As the U.S. shifts away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources, thousands of people working in the coal, oil and gas industries will be looking for new jobs.

Many will have the skills to step into clean energy jobs, but transitioning from a fossil fuels industry job to an emerging green industry job in the U.S. may not be as simple as it seems. New research published in the journal Nature Communications identifies a major barrier that is often overlooked in discussions of how to create a just transition for these workers: location.

We analyzed 14 years of fossil fuel employment and skills data and found that, while many fossil fuel workers could transfer their skills to green jobs, they historically have not relocated far when they changed jobs.

That suggests that it’s not enough to create green industry jobs. The jobs will have to be where the workers are, and most fossil fuel extraction workers are not in regions where green jobs are expected to grow.

Without careful planning and targeted policies, we estimate that only about 2% of fossil fuel workers involved in extraction are likely to transition to green jobs this decade. Fortunately, there are ways to help smooth the transition.

Many fossil fuel and green skills overlap

As of 2019, about 1.7 million people worked in jobs across the fossil fuels industry in the U.S., many of them in the regions from Texas and New Mexico to Montana and from Kentucky to Pennsylvania. As the country transitions from fossil fuel use to clean energy to protect the climate, many of those jobs will disappear.

Policymakers tend to focus on skills training when they talk about the importance of a just transition for these workers and their communities.

To see how fossil fuel workers’ skills might transfer to green jobs, we used occupation and skills data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to compare them. These profiles provide information about the required workplace skills for over 750 occupations, including earth drillers, underground mining machine operators and other extraction occupations.

Overall, we found that many fossil fuel workers involved in extraction already have similar skills to those required in green occupations, as previous studies also found. In fact, their skills tend to be more closely matched to green industries than most other industries.

Job-to-job flow data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed that these workers historically tend to transition to other sectors with similar skills requirements. Thus, fossil fuel workers should be able to fill emerging green jobs with only minimal reskilling.

However, the data also shows that these fossil fuel workers typically do not travel far to fill employment opportunities.

The location problem

When we mapped the current locations of wind, solar, hydro and geothermal power plants using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we found that these sites had little overlap with fossil fuel workers.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ projections for where green jobs are likely to emerge by 2029 also showed little overlap with the locations of today’s fossil fuel workers.

These results were consistent across several green employment projections and different definitions of “fossil fuel” occupations. That’s alarming for the prospects of a just transition.

How policymakers can intervene

Broadly, our findings point to two potential strategies for policymakers.

First, policymakers can explore incentives and programs that help fossil fuel workers relocate. However, as our analysis reveals, these populations have not historically exhibited geographic mobility.

Alternatively, policymakers could design incentives for green industry employers to build in fossil fuel communities. This might not be so simple. Green energy production often depends on where the wind blows strongest, solar power production is most effective and geothermal power or hydropower is available.

We simulated the creation of new green industry employment in two different ways, one targeting fossil fuel communities and the other spread uniformly across the U.S. according to population. The targeted efforts led to significantly more transitions from fossil fuel to green jobs. For example, we found that creating 1 million location-targeted jobs produced more transitions than the creation of 5 million jobs that don’t take workers’ locations into account.

Another solution doesn’t involve green jobs at all. A similar analysis in our study of other existing U.S. sectors revealed that construction and manufacturing employment are already co-located with fossil fuel workers and would require only limited reskilling. Supporting manufacturing expansion in these areas could be a simpler solution that could limit the number of new employers needed to support a just transition.

There are other questions that worry fossil fuel workers, such as whether new jobs will pay as well and last beyond construction. More research is needed to assess effective policy interventions, but overall our study highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to a just transition that takes into account the unique challenges faced by fossil fuel workers in different regions.

By responding to these barriers, the U.S. can help ensure that the transition to a green economy is not only environmentally sustainable but also socially just.

Morgan R. Frank receives funding from Russell Sage Foundation and the Heinz Endowment.

Junghyun Lim received funding from Russell Sage Foundation and the Heinz Endowment.

In today’s electronic age, rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are ubiquitous. Compared with the lead-acid versions that have dominated the battery market for decades, lithium-ion batteries can charge faster and store more energy for the same amount of weight.

These devices make our electronic gadgets and electric cars lighter and longer-lasting – but they also have disadvantages. They contain a lot of energy, and if they catch fire, they burn until all of that stored energy is released. A sudden release of huge amounts of energy can lead to explosions that threaten lives and property.

As scientists who study energy generation, storage and conversion, and automotive engineering, we have a strong interest in the development of batteries that are energy-dense and safe. And we see encouraging signs that battery manufacturers are making progress toward solving this significant technical problem.

A new fire hazard

Urban transportation is undergoing a transformative shift toward electrification. As concerns grow in cities around the world about climate change and air quality, electric vehicles have taken center stage.

At the same time, e-bikes and electric scooters are transforming urban transit by providing convenient, low-carbon ways to navigate crowded streets and reduce traffic congestion. From 2010 through 2022, shared e-bikes and e-scooters – those owned by rental networks – accounted for more than half a billion trips in U.S. cities. Privately owned e-bikes add to that total: In 2021, more than 880,000 e-bikes were sold in the U.S., compared with 608,000 electric cars and trucks.

Battery-powered vehicles account for a small share of car fires, but controlling EV fires is difficult. Typically, an EV fire burns at roughly 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 Celsius), while a gasoline-powered vehicle on fire burns at 1,500 F (815 C). It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to extinguish a burning gasoline-powered vehicle; putting out an EV fire can take 10 times more.

This is a major concern in large cities where electric vehicles are popular. Fire departments in New York City and San Francisco report handling more than 660 fires involving lithium-ion batteries since 2019. In New York City, these fires caused 12 deaths and more than 260 injuries from 2021 through early 2023. Clearly, there is a need for safer handling and charging practices, as well as technical improvements to batteries.

Many batteries in an EV

To understand lithium-ion battery fires, it’s important to know some basics. A battery holds chemicals that contain energy, with a separator between its positive and negative electrodes. It works by converting this energy into electricity.

The two electrodes in a battery are surrounded by an electrolyte – a substance that allows an electrical charge to flow between the two terminals. In a lithium-ion battery, for example, lithium ions carry the electric charge. When a device is connected to a battery, chemical reactions take place on the electrodes and create a flow of electrons in the external circuit that powers the device.

Cellphones and digital cameras can operate on a single battery, but an electric car needs much more energy and power. Depending on its design, an EV may contain dozens to thousands of single batteries, which are known as cells. Cells are clustered together in sets called modules, which in turn are assembled together in packs. A standard EV will contain one large battery pack with many cells inside it.

What causes battery fires

Typically, a battery fire starts in a single cell inside a larger battery pack. There are three main reasons for a battery to ignite: mechanical harm, such as crushing or penetration when vehicles collide; electrical harm from an external or internal short circuit; or overheating.

Battery short circuits may be caused by faulty external handling or unwanted chemical reactions within the battery cell. When lithium-ion batteries are charged too quickly, chemical reactions can produce very sharp lithium needles called dendrites on the battery’s anode – the electrode with a negative charge. Eventually, they penetrate the separator and reach the other electrode, short-circuiting the battery internally.

Such short circuits heat the battery cell to over 212 F (100 C). The battery’s temperature rises slowly at first and then all at once, spiking to its peak temperature in about one second.

Another factor that makes lithium-ion battery fires challenging to handle is oxygen generation. When the metal oxides in a battery’s cathode, or positively charged electrode, are heated, they decompose and release oxygen gas. Fires need oxygen to burn, so a battery that can create oxygen can sustain a fire.

Because of the electrolyte’s nature, a 20% increase in a lithium-ion battery’s temperature causes some unwanted chemical reactions to occur much faster, which releases excessive heat. This excess heat increases the battery temperature, which in turn speeds up the reactions. The increased battery temperature increases the reaction rate, creating a process called thermal runaway. When this happens, the temperature in a battery can rise from 212 F (100 C) to 1,800 F (1000 C) in a second.

Managing the thermal runaway problem

Methods to ensure battery safety can focus on conditions outside or inside of the battery. External protection typically involves using electronic devices, like temperature sensors and pressure valves, to ensure that the battery isn’t subjected to heat or force that could cause an accident.

However, these mechanisms make the battery larger and heavier, which can reduce the performance of the device it powers. And they may not be reliable under extreme temperatures or pressures, such as those produced in a car crash.

Internal protection strategies focus on using intrinsically safe materials for battery components. This approach offers an opportunity to address potential hazards at their source.

Making a thermal runaway in a battery pack less intense requires a mix of software and hardware improvements. Scientists are working to develop cathodes that release less oxygen when they break down; nonflammable electrolytes; solid-state electrolytes, which do not catch fire and also may help alleviate dendrite growth; and separators that can withstand high temperatures without melting.

Another solution is already in use: battery management systems. These are hardware and software packages built into battery packs that can monitor vital battery parameters, such as the state of charge, internal pressure and the temperature of the cells in the battery pack.

Just as a physician uses a patient’s symptoms to diagnose and treat their illness, battery management systems can diagnose conditions within the battery pack and make autonomous decisions to shut off batteries with hot spots, or to alter the load distribution so that any individual battery does not get too hot.

Battery chemistries are evolving rapidly, so new designs will require new battery management systems. Many battery producers are forming partnerships that bring together manufacturers with complementary battery expertise to tackle this challenge.

Users can also take steps to maximize safety. Use manufacturer-recommended charging equipment and outlets, and avoid overcharging or leaving an EV plugged in overnight. Inspect the battery regularly for signs of damage or overheating. Park the vehicle away from extremely hot or cold surroundings – for example, park in shade during heat waves – to prevent thermal stress on the battery.

Finally, in the event of a collision or accident involving an EV, follow the manufacturer’s safety protocols and disconnect the battery if possible to minimize the risk of fire or electrocution.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

As wildfires burn across the Western U.S., the people in harm’s way are increasingly those least able to protect their homes from fire risks, evacuate safely or recover after a fire.

In a new study, we and a team of fellow wildfire scientists examined who lived within the perimeters of wildfires over the past two decades in Washington, Oregon and California – home to about 90% of Americans in the U.S. West exposed to wildfires over that period.

Overall, nearly half a million people in California, Oregon and Washington were exposed to wildfires at some point during the past 22 years. Alarmingly, about half the people exposed to wildfires in Washington and Oregon were considered socially vulnerable.

While the number of people exposed to fire rose overall, the number of socially vulnerable people exposed more than tripled between the first and second decades.

How social vulnerability affects fire risk

A variety of factors shape social vulnerability, including wealth, race, age, disability and fluency in the local language.

These factors can make it harder to take steps to protect homes from wildfire damage, evacuate safely and recover after a disaster. For example, low-income residents often can’t afford adequate insurance coverage that could help them rebuild their homes after a fire. And residents who don’t speak English may not hear about evacuation orders or know how to get assistance after a disaster.

Older adults face rising fire exposure

We found that older adults in particular were disproportionately exposed to wildfires in all three states.

Physical difficulties and cognitive decline can hamper older adults’ ability to keep their properties clear of flammable materials, such as dry shrubs and grasses, and can slow their ability to evacuate in an emergency. The fire that destroyed the town of Paradise, California, in 2018 was a tragic example. Of the 85 victims, 68 were 65 years of age or older.

Poverty was another important factor in the exposure of people with high vulnerability to wildfires in Oregon and Washington.

The reasons that socially vulnerable people were increasingly exposed to wildfires varied by state.

In California, the rise was in large part due to socially vulnerable people moving into wildfire-affected areas, possibly in search of more affordable housing, among other factors.

In Oregon and Washington, however, wildfires have increasingly encroached on existing vulnerable communities over the past decade, mainly in rural areas. This is predominantly due to increasing trends of intense, destructive fires.

Nearly 17,000 people living within the perimeter of wildfires in Oregon and Washington over the past decade had high social vulnerability, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A smaller percentage of California’s exposed population from 2011-2021 was considered to have high social vulnerability, 11%, but that was still 26,100 people.

Secondary impacts of wildfires

Our definition of exposure to wildfire considered only those people who directly lived within a wildfire perimeter.

If you take into account secondary exposures – those living close to wildfire perimeters and likely experiencing evacuation, trauma and poor air quality – the number of people affected is many times larger.

Importantly, other hazards related to wildfires reach still more high-vulnerability communities. Wildfire smoke, for example, has frequently filled large metropolitan areas with unhealthy air in recent years, disproportionately affecting people who work outdoors and other vulnerable populations.

Policy changes that can help

To prepare and respond as wildfire risk rises in a warming world, knowledge of the local population’s social vulnerabilities is necessary, along with targeted community-based strategies.

For example, the exposure of populations with limited English-language skills highlights the need for disaster warnings and response resources in multiple languages.

While the federal government increased its investment for reducing wildfire threats to at-risk communities, including tribes, funding availability does not currently meet the demand.

Increasing exposure of certain populations, such as those living in nursing homes, requires significant investment to plan for and ensure proper and timely responses. When a wildfire in August 2023 burned more than 200 homes near Medical Lake, Washington, southwest of Spokane, it came close to a state-operated psychiatric hospital and a residential home for people with intellectual disabilities.

Finally, including social vulnerability when studying future wildfire trends is important to shape community responses and policies.

Many national disaster prevention programs skew funding toward wealthier communities because they use cost-benefit analyses to direct resources to areas with the greatest potential losses. But while wealthy residents may lose more in dollar value, low-income residents typically lose a larger percentage of their assets and have a harder time recovering. With the rising percentage of people with high social vulnerability at risk of wildfires, governments may need to rethink those methods and lower the barriers for aid.

Mojtaba Sadegh receives funding from the Joint Fire Science Program and National Science Foundation.

John Abatzoglou receives funding from the National Science Foundation, US Department of Food and Agriculture, the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration and the Joint Fire Science Program.