NY Gov. Kathy Hochul last month vetoed a bill that could have expedited a huge wind farm in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island. Her veto imperils not just the project, called Empire Wind, but New York State’s hopes to decarbonize its electric grid and validate its claim to national climate leadership.
I’ll argue here that a state or federal carbon price — one more substantial than the relative pittance of $15 per ton now being charged for electricity sector emissions under the RGGI compact — could have helped the developers beat back the NIMBYs whose rabble-rousing helped force Hochul’s hand. Let’s review the project and then explain how its difficulties are connected to the absence of robust carbon pricing.
Empire Wind Will Be Large
There will be 138 turbines, identical and gigantic. At 387 feet, each turbine blade will be the length of a football field including the end zones. The distance from water surface to blade tip at full height will be 886 feet, roughly the extent of two celebrated Manhattan towers that a century ago were the world’s tallest buildings: the 792-foot Woolworth Building (#1 from 1913 to 1930) and the 1,046-foot Chrysler Building (1930-1931). An even funner fact, from the developer’s spec sheet, is this: just one complete rotation by one turbine’s three blades will “power a New York home for about 1.5 days.”
The anticipated annual electrical generation from Empire Wind 1 and 2 combined is 7.25 TWh (or, if it’s easier, 7,250,000,000 kilowatt-hours),assuming a 40% yearly capacity factor. Here are four alternative ways of visualizing the significance of that output:
- Empire Wind’s 7.25 TWh is half again as great (i.e., 1.5x as large) as the entire production by New York State wind turbines in 2022 (that figure was 4.8 TWh);
- 7.25 TWh is 5 to 6 percent as great as all electricity generated from all state sources in 2022 (130.5 TWh);
- 7.25 TWh is one-sixtieth (1/60) as much as all U.S. wind-generated electricity last year (435 TWh), a figure that itself constituted a tenth of U.S. electricity production from all sources;
- 7.25 TWh is close to (12 percent less than) the average annual 2010-2019 output of either of the twin Indian Point reactors in suburban Westchester County that until their recent forced retirement were downstate New York’s lone large-scale source of carbon-free electricity. (The entire Indian Point station’s average annual output over its final decade, 2010-2019, was 16.5 TWh.)
Putting aside that last benchmark — which is intended as a reminder of the carbon disaster of shutting Indian Point (and a cautionary tale against shutting its West Coast doppelganger, Diablo Canyon) — Empire Wind looms large in New York state’s goal of attaining a 70 percent carbon-free grid in 2030.
The state’s 2022 carbon-free electricity share was just 48 to 49 percent, down from 60 percent in 2019, before Indian Point’s closure commenced. If Empire Wind’s output were available today, the statewide share would stand at 54 percent, indicating that this single (albeit two-part) project can close a quarter of the gap from the current clean percentage to the 2030 target.
Hochul and the NIMBYs
Along with infusing the grid with billions of clean kilowatt-hours, building and servicing Empire Wind 1 and 2 is expected to create 1,300 permanent onshore jobs — 300 to manufacture turbine components at the Port of Albany, and 1,000 in operation and maintenance at the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, according to Equinor, the developer. These numbers, along with the clean electricity, ought to be catnip for any Democratic politician.
Why, then, did Hochul on Oct. 20 veto a bill that could have cleared the path for the Empire Wind 2 power cable to run under Long Beach and connect to the electric grid in Oceanside?
There’s no shortage of possible rationales. Long Island flipped from shaky blue to all red a year ago, as Democrats lost all four Congressional races and a number of state legislative seats while Hochul herself was outvoted there in her unnervingly close re-election. She may be seeking to preserve political capital for a possible renewed push to undo exclusionary zoning that that keeps housing in Nassau and Suffolk counties unaffordable for newcomers or those without generational wealth. Moreover, Empire Wind itself has faced financial headwinds due to supposed supply chain bottlenecks and spiraling financing costs, with the latter due in no small part to the regulatory delays.
Whatever the reasons, Hochul went all NIMBY-friendly. Her veto message faulted Equinor for running roughshod over Long Beach residents (see pull quote at left) rather than calling out the obstructionists for teeing up a replay of 2012’s Superstorm Sandy that devastated the very communities that now are clamoring for the wind project to go away.
In her message, the governor ignored the tinfoil-hat essence of most anti-wind opposition, which one observer, a former New York City chief climate policy advisor, characterized as combining “propaganda from the fossil fuel industry, rumor mongering in local communities, and basic nimbyism.” As NY Focus helpfully reported in Long Island Politicians Claim Victory for Hochul Wind Power Veto, objections to the Empire Wind farm and cables run the gamut from shopworn (ocean views sullied by turbines 15 miles offshore) to debunked (health-harming electromagnetic radiation from the power cables) to chronologically impaired (“We’ve had a huge number of [dead] whales that are showing up on our beaches,” a state senator fretted, yet not even a single offshore wind turbine has begun operating on the Atlantic Coast).
Entire cable route through Long Beach is underground. Yet NIMBYs are holding hostage a not-quite-in-their-backyard project that would more than double NY wind power production. Incidentally, I was born and grew up in a house on Washington Blvd, just a few blocks past the left edge of the map. Equinor map adapted by CTC.
Hochul and her staff seem unaware that there is no placating NIMBYs, whether their sights are trained on giant offshore wind projects or small-bore items like transit-friendly higher-rise housing or bike lanes. To the naysayers, any palpable change in their way of life is either Armageddon in itself or a pathway to purgatory. The only way to deal with them is to give pro-development, pro-change forces the strength to vanquish the NIMBYs outright — which is where carbon pricing comes in.
Would You Like $240 Million in (Annual) Carbon Benefits With Your Order?
Offshore wind’s chief virtue — in some respects, its true raison d’être — is its ability to take the place of dirty, fossil-fuel electricity generation in the grid. This asset is particularly salient in the case of Empire Wind, insofar as the downstate New York grid, with only modest interconnections to greener grids upstate or elsewhere, obtains more than 90 percent of its annual electricity by burning methane (“natural”) gas.
As a result, nearly every kilowatt-hour from Empire Wind will directly displace a kWh from burning fracked gas. And though the 90% share will decline when the new Champlain-Hudson Power Express transmission line enters service, perhaps in 2026, nearly all of the “incremental,” hour-by-hour power production actually avoided by generation from Empire Wind will still be gas-fired when the project’s two parts come on line in 2028 and 2029.
Now picture a federal or state carbon tax — or “price” if you prefer. Set it at $100 per metric ton (“tonne”) of CO2, which is both a round number and the level the Carbon Tax Center has been advocating since our inception, to be reached after a ramp-up taking half-a-dozen years. Now apply the carbon tax to the CO2 emitted from one kWh generated by burning gas. You’ll find that the carbon tax associated with each such kilowatt-hour is 3.9 cents.
Calculations: 659 x 10^6 tonnes (CO2 emissions from 2022 U.S. gas-fired electricity) divided by 1.689 x 10^12 kWh (U.S. electricity generated with gas in 2022) multiplied by 10^4 ¢ charged per tonne yields 3.90¢/kWh.
Let’s bring that figure down to earth: With a $100/ton (okay, tonne) carbon tax, each gas-fired kWh in competition with Empire’s offshore wind would cost 3.9 cents more to generate than at present. (To keep the discussion simple, I’ve refrained from counting an additional tax on methane.) We trim that to 3.3¢/kWh because the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) already charges a carbon price on fuels used to generate electricity in New York and neighboring states; in the most recent (September) quarterly auction, that price reached $13.85 per short ton, equivalent to $15.25 per metric ton, which we deduct from our aspirational $100/tonne carbon price to avoid double-counting, reducing it by just over 15 percent.
The hypothetical 3.3¢/kWh additional carbon charge for gas-generated electricity (stemming from the $100 carbon price) multiplied by Empire Wind’s 7.25 TWh annual output yields $240 million per year. Those dollars represent a first estimate of the additional annual revenue Equinor could have sought in its 2018 and 2020 bids responding to NYSERDA’s solicitations to prospective developers of offshore wind projects. With a robust NY carbon price, in other words, Equinor’s Empire Wind venture would enjoy a far higher profit margin.
Offshore Wind’s Missing Carbon Price
Imagine what Equinor might have done with $240 million a year in additional Empire Wind revenue. It could have banked, say, half that amount to offset the price escalation and higher interest costs that this year lowered its prospective profit margins and compelled it to appeal to NY State to grant a higher price for its production. (Incidentally, the NY Public Service Commission’s Oct. 12 order denying Equinor’s petition seeking renegotiation of its power contract with NYSERDA provides a good capsule summary of NY state offshore wind activity; it can be found via this link; search for Cases 15-E-0302 and 18-E-0071.)
The other $120 million, or a good chunk of it, could have been used — and might still be — to provide economic benefits to Long Beach and other communities that consider themselves “affected” by Empire Wind’s turbines or cables.
Empire Wind website paragraph about Taxes makes no mention of payments — voluntary or mandatory — to Long Beach and other communities.
As a thought-experiment, consider that $120 million distributed equally to Long Beach’s 11,700 households (assuming the city’s 35k population resides 3 per household) could provide recurring yearly dividends of around $10,000 per household, once the electricity began to flow. Perhaps more practical would be to set aside $75 million as a one-time payment to retire the so-called Haberman Judgment holding Long Beach financially responsible for blocking a proposed real-estate venture near the boardwalk and ocean beach several decades ago (see City of Long Beach 2023-2024 adopted budget, pages ii-iii).
Of course there are any number of other “improvements” that Long Beach, Island Park and Oceanside might elect to be funded by Equinor “payments in lieu of taxes.” I was surprised that Empire Wind’s online materials do not mention any such payments.
The idea is not to “win over” the NIMBYs — I consider that a fool’s errand — but to neutralize and politically overpower them by appealing to the larger community’s enlightened self-interest. Not so much the members of the Long Beach city council — who apparently (and astoundingly) went from 5-0 in favor of permitting the cable route to 0-5 between spring and fall of 2023 — but the citizenry that holds sway over them.
This isn’t the first time I’ve written about linking carbon pricing to big, hence potentially intrusive, green-energy projects. I struck that note in 2006, in Whither Wind, a long-form piece on wind and other green power for Orion magazine:
[I]if carbon fuels were taxed for their damage to the climate, wind power’s profit margins would widen, and surrounding communities could extract bigger tax revenues from wind farms. Then some of that bread upon the waters would indeed come back — in the form of a new high school, or land acquired for a nature preserve.
The urgency now is far greater. Today, as I was wrapping this post, the New York Times reported that the Danish offshore wind company Orsted is pulling out of a giant wind farm it was developing off New Jersey’s Atlantic coast, citing the same combination of faltering economics and local opposition (which of course weakens the economics further through delays) that is besetting Equinor and Empire Wind. Note too that even though Empire Wind 1’s interconnection to the grid, also under the seabed but through Brooklyn, is not (now) threatened, the economics will almost certainly kill Part 1 if Empire Wind 2 through Long Beach goes down.
Long-time CTC followers will recall my standing frustration over wind and solar entrepreneurs’ lack of interest in pushing carbon pricing. Efficiency gains, cost reductions and the magical appeal of green power would carry them over any and every threshold, they imagined. Will today’s NJ offshore wind defeat and the one looming in NY be enough to convince clean-power developers that they need a carbon tax every bit as much as the climate does?
Thorium is making a strong comeback in the global energy conversation. For decades, it remained on the sidelines while uranium dominated nuclear power. Now, the shift toward net-zero emissions is changing that story. Countries need reliable, low-carbon energy that works around the clock. As a result, advanced nuclear technologies are gaining attention again—and thorium is leading that discussion.
At the same time, rapid innovation in reactor technologies is making thorium more practical. Designs such as molten salt reactors and small modular reactors are unlocking its potential. This combination of policy support, technological progress, and climate urgency is pushing thorium from theory toward reality.
Thorium vs Uranium: A New Nuclear Equation
Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal found in the Earth’s crust, but it works differently from uranium. It is not directly fissile, which means it cannot sustain a nuclear reaction on its own. Instead, thorium-232 absorbs neutrons inside a reactor and transforms into uranium-233. This new material then drives the nuclear reaction.
This process may sound complex, but it delivers clear benefits. Thorium reactors or thorium-based fuel systems are more stable under high temperatures. They also reduce the risk of catastrophic failure, such as meltdowns. In addition, they generate far less long-lived radioactive waste compared to conventional uranium reactors
Thus, the comparison between thorium and uranium is the key to this transformation. We summarize the differences in the table below:
Another factor is safety. Many thorium reactors use passive safety systems that rely on natural processes, which lowers the risk of accidents. Uranium reactors, especially older ones, depend more on active cooling and human control.
Geopolitics also plays a role. Uranium supply is concentrated in a few regions, creating risks. Thorium is more widely available, which improves energy security and reduces dependence on specific countries.
However, uranium still has a clear advantage today. Its infrastructure is already in place, and it has long powered nuclear energy. Often called “yellow gold,” it is well understood and widely used with a mature supply chain. Thorium still needs new reactor designs, fuel systems, and regulatory support, so it is more likely to complement uranium in the near term.
Advanced Reactor Technologies Unlocking Thorium
For many years, thorium remained underutilized because conventional reactors were not designed for it. Today, that is changing. New reactor technologies are making thorium more viable.
- Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs): Use liquid fuel for better heat transfer and low pressure, improving safety, efficiency, and thorium utilization.
- Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWRs): Support mixed fuel use, enabling gradual thorium adoption; central to India’s nuclear strategy.
- Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Compact and flexible systems that are easier to deploy; increasingly designed to support thorium fuel cycles.
- Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs): A type of MSR offering high efficiency and built-in safety, making them a leading thorium energy solution.
Global Thorium Reserves Highlight Long-Term Potential
Thorium’s abundance is one of its strongest advantages. According to geological assessments, these reserves could theoretically generate electricity for several centuries if fully utilized in advanced reactor systems. That makes thorium not just an alternative fuel, but a long-term energy solution.
Even when compared to rare earth elements, which total around 120 million tons globally, thorium remains highly competitive in terms of its energy potential, despite differences in extraction economics.
USGS data shows that the geographic spread of thorium further strengthens its appeal.
- Major reserves are located in India, Brazil, Australia, and the United States. India leads with approximately 850,000 tons, followed by Brazil with 630,000 tons. Australia and the United States each hold around 600,000 tons.
- In addition, countries within the Commonwealth of Independent States collectively hold about 1.5 million metric tons of thorium. This includes nations such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan. This wide distribution supports global energy security by reducing reliance on a limited number of suppliers.
Regional Highlights
Asia-Pacific leads with over 55% of global share in 2025, supported by strong government backing, active research programs, and growing use of rare earth materials.
Countries like India and China are driving this growth. Rising energy demand and long-term policies are accelerating investment in thorium technologies. They are not just researching but actively preparing for deployment.
Meanwhile, North America is the fastest-growing region. Increased funding and private sector involvement are boosting innovation, especially in next-generation reactors that can use thorium fuel.
Together, this regional momentum is driving global competition and pushing the race for leadership in thorium energy.
Thorium Market Size and Demand Drivers
Market research reports indicate that the global thorium reactor market is projected to grow from $4.56 billion in 2025 to $8.97 billion by 2032, with CGAR 10.1%. This growth reflects increasing demand for clean, reliable, and low-carbon energy.
At the same time, other broader market estimates suggest the thorium sector could reach $13 billion by 2033, growing at a more moderate 4% rate. These figures include not just fuel, but also materials, reactor development, and associated technologies.
Several factors drive this growth. Governments are increasing investments in clean energy technologies. Research institutions are advancing reactor designs. At the same time, the need for energy security and reduced carbon emissions is becoming more urgent.
These converging trends are positioning thorium as a strategic energy resource. While large-scale commercialization is still ahead, the direction of growth is clear.
Competitive Landscape: A Market Defined by Innovation
The thorium market is still in its early stages, and this is reflected in its competitive landscape. Unlike mature energy sectors, it is not dominated by large-scale commercial players. Instead, it is shaped by collaboration, research, and pilot projects.
Copenhagen Atomics’ Strategic Partnership with Rare Earths Norway
As the industry evolves, partnerships are becoming increasingly important. One notable example is Copenhagen Atomics, which has signed a Letter of Intent with Rare Earths Norway. This agreement aims to secure access to thorium from the Fensfeltet deposit in Norway.
This partnership highlights a key shift in how thorium is viewed. It is now being recognized as a valuable energy resource. By integrating thorium into supply chains, companies are laying the groundwork for future commercialization.
Copenhagen Atomics is also developing modular molten salt reactors designed for mass production. This approach requires not only technological innovation but also a reliable supply of materials. Partnerships like this are critical for building that ecosystem.
Thorium molten salt reactor, with the focus on low electricity price and fast installation
India’s Thorium Strategy Sets a Global Benchmark
India stands out as one of the most advanced players in the thorium space. Its nuclear program is built around a three-stage strategy designed to fully utilize its domestic thorium reserves.
- The country’s Department of Atomic Energy and Atomic Energy Commission are leading this effort. Research institutions are developing advanced reactor designs, including the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor and molten salt systems.
- One of the key milestones is the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam, which is expected to play a crucial role in producing uranium-233 from thorium. This will enable a closed fuel cycle, improving efficiency and sustainability.
- Private sector involvement is also growing. Clean Core Thorium Energy is supplying advanced fuel for testing in existing reactors. At the same time, companies like NTPC and Larsen & Toubro are supporting large-scale deployment and infrastructure development.
India’s long-term vision is ambitious. With its vast thorium reserves, the country aims to secure an energy supply for up to 200 years. This strategy not only strengthens energy security but also positions India as a global leader in thorium technology.
Thor Energy: Leading in Fuel Development
Companies like Thor Energy are leading the way in fuel development. Their work on thorium-plutonium mixed oxide fuel and ongoing irradiation testing provides valuable real-world data. Similarly,
Other players are taking different approaches:
- Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation is integrating thorium fuel cycles into its Micro Modular Reactor design. This approach focuses on creating a fully integrated energy system.
- NRG in the Netherlands is conducting critical experiments that provide data on reactor performance and fuel behavior.
- National laboratories also play a key role. Organizations such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited provide the expertise and facilities needed to support research and development. Their contributions are essential for advancing the technology.
Overall, the market is best described as a technology race. Companies are not competing on volume yet. Instead, they are competing to prove that their solutions work at scale.
A Strong Fit for the Net-Zero Transition
The global push for carbon neutrality is a major driver behind thorium’s rise. More than 130 countries have set or are considering net-zero targets. Achieving these goals requires a mix of energy solutions.
As we may already know, renewables like solar and wind are essential, but they are not always reliable. Their output depends on weather conditions, which creates gaps in the electricity supply. These gaps must be filled by stable, low-carbon sources.
Thorium-based nuclear power offers exactly that. It provides consistent baseload electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions during operation. At the same time, it addresses key concerns associated with traditional nuclear energy, such as safety and waste.
This alignment with climate goals is driving interest in thorium. Governments are exploring it as part of broader energy strategies. Investors are also paying attention, recognizing its long-term potential. Simply put, this phase can be seen as a technology race. The goal is to prove that thorium systems can operate safely, efficiently, and economically at scale. Success in this area will determine the pace of market growth.
The post From Uranium to Thorium: The New Equation Driving Global Nuclear Innovation appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Conflict in the Middle East Threatens Carbon Capture Buildout: What It Means for the Global CCUS Market?
The conflict in the Middle East is raising doubts about major carbon capture projects in the Gulf region. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage, known as CCUS, is a technology that prevents carbon dioxide (CO₂) from entering the atmosphere. It captures CO₂ from industrial sources and stores it underground or uses it in industrial processes. CCUS is seen as crucial for cutting hard‑to‑abate emissions from oil, gas, cement, and steel.
Gulf Ambitions Hit the Pause Button
Before the conflict, Gulf plans aimed for about 20 million tonnes per year (Mtpa) of CCUS capacity by 2030. This would have positioned the region as a key global hub. But Rystad Energy says this is now unlikely. The pipeline may shrink closer to the lower case of around 12 Mtpa by 2035 due to delays and repriced risk.
The Gulf’s CCUS buildout has strong logical drivers. The region has abundant oil and gas operations, and projects often connect to those facilities. However, when the upstream energy system is disrupted, CCUS plans can be delayed, pushed back, or re‑evaluated. This change affects investors’ view of CCUS as a near‑term investment in the region.
Rising Costs and Risk Reprice Carbon Capture
One major risk from prolonged conflict is rising energy costs. If energy prices jump — which often happens during regional conflict — the cost to capture and transport CO₂ also rises.
Rystad’s analysis shows that a 50 % rise in energy prices could increase capture and transport costs by about 30 %. That could push the cost of capturing a tonne of CO₂ well above the price range expected by 2030 in the European Union’s emissions trading system.
- The analysis suggests an increase from $95 per tonne to $124 per tonne using a ‘middle impact’ case, where energy prices rise about 50%.
Higher costs come from more expensive power, higher equipment prices, and slower supply chains. All these pressures hit CCUS projects hard because they are already more costly than conventional infrastructure.
Energy‑intensive capture systems need cheap, reliable supplies of power and materials. Rising inflation and disrupted supply chains could reduce availability and slow project build‑outs.
Longer project timelines may also raise the cost of capital. Investors typically demand higher returns when projects take longer or face greater uncertainty. In some cases, projects may only move forward if they are supported by governments or strategic partners, especially when the cost per tonne of CO₂ captured rises above key benchmarks.
Global CCUS Market Still Expanding
While the Gulf faces near‑term risks, the global CCUS market has continued to grow. A large number of projects are being developed worldwide.
As of 2025, ~628 CCUS projects are tracked globally across all stages, with potential capture capacity exceeding 416 Mtpa if completed. Operational capacity reached 64 Mtpa from 77 facilities. The breakdown by number of facilities and total capture capacity is as follows:
The market is growing because many governments and companies have adopted emission‑reduction mandates. About 63 % of industries say these mandates accelerate CCUS deployment.
- Nearly 55 % of new CCUS projects are integrated with other low‑carbon technologies like hydrogen or renewable energy.
North America leads global capacity, accounting for about 46 % of total CCUS project capacity. Europe holds around 26 %, Asia‑Pacific about 21 %, and the Middle East & Africa roughly 7 % of the total project pipeline.
The oil and gas sector remains the largest user of CCUS, making up about 53 % of the global captured CO₂. Industrial decarbonization in sectors like cement and steel now represents around 25 % of the planned capacity worldwide.
Market research also shows that the CCS market size was estimated at about USD 3.9 billion in 2025, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7 % to reach USD 6.7 billion by 2033. This growth reflects rising investments in decarbonization technologies across industrial and power sectors.
Long-Term Outlook: The Gigaton Challenge
CCUS projects are growing, but still fall far short of what climate models recommend. A recent Rystad Energy forecast suggests that global CCUS capacity could expand to more than 550 million tonnes per year by 2030. That’s more than a tenfold increase over today’s roughly 45 million tonnes per year of captured CO₂.
However, this projected expansion is still far below what many climate scenarios require. Limiting global warming to under 2 °C often needs CCUS to capture nearly 8 gigatonnes of CO₂ each year by 2050 in many energy transition models. That means growth must accelerate sharply after 2030 to meet climate goals.
The IDTechEx forecast shows a strong long‑term outlook for CCUS. It estimates global capture capacity will hit around 0.7 gigatonnes per year by 2036. This indicates rapid growth, with a CAGR over 20% from 2026 to 2036. This would place CCUS as a major technology in global decarbonization, if investment and deployment scale up quickly.
What This Means for the Gulf and the World
For the Gulf region, rising geopolitical risk is changing how CCUS projects are evaluated. Many planned build‑outs linked to oil and gas value chains may be slowed or repriced as risk premiums rise.
Some analysts now expect that Gulf CCUS capacity may align with a more cautious trajectory through the mid‑2030s rather than a rapid 2030 build‑out. Moreover, the 8 Mtpa shortfall equals 1.5% of the projected 550 Mtpa global capacity, placing intense pressure on North America and Europe to accelerate.
Rising costs from energy price shocks further complicate the equation. With Middle East & Africa capacity shrinking from 7% to ~4% of the total pipeline, US 45Q projects and EU ETS industrial clusters must find enough replacement capacity.
Still, global drivers for CCUS remain strong. Governments and companies worldwide continue to plan and build projects. New technologies and integrations with hydrogen, renewable energy, and industrial clusters could help spread costs and scale the technology.
As many countries expand their net‑zero plans, CCUS will play a key role in managing emissions that are difficult to eliminate through electrification or fuel switching alone.
In this evolving landscape, the CCUS market is poised for significant long‑term growth, but near‑term geopolitical disruptions and cost pressures will require careful planning, strong policy support, and sustained investment. Strategic partnerships and global cooperation will be key to ensuring that CCUS can meet both economic and climate goals.
The post Conflict in the Middle East Threatens Carbon Capture Buildout: What It Means for the Global CCUS Market? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon buyers are asking better questions: permanence risk, additionality, co-benefits, and third-party verification, has all become vital considerations. The due diligence applied to nature-based carbon credits has grown sharper and more rigorous over the past few years. Yet one factor consistently sits at the edges of buyer evaluation: Whether the communities living on and around the project land are genuinely embedded in its design, management, and long-term success.
Carbon Brief Quiz 2026: Picture Round 1 and 2
From Uranium to Thorium: The New Equation Driving Global Nuclear Innovation
Conflict in the Middle East Threatens Carbon Capture Buildout: What It Means for the Global CCUS Market?
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility