This article isn’t about scientists, engineers and leaders, who are inventing new solutions, or implementing better ways to generate, transport and consume energy. Well at least, its not just about them, its about all of us – members of the public, who interact with the energy system in any form.
‘Ordinary People’
The energy transition is often depicted as a battle fought by engineers, scientists, and policymakers. But what’s frequently overlooked is the subtle yet powerful role that ordinary people play in shaping how this transition unfolds. Too often, the narrative is that policy and regulation drive change. Yet, in reality, it’s public opinion – the collective voice of the very people who will ultimately bear the consequences of these changes – that plays a decisive role. And it’s not just about their opinions. It’s about their capacity to shape discourse, influence politics, and push policymakers to act in ways that reflect their values and concerns.
The prevailing assumption in many parts of the energy sector is that technology and policy drive societal change. Engineers and scientists, often caught in the technical weeds, are used to thinking that breakthroughs in infrastructure or technology will eventually push the public to adjust their expectations. But it’s increasingly clear that it’s the other way around. The discourse, the public’s evolving opinions, and their political pressure shape the policies that guide energy infrastructure, not the other way around.
A good example of this dynamic is seen in the way energy-related public discussions have evolved over time. Take the example of public perceptions around nuclear power. Despite advances in technology and safety, the public’s hesitations about nuclear energy have been a constant force shaping government policy. Public trust, or the lack of it, becomes a central issue. Not because the science isn’t there, but because the public, driven by their (sometimes well-informed?) concerns and fears, is resistant to embracing the new.
Resistance to Change: The Human Element
The energy sector often centres its efforts on the technical challenges: how to repurpose pipelines to transport hydrogen, and how to prove to regulators that such new infrastructure won’t pose risks. However, one major factor is consistently underplayed: the inherent resistance to change, especially when it involves even the slightest perceived risk to people’s lives or livelihoods. This is not an abstract challenge. History has repeatedly shown that public resistance, often motivated by real or perceived risks, can derail even the most carefully planned infrastructure projects.
A prime example of this resistance was seen in the Hydrogen Village trials that were planned to initiate in 2023 / 24, to evaluate the feasibility of hydrogen as a domestic fuel for heating. The aim was to transition away from natural gas to a cleaner alternative – Hydrogen. However, despite the stated environmental benefits, the programme faced significant pushback from communities. Local residents, many of whom were already uncertain about the new technology, voiced concerns over the safety of hydrogen and the disruption caused by the trials. Their anxieties were compounded by a lack of clear communication from industry leaders and policymakers, leaving them unconvinced that the transition would bring tangible benefits. This illustrates a crucial point: the public’s reluctance often hinges not just on the technical viability of the solution but on their perception of the risks and benefits involved.
Anti-hydrogen Facebook groups (some with catchy names such as ‘Hynot’) gained significant traction during discussions of the hydrogen trials and became a key forum for these concerns. While many of the objections were rooted in genuine worries about safety, compatibility, and the environmental impact of the trials, the group also highlighted a broader issue: the lack of trust in both the technology and the institutions driving these initiatives. The power of social media platforms like Facebook to amplify and sustain resistance has made it increasingly difficult for energy projects to gain public acceptance, especially when communities feel they are being pushed into change without proper consultation or transparency.
Another example is the experience with wind farms. While technically sound, wind farms face significant public opposition – not necessarily due to their inefficiency or technical feasibility, but because they disrupt the local landscape, are seen as an eyesore, or in some cases, are linked with concerns over wildlife. These perceptions, whether based on fact or not, can slow the energy transition to a crawl.
Similarly, the rollout of smart energy meters in the UK serves as another example of resistance to change, driven in large part by concerns over installation quality and the future compatibility of the technology. Many customers expressed frustration over poorly installed meters that failed to function properly, leading to inaccurate readings and billing errors. Furthermore, the long-term implications of smart meter integration, such as potential issues with switching providers and interoperability, sparked further unease. While smart meters are undoubtedly a step towards a more efficient energy system, their rollout was marred by distrust and frustration. This highlights a key challenge for the energy sector: technological advancements must be accompanied by a comprehensive effort to address public concerns, ensuring that people feel confident in the change rather than fearful of its consequences.
The energy sector has learned the hard way that even the most advanced and necessary technologies often fail to take off when they do not sufficiently address public concerns. In addition to avoiding real technical issues such as those experienced with a rushed roll-out of smart energy meters, the sector is now realising that it’s not just about proving that something can be done. It’s about proving that it benefits the public – that the risks outweigh the rewards. Without this understanding, we risk repeating past mistakes, when projects were scrapped not due to technical infeasibility, but because the public was unconvinced that the benefits were worth the cost.
The Fluidity of Public Opinion: A Moving Target
Public opinion is rarely static, particularly when it comes to major infrastructure projects or long-term industry change. Support can appear firm at the outset, especially when the narrative aligns with economic optimism or broad environmental goals, but it can shift, sometimes quickly, in response to new information, political discourse or changing economic realities.
Consider the case of high-speed rail in the UK. Initially, there was broad support for projects such as HS2. The promise of faster journeys, reduced road congestion and a boost to regional economies captured the public imagination. Yet as costs escalated and environmental implications became clearer, the public mood shifted. Economic uncertainty, combined with scepticism over whether the benefits would ever truly materialise for most people, fuelled widespread opposition. What began as a symbol of modern infrastructure became mired in controversy, leading to delays, scaling back, and eventually, cancellation of parts of the scheme.
A similar pattern is emerging with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Once presented as a promising technology that could allow fossil fuel-based industries to decarbonise without radically altering their operations, CCS was met with cautious optimism. It appealed to policymakers seeking “bridge” solutions and to industries keen to avoid a full transition. Yet public sentiment has grown more sceptical. Environmental groups argue that CCS risks prolonging reliance on fossil fuels rather than encouraging a true transition. Others question the long-term safety and efficacy of storing carbon underground. As public scrutiny has increased, so too have the political headwinds, making it harder for CCS projects to gain momentum. Even where they might have strong technical merit.
This variability in opinion presents a challenge for those working on long-horizon projects in the energy sector. What might seem popular or at least palatable today can become a lightning rod for opposition tomorrow. Infrastructure takes time, often years, if not decades – to design, approve and deliver. Public sentiment, on the other hand, can shift within a single news cycle. Energy professionals must plan not only for technical resilience but for social and political resilience as well.
The lesson here is not to treat public opinion as a tick-box exercise at the start of a project, but to see it as a continuous conversation. Engaging early is necessary, but so is staying engaged throughout. Projects need room to evolve, to respond to new concerns and expectations as they emerge. Otherwise, even the best-laid plans risk becoming stranded. Not for lack of innovation, but for lack of trust and relevance in the eyes of the public.
So, what should the sector do about these ‘Ordinary People’?
At this point, the question becomes: what does all this mean for those working in the energy sector – the technical experts & change agents, who design, build, and advise on major energy projects? The key takeaway is clear: engage with the public early and often.
Energy professionals are accustomed to thinking in terms of technical feasibility and regulatory approval. But as public sentiment becomes more influential, they must begin to view projects through the lens of public engagement and perception management. This means understanding that the technical arguments alone will rarely suffice. Success depends on proactively addressing concerns, answering questions, and framing the discussion in a way that highlights the benefits for the community.
Take, for instance, the debate around renewable energy projects, particularly solar and wind. While these technologies may have a clear environmental benefit, they can also be viewed as disruptive, intrusive, or costly. Successful energy transition projects will not simply be those that are technologically sound, but those that are able to garner broad public support. A project that is technically efficient but unpopular will find itself stuck in the regulatory and political quagmire, never fully realised.
And finally, the energy and infrastructure sector must be prepared to adapt to shifting public opinions. In an era where public perceptions change rapidly, being able to adjust plans and communication strategies will become an essential skill. Projects that seem feasible today may face public resistance tomorrow, and that resistance could be enough to scuttle even the most technically sound initiatives.
By Kaizad Ghadialy
Kaizad Ghadialy is Director of Transformation at Skewb. To speak with him about this topic in more detail, you can connect with him on LinkedIn.
