump installations in 2023, two years ahead of its initial deadline. Massachusetts is on track to reach its 2025 target, but needs adoption rates to rise in order to make its 2030 goal. The accelerator aims to speed up adoption by supporting the installation of some 580,000 residential heat pumps, which would reduce carbon emissions by 2.5 million metric tons by 2030 — the equivalent of taking more than 540,000 gas-powered passenger vehicles off the road. The initiative is organized into three program areas, or ​“hubs,” as planners called them during a webinar kicking off the accelerator this week. The largest portion of money, some $270 million, will go to the ​“market hub.” Distributors will receive incentives for selling heat pumps. They will keep a small percentage of the money for themselves and pass most of the savings on to the contractors buying the equipment. The contractors, in turn, will pass the lower price on to the customers. In addition to reducing upfront costs for consumers, this approach is designed to shift the market by encouraging distributors to keep the equipment in stock, therefore making it an easier choice for contractors and their customers. These midstream incentives are expected to reduce the cost of cold-climate air-source heat pumps by $500 to $700 per unit and heat-pump water heaters by $200 to $300 per unit. When contractors buy the appliances, the incentive will be applied automatically — no extra paperwork or claims process required.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.