Mar 4 2026
This startup claims it can stop lightning and prevent catastrophic wildfires

On June 1, 2023, as a sweltering heat wave baked Quebec, thousands of lightning strikes flashed across the province, setting off more than 120 wildfires.

The blazes ripped through parched forests and withered grasslands, burned for weeks, and compounded what was rapidly turning into Canada’s worst fire year on record. In the end, nearly 7,000 fires scorched tens of millions of acres across the country, generated nearly 500 millions tons of carbon emissions, and forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes.

Lightning sparked almost 60% of the wildfires—and those blazes accounted for 93% of the total area burned.

Now a Vancouver-based weather modification startup, Skyward Wildfire, says it can prevent such catastrophic fires in the future—by stopping the lightning strikes that ignite them. It just raised millions of dollars in a funding round that it plans to use to accelerate its product development and expand its operations.

Until last week the company, which highlights the role lightning played in the 2023 infernos, stated on its website that it has demonstrated technology capable of preventing “up to 100% of lightning strikes.”

It was an eye-catching claim that went well beyond the confidence level of researchers who have studied the potential for humans to suppress lightning—and the company took it down following inquiries from MIT Technology Review.

“While the statement reflected an observed result under specific conditions, it was not intended to suggest uniform outcomes and has been removed,” Nicholas Harterre, who oversees government partnerships at Skyward, said in an email. “In complex atmospheric systems, consistent 100% outcomes are not realistic, as the experts you spoke to rightly pointed out.” 

The company now states it demonstrated that it “can prevent the majority of cloud-to-ground lightning strikes in targeted storm cells.” So far, Skyward hasn’t publicly revealed how it does so, and in response to our questions Harterre said only that the materials are “inert and selected in accordance with regulatory standards.” 

But online documents suggest the company is relying on an approach that US government agencies began evaluating in the early 1960s: seeding clouds with metallic chaff, or narrow fiberglass strands coated with aluminum. 

The military uses the material to disrupt radar signals; fighter jets, for example, deploy it during dogfights to throw off guided missile systems. Field trials conducted decades ago by US agencies suggest it could help reduce lightning strikes, at least to some degree and under certain conditions.

If Skyward could employ it reliably on significant scales, it might offer a powerful tool for countering rising fire risks as climate change drives up temperatures, dries out forests, and likely increases the frequency of lightning strikes.

“Preventing lightning on high-risk days saves lives, billions in wildfire costs, and is one of the highest-leverage and most immediate climate solutions available,” Sam Goldman, Skyward’s founder and chief executive, said in a statement posted on LinkedIn last year.

But researchers and environmental observers say there are plenty of remaining uncertainties, including how well the seeding may work under varying weather and climate conditions, how much material would need to be released, how frequently it would have to be done, and what sorts of secondary environmental impacts might result from lighting suppression on commercial scales.

Some observers are also concerned that the company appears to have moved ahead with weather modification field trials in parts of Canada without providing wide public notice or openly discussing what materials it’s putting into the clouds.

Given the escalating fire dangers, it’s “reasonable” to evaluate the potential for new technologies to mitigate them, says Keith Brooks, programs director at Environmental Defence, a Canadian advocacy organization.

“But we should be doing so cautiously and really transparently, with a robust scientific methodology that’s open to scrutiny,” he says.

Seeding the clouds

Skyward’s website offers few technical details, but the company says it worked with Canadian wildfire agencies in 2024 and 2025 to demonstrate its technology. The company also says it has developed AI tools to predict lightning strikes that could set off fires.

Skyward announced last month that it raised $7.9 million in Canadian dollars ($5.7 million), in an extension of a seed round initially closed early last year. Investors included Climate Innovation Capital, Active Impact Investments, and Diagram Ventures.

“Our first season demonstrated that prevention is possible at scale,” Goldman said in a statement. “This funding allows us to expand into new regions and support partners who need reliable, operational tools to reduce wildfire risk before emergencies begin.”

The company doesn’t use the term “cloud seeding” on its site or in its recent announcements. But a press release highlighting its selection as a finalist last year in a conservation group’s Fire Grand Challenge states that it suppresses lightning “by cloud seeding with safe, non-toxic materials to neutralize storm charges,” as The Narwhal previously reported.

In addition, Unorthodox Philanthropy, a foundation that provided a grant to support Skyward’s efforts “to test and deploy” the technology, offered more detail in an awardee write-up about Goldman.

It states: “The Skyward team … settled on an inert substance consisting of aluminum covered glass fibers, which is regularly used in military operations to intercept and confuse enemy radar and can also dis-charge clouds.”

Additional details were disclosed in a document marked “Proprietary and Confidential,” which the World Bank nonetheless released within a package of materials from companies developing means of addressing fire risks.

Skyward’s diagrams show planes dropping particles into clouds to prevent cloud-to-ground lightning strikes in “high risk areas.” The company also notes in the document that it uses artificial intelligence for a number of purposes, including forecasting lightning storms, prioritizing treatments, targeting storm cells, and optimizing flight paths.  

Harterre stressed that the company would deploy the technology judiciously and reserve it for storm events with elevated wildfire risk, adding that such storms account for less than 0.1% of lightning activity in a given area.

“Our objective is to reduce the probability of ignition on the limited number of extreme-risk days when fires threaten lives, critical infrastructure, and ecosystems, and when suppression costs and impacts can escalate rapidly,” he said.

The document posted by the World Bank states that Skyward partnered with Alberta Wildfire in August of 2024 to “prove suppression by plane and drone,” and that its process produced a “60-100% reduction” in lightning compared with “control cells” (which likely means storm cells that weren’t seeded). 

The document added that the company would be carrying out additional field trials in the summer of 2025 with the wildfire agencies in British Columbia and Alberta to “provide landscape level solutions with more advanced aircraft, sensors and forecasting.”

“BC Wildfire Service is aware that Skyward is developing technology that aims to reduce instances of lightning in targeted situations,” the British Columbia agency acknowledged in a statement provided to MIT Technology Review. “Last year, preliminary trials were conducted by Skyward to gain a better understand [sic] of the technology and its applicability in B.C. Should a project/technology like this move forward in B.C., we would engage with the project team in an effort to learn and ensure we’re using every tool available to us to respond to wildfire in B.C.”

The BC agency declined to make anyone available for an interview and didn’t respond to questions about what materials were used, where the tests were carried out, or whether it provided public disclosures or required the company to. Alberta Wildfire didn’t respond to similar questions from MIT Technology Review.

Rising lightning risks

Clouds are just water in various forms—vapor, droplets, and ice crystals, condensed enough to form the floating Rorschach tests we see in the sky. Within them, snowflakes and tiny ice pellets known as graupel rub together, causing atoms to trade electrons. This process creates highly reactive ions with negative and positive charges. 

Updrafts separate the light snowflakes from the graupel, building up larger differences in the charges across the electrical field until … crack! An electrostatic discharge occurs in the form of a lightning strike.

The 2023 fire season wasn’t a particularly big year for lightning strikes in Canada—but then it didn’t have to be. It was so hot and dry that every bolt that struck the surface had a better than usual chance of igniting a fire, says Piyush Jain, a research scientist at the Canadian Forest Service and lead author of a study published in Nature Communications that analyzed the year’s fires.  

aerial image of 2023 wildfire in Quebec
A fire burns in Mistissini, Québec, on June 12, 2023.
CPL MARC-ANDRé LECLERC/CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

Climate change is, however, likely to produce more lightning strikes, if it hasn’t started to already. Warmer air holds more moisture and adds more convective energy to the atmosphere, which drives the vertical movement of air that forms clouds and stirs up lightning storms. 

“So the conditions are there, and the conditions are likely to increase,” Jain says.

Different models arrive at different lightning forecasts for some regions of the world. But a clearer trend is already emerging in the northernmost latitudes, where the planet is warming fastest. Studies show that lightning-ignited fires have substantially increased in the Arctic boreal region, and predict that they will continue to rise. 

This combines with other growing risks like longer fire seasons, warmer temperatures, and drier vegetation, together raising the odds of more severe fires and more greenhouse-gas emissions, says Brendan Rogers, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center who studies the effect of fires on permafrost thaw.

In fact, Canada’s emissions from the 2023 fires were more than four times its emissions from fossil fuels.

Midcentury field trials

Scientists have conducted a variety of experiments exploring the possibility of preventing lightning, but most of it happened in the later half of the last century. 

Amid the cultural optimism and booming economy of the postwar period, US research agencies and corporations went on a tear of cloud seeding experiments aimed at conquering nature—or at least moderating its dangers. Research teams launched or dropped materials like dry ice and silver iodide into clouds in attempts to boost rainfall, reduce hail, dissipate fog, and redirect hurricanes.

“Cloud seeding activity was so intensive that at its peak in the early 1950s, approximately 10% of the US land area was under some kind of weather modification program,” wrote MIT’s Phillip Stepanian and Earle Williams in a 2024 history of lightning suppression efforts in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. (MIT Technology Review is owned by MIT but is editorially independent.) 

Harry Gisborne, then chief of the division of fire research at the US Forest Service, wondered if the technique could be used to trigger downpours that might extinguish hard-to-reach wildfires on public lands. But when he put the question to Vincent Schaefer of General Electric, who had done pioneering research in cloud seeding, Schaefer thought they could perhaps do one better: prevent the lighting that sparked the fires in the first place.

The conversations kicked off what would become Project Skyfire, a multiagency private-public research program that carried out a series of experiments through the 1950s and 1960s. Research teams seeded clouds over the San Francisco Peaks of Arizona, the Bitterroot Mountains at the edge of Idaho, and the Deerlodge National Forest in Montana, among other places.

After comparing treated and untreated storm clouds, the researchers concluded that seeding decreased cloud-to-ground lightning by more than half. But as MIT’s Stepanian and Williams noted, the sample sizes were small, and questions remained about the statistical significance of the findings.

(Soviet scientists also carried out some field experiments on lightning suppression in the 1950s, as well as some related research that involved using rockets to launch lead iodide into thunderstorms in the 1970s, but it’s difficult to find further details about those programs.)

A near tragedy reignited US government interest in the possibility of lightning suppression in 1969, when lightning struck the Apollo 12 space shuttle twice within seconds of launch. The astronauts were able to reset their systems and successfully complete their mission to the moon, but it was a very close call.

In the aftermath, NASA and NOAA teamed up on what became known as Project Thunderbolt, which relied on the metallic chaff normally used in military countermeasures.

Researchers at the US Army Electronics Laboratory had previously proposed the possibility of suppressing lightning by deploying this material, which a handful of defense contractors manufacture. The idea is that chaff acts as a conductor in a forming electrical field, stripping electrons from some oxygen and nitrogen molecules and adding them to others. The mismatched electrons already collecting in cloud water molecules, thanks to all that rubbing between snowflakes and graupel, can then leap over to those newly charged atoms. That, in turn, should reduce the buildup of static electricity that otherwise results in lightning.

“By continuously redistributing—and thereby neutralizing—charges within the storm in a weak electric field, the strong electric fields required to produce lightning would never develop,” Stepanian and Williams wrote.

NASA and NOAA carried out a series of experiments seeding clouds with chaff from the early to mid 1970s, over Boulder, Colorado, and later at the Kennedy Space Center. Here, too, the experiments showed “generally promising field results.” But NASA eventually grew concerned about the possibility that chaff could affect radio communications and shuttered the program.

“Lightning suppression research was once again abandoned, and the responsibility for mitigating lightning hazards reverted to weather forecasters,” Stepanian and Williams concluded.

‘Hard to draw conclusions’

So what does all this tell us about our ability to prevent lightning?

“In my opinion, it’s unambiguously true that this technique can be used to reduce lightning strikes in a storm,” says Stepanian, a technical staff member at MIT Lincoln Laboratory’s air traffic control and weather systems group. “With some major caveats.”

For example, it’s not clear how much material you would need to release, how long it would persist, and how the effectiveness might change under different climate and weather conditions.

(Stepanian consulted with Skyward in its early stages, and he declined to discuss the startup.)

His coauthor on the history of lightning suppression seems a tad more skeptical. In an email, Williams, a research scientist at MIT who studies physical meteorology and atmospheric electricity, said there’s unmistakable evidence that chaff “has an impact on the electrification of thunderstorms.” But in email responses, he said its effectiveness in reducing or eliminating lighting activity “remains controversial” and requires further testing. (Williams says he did not consult for Skyward.) 

In his own written reviews, he’s highlighted a number of potential shortcomings with earlier research, including unaccounted-for differences in cloud heights between treated and untreated storms. In addition, he’s noted that some studies used detection systems that pick up only cloud-to-ground strikes, not intracloud lightning, which is far more common. 

He also points to the results of a more recent study that he and Stepanian collaborated on with researchers at New Mexico Tech. They relied upon data from weather radars in Tampa and Melbourne, Florida, located on opposite sides of the state, to detect the presence of chaff released over the central part of the state during military training and testing exercises. 

They compared 35 storms during which chaff was clearly detected in clouds with 35 instances when it wasn’t.

According to an abstract of the paper—which hasn’t been peer-reviewed or published but was presented at the American Geophysical Union conference in December—storms that occurred when chaff was present were generally “smaller and shorter-lived.” 

But the number of total flashes—which includes ground strikes as well as lightning within and between clouds and the air—was actually significantly higher in clouds carrying chaff: 62,250 versus 24,492.

“In summary, so far, it is hard to draw any conclusion about lightning suppression using chaff,” the authors wrote.

Williams says their results and other studies suggest that large chaff concentrations may be needed to suppress lightning. That could be because there’s a strong tendency for the ions released from the chaff fibers to be captured by cloud droplets before they reach the charged particles that would need to be neutralized.

But that may also present a significant deployment challenge, since chaff quickly becomes dilute once it’s released into the midst of turbulent storm clouds, Williams adds. 

Skyward’s Harterre said he couldn’t comment on the results of the Florida study but noted that storms in the state are very different from those that occur in the Canadian provinces where his company operates.

“Our work to date has focused on regions where operational feasibility has been evaluated and wildfire risk is highest,” he wrote.

‘Unintended consequences’

The possibility of releasing more chaff into the air also raises the questions of what else it could do in the atmosphere, and what will happen once it lands. 

The US military has produced a number of studies exploring the environmental and health effects of chaff and found that it disperses widely, breaks down in the environment, and is “generally nontoxic.”

For instance, a Naval Health Research Center report assessing environmental impacts from decades of training exercises near Chesapeake Bay concluded that “current and estimated use of aluminized chaff by American forces worldwide” will not raise total aluminum levels above the Environmental Protection Agency’s established limits. 

But a US Government Accountability Office report in 1998 raised a few other flags, noting that chaff can also affect civilian air traffic control radar and weather forecasts. It also highlighted a “potential but remote chance of collecting in reservoirs and causing chemical changes that may affect water and the species that use it.”

Stepanian says that if lightning suppression efforts require more chaff than the military currently releases, further studies may be needed to properly evaluate the environmental effects. 

Brooks of Environmental Defence Canada says he wants to know more about what materials Skyward is using, where they’re sourced from, what the effort leaves behind in the environment, and what the impacts on animals could be. He is also wary of the possible secondary effects of intervening in storms.

“I just think there’s the potential for unintended consequences if we start to mess with a complex system, like weather,” Brooks says, adding: “It makes me nervous to think there are pilots going on without people knowing about them.”

Harterre said that the company abides by any applicable regulations, and that it conducts its field activities “in coordination with relevant authorities and with appropriate authorization.”

He added that it releases seeding materials at lower volumes and concentrations than those associated with defense use and that deployments “are limited to defined high-wildfire-risk storm conditions.”

Remaining doubts

It’s not clear whether or to what degree Skyward has meaningfully advanced the science of lightning suppression or cleared up the questions that have lingered since the studies from the last century. 

The company hasn’t released data from its field trials, published any papers in peer-reviewed literature, or disclosed how its tests were performed, as far as MIT Technology Review was able to determine. 

Without such information it’s impossible to assess its claims, Williams says. He and two of his New Mexico Tech coauthors—associate professor Adonis Leal and master’s student Jhonys Moura—had all expressed skepticism about the company’s previous claim of “up to 100%” lightning prevention.

Harterre said Skyward intends to release more technical information as its programs mature.

“We look forward to the opportunity to share more detailed information,” he wrote.

In the meantime, Skyward’s investors have high hopes for the company and see “tremendous opportunity” in its potential ability to counteract fire dangers.

“Mitigating the exponentially increasing risk of wildfires can only happen if we shift from reactive suppression to proactive prevention,” Kevin Kimsa, managing partner of Climate Innovation Capital, said in a statement when the company’s recent funding was announced.

Rogers, of the Woodwell Climate Research Center, has spoken with Skyward several times but hasn’t worked with them. He also stressed that it’s crucial to understand potential environmental impacts from lightning suppression and to consult with citizens in affected areas, including Indigenous communities.

But he says he’s “optimistic” about the role that lighting suppression could play, if it works effectively and without major downsides.

That’s because preventing wildfires is far cheaper than putting them out, and it avoids risks to firefighters, ecosystems, infrastructure and local communities.

“If you’re able to go after fires before they’ve even ignited, you remove a lot of that from the equation,” he says.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Feb 27 2026
This company claims a battery breakthrough. Now they need to prove it.

When a company claims to have created what’s essentially the holy grail of batteries, there are bound to be some questions.

Interest has been swirling since Donut Lab, a Finnish company, announced last month that it had a new solid-state battery technology, one that was ready for large-scale production. The company said its batteries can charge super-fast and have a high energy density that would translate to ultra-long-range EVs. What’s more, it claimed the cells can operate safely in the extreme heat and cold, contain “green and abundant materials,” and would cost less than lithium-ion batteries do today.

It sounded amazing—this sort of technology could transform the EV industry. But many quickly wondered if it was all too good to be true. Now, Donut Lab is releasing a series of videos that it says will prove its technology has the secret sauce. Let’s dig into why this company is making news, why many experts are skeptical, and what it all means for the battery industry right now.

Solid-state batteries could deliver the next generation of EVs. In place of a liquid electrolyte (the material that ions move through inside a battery), the cells use a solid material, so they can be more compact. That means a significantly longer range, which could get more people excited to drive EVs.

The problem is, getting these batteries to work and making them at the large scale required for the EV industry hasn’t been a simple task. Some of the world’s most powerful automakers and battery companies have been trying for years to get the technology off the ground. (Toyota at one point said it would have solid-state batteries in cars by 2020. Now it’s shooting for 2027 or 2028.)

While it’s been a long time coming, it does feel as if solid-state batteries are closer than ever. Much of the progress so far has been on semi-solid-state batteries, which use materials like gels for electrolytes. But some companies, including several in China, are getting closer to true solid state. The world’s largest battery company, CATL, plans to manufacture small quantities in 2027. Another major Chinese automaker, Changan, plans to start testing installation of all-solid-state batteries in vehicles this year, with mass production expected to begin next year.

Still, Donut Lab surprised the battery industry when, in a video released in early January ahead of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the company claimed it would put the world’s first all-solid-state battery into production vehicles.

One of the splashiest claims in the announcement was that cells would have an energy density of 400 watt-hours per kilogram (the top commercial lithium-ion batteries today sit at about 250 to 300 Wh/kg). It was also claimed that the cells could charge in as little as five minutes, last 100,000 cycles, and retain 99% of capacity at high and low temperatures—while costing less than lithium-ion cells and being made from “100% green and abundant materials with global availability.”

Many experts were immediately skeptical. “In the solid-state field, the technical barriers are very high,” said Shirley Meng, a professor of molecular engineering at the University of Chicago, when I spoke with her last month. She’d recently attended CES and visited Donut Lab’s booth. “They had zero demo, so I don’t believe it,” she says. “Call me conservative, but I would rather be careful than be sorry later.”

“It’s one of those things where nobody knows—they’ve never heard of it,” said Eric Wachsman, a professor at the University of Maryland and cofounder of the solid-state battery company Ion Storage Systems, in a January interview. “They came out of nowhere.”

Donut Lab has shared very little about what, exactly, this technology might be. It’s not uncommon for battery companies (or any startup, for that matter) to be quiet about technical details before they can get patents filed to protect their technology. But the combination of claims didn’t seem to line up with any known chemistries, leaving experts speculating and, in many cases, doubting Donut Lab’s claims.

“All the parameters are contradictory,” said Yang Hongxin, chairman and CEO of the Chinese battery giant Svolt Energy, in remarks to news outlets in January. For example, there’s often a trade-off between high energy density, which requires thicker electrodes that can store more energy, and fast charging, which requires ions to move quickly through cells. High-performance batteries are also expected to be costly, but Donut Lab claims its technology will be cheaper than lithium-ion technology. 

In a new video released last week, Donut Lab cofounder and CEO Marko Lehtimäki announced the company would be releasing a video series, called “I Donut Believe,” that would provide evidence for their claims. As a header on the accompanying website reads: “Fair enough. Here you go.”

When the website went up last week, it included a countdown timer to Monday February 23, when the company released results from its first third-party testing: a fast charging test. The test showed that a single cell could charge from 0% to 80% capacity in about four and a half minutes—incredibly quick and quite impressive results. (One potential caveat to note is that the cells heated up quite a bit, so thermal management could be important in designing vehicles that use these batteries.)

Even as we see the first technical test results, I’m still left with a lot of questions. How many cycles could this battery do at this charging speed? Can this same cell meet the company’s other performance claims? (I’ve reached out to Donut Lab several times over the past month, both to the company’s press email and to leadership on LinkedIn, but I haven’t gotten a response yet.)

The company has certainly drummed up a lot of interest and attention with its rollout, and the theatrics aren’t over yet. There’s another countdown timer on Donut Lab’s site, which ends on Monday, March 2.

I’m the first one to get excited about a new battery technology. But there’s a sentiment I’ve seen pop up a lot recently online, and one I can’t get out of my head as I continue to follow this story: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Feb 20 2026
The building legal case for global climate justice

The United States and the European Union grew into economic superpowers by committing climate atrocities. They have burned a wildly disproportionate share of the world’s oil and gas, planting carbon time bombs that will detonate first in the poorest, hottest parts of the globe. 

Meanwhile, places like the Solomon Islands and Chad—low-lying or just plain sweltering—have emitted relatively little carbon dioxide, but by dint of their latitude and history, they rank among the countries most vulnerable to the fiercest consequences of global warming. That means increasingly devastating cyclones, heat waves, famines, and floods.

Morally, there’s an ironclad case that the countries or companies responsible for this mess should provide compensation for the homes that will be destroyed, the shorelines that will disappear beneath rising seas, and the lives that will be cut short. By one estimate, the major economies owe a climate debt to the rest of the world approaching $200 trillion in reparations.

Legally, though, the case has been far harder to make. Even putting aside the jurisdictional problems, early climate science couldn’t trace the provenance of airborne molecules of carbon dioxide across oceans and years. Deep-pocketed corporations with top-tier legal teams easily exploited those difficulties. 

Now those tides might be turning. More climate-related lawsuits are getting filed, particularly in the Global South. Governments, nonprofits, and citizens in the most climate-exposed nations continue to test new legal arguments in new courts, and some of those courts are showing a new willingness to put nations and their industries on the hook as a matter of human rights. In addition, the science of figuring out exactly who is to blame for specific weather disasters, and to what degree, is getting better and better. 

It’s true that no court has yet held any climate emitter liable for climate-related damages. For starters, nations are generally immune from lawsuits originating in other countries. That’s why most cases have focused on major carbon producers. But they’ve leaned on a pretty powerful defense. 

While oil and gas companies extract, refine, and sell the world’s fossil fuels, most of the emissions come out of “the vehicles, power plants, and factories that burn the fuel,” as Michael Gerrard and Jessica Wentz, of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center, note in a recent piece in Nature. In other words, companies just dig the stuff up. It’s not their fault someone else sets it on fire.

So victims of extreme weather events continue to try new legal avenues and approaches, backed by ever-more-convincing science. Plaintiffs in the Philippines recently sued the oil giant Shell over its role in driving Super Typhoon Odette, a 2021 storm that killed more than 400 people and displaced nearly 800,000. The case relies partially on an attribution study that found climate change made extreme rainfall like that seen in Odette twice as likely. 

IVAN JOESEFF GUIWANON/GREENPEACE

Overall, evidence of corporate culpability—linking a specific company’s fossil fuel to a specific disaster—is getting easier to find. For example, a study published in Nature in September was able to determine how much particular companies contributed to a series of 21st-century heat waves.

A number of recent legal decisions signal improving odds for these kinds of suits. Notably, a handful of determinations in climate cases before the European Court of Human Rights affirmed that states have legal obligations to protect people from the effects of climate change. And though it dismissed the case of a Peruvian farmer who sued a German power company over fears that a melting alpine glacier could destroy his property, a German court determined that major carbon polluters could in principle be found liable for climate damages tied to their emissions. 

At least one lawsuit has already emerged that could test that principle: Dozens of Pakistani farmers whose land was deluged during the massive flooding events of 2022 have sued a pair of major German power and cement companies.

Even if the lawsuit fails, that would be a problem with the system, not the science. Major carbon-polluting countries and companies have a disproportionate responsibility for climate-change-powered disasters. 

Wealthy nations continued to encourage business practices that pollute the atmosphere, even as the threat of climate change grew increasingly grave. And oil and gas companies remain the kingpin suppliers to a fossil-fuel-addicted world. They have operated with the full knowledge of the massive social, environmental, and human cost imposed by their business while lobbying fiercely against any rules that would force them to pay for those harms or clean up their act. 

They did it. They knew. In a civil society where rule of law matters, they should pay the price. 

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Feb 13 2026
Why EVs are gaining ground in Africa

EVs are getting cheaper and more common all over the world. But the technology still faces major challenges in some markets, including many countries in Africa.

Some regions across the continent still have limited grid and charging infrastructure, and those that do have widespread electricity access sometimes face reliability issues—a problem for EV owners, who require a stable electricity source to charge up and get around.

But there are some signs of progress. I just finished up a story about the economic case: A recent study in Nature Energy found that EVs from scooters to minibuses could be cheaper to own than gas-powered vehicles in Africa by 2040.

If there’s one thing to know about EVs in Africa, it’s that each of the 54 countries on the continent faces drastically different needs, challenges, and circumstances. There’s also a wide range of reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for EVs in the near future, including developing policies, a growing grid, and an expansion of local manufacturing.  

Even the world’s leading EV markets fall short of Ethiopia’s aggressively pro-EV policies. In 2024, the country became the first in the world to ban the import of non-electric private vehicles.

The case is largely an economic one: Gasoline is expensive there, and the country commissioned Africa’s largest hydropower dam in September 2025, providing a new source of cheap and abundant clean electricity. The nearly $5 billion project has a five-gigawatt capacity, doubling the grid’s peak power in the country.  

Much of Ethiopia’s vehicle market is for used cars, and some drivers are still opting for older gas-powered vehicles. But this nudge could help increase the market for EVs there.  

Other African countries are also pushing some drivers toward electrification. Rwanda banned new registrations for commercial gas-powered motorbikes in the capital city of Kigali last year, encouraging EVs as an alternative. These motorbike taxis can make up over half the vehicles on the city’s streets, so the move is a major turning point for transportation there. 

Smaller two- and three-wheelers are a bright spot for EVs globally: In 2025, EVs made up about 45% of new sales for such vehicles. (For cars and trucks, the share was about 25%.)

And Africa’s local market is starting to really take off. There’s already some local assembly of electric two-wheelers in countries including Morocco, Kenya, and Rwanda, says Nelson Nsitem, lead Africa energy transition analyst at BloombergNEF, an energy consultancy. 

Spiro, a Dubai-based electric motorbike company, recently raised $100 million in funding to expand operations in Africa. The company currently assembles its bikes in Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, and Rwanda, and as of October it has over 60,000 bikes deployed and 1,500 battery swap stations operating.

Assembly and manufacturing for larger EVs and batteries is also set to expand. Gotion High-Tech, a Chinese battery company, is currently building Africa’s first battery gigafactory. It’s a $5.6 billion project that could produce 20 gigawatt-hours of batteries annually, starting in 2026. (That’s enough for hundreds of thousands of EVs each year.)

Chinese EV companies are looking to growing markets like Southeast Asia and Africa as they attempt to expand beyond an oversaturated domestic scene. BYD, the world’s largest EV company, is aggressively expanding across South Africa and plans to have as many as 70 dealerships in the country by the end of this year. That will mean more options for people in Africa looking to buy electric. 

“You have very high-quality, very affordable vehicles coming onto the market that are benefiting from the economies of scale in China. These countries stand to benefit from that,” says Kelly Carlin, a manager in the program on carbon-free transportation at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank. “It’s a game changer,” he adds.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Feb 12 2026
EVs could be cheaper to own than gas cars in Africa by 2040

Electric vehicles could be economically competitive in Africa sooner than expected. Just 1% of new cars sold across the continent in 2025 were electric, but a new analysis finds that with solar off-grid charging, EVs could be cheaper to own than gas vehicles by 2040.

There are major barriers to higher EV uptake in many countries in Africa, including a sometimes unreliable grid, limited charging infrastructure, and a lack of access to affordable financing. As a result some previous analyses have suggested that fossil-fuel vehicles would dominate in Africa through at least 2050. 

But as batteries and the vehicles they power continue to get cheaper, the economic case for EVs is building. Electric two-wheelers, cars, larger automobiles, and even minibuses could compete in most African countries in just 15 years, according to the new study, published in Nature Energy.

“EVs have serious economic potential in most African countries in the not-so-distant future,” says Bessie Noll, a senior researcher at ETH Zürich and one of the authors of the study.

The study considered the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of a vehicle. That includes the sticker price, financing costs, and the cost of fueling (or charging). The researchers didn’t consider policy-related costs like taxes, import fees, and government subsidies, choosing to focus instead on only the underlying economics.

EVs are getting cheaper every year as battery and vehicle manufacturing improve and production scales, and the researchers found that in most cases and in most places across Africa, EVs are expected to be cheaper than equivalent gas-powered vehicles by 2040. EVs should also be less expensive than vehicles that use synthetic fuels. 

For two-wheelers like electric scooters, EVs could be the cheaper option even sooner: with smaller, cheaper batteries, these vehicles will be economically competitive by the end of the decade. On the other hand, one of the most difficult segments for EVs to compete in is small cars, says Christian Moretti, a researcher at ETH Zürich and the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland.

Because some countries still have limited or unreliable grid access, charging is a major barrier to EV uptake, Noll says. So for EVs, the authors analyzed the cost of buying not only the vehicle but also a solar off-grid charging system. This includes solar panels, batteries, and the inverter required to transform the electricity into a version that can charge an EV. (The additional batteries help the system store energy for charging at times when the sun isn’t shining.)

Mini grids and other standalone systems that include solar panels and energy storage are increasingly common across Africa. It’s possible that this might be a primary way that EV owners in Africa will charge their vehicles in the future, Noll says.

One of the bigger barriers to EVs in Africa is financing costs, she adds. In some cases, the cost of financing can be more than the up-front cost of the vehicle, significantly driving up the cost of ownership.

Today, EVs are more expensive than equivalent gas-powered vehicles in much of the world. But in places where it’s relatively cheap to borrow money, that difference can be spread out across the course of a vehicle’s whole lifetime for little cost. Then, since it’s often cheaper to charge an EV than fuel a gas-powered car, the EV is less expensive over time. 

In some African countries, however, political instability and uncertain economic conditions make borrowing money more expensive. To some extent, the high financing costs affect the purchase of any vehicle, regardless of how it’s powered. But EVs are more expensive up front than equivalent gas-powered cars, and that higher up-front cost adds up to more interest paid over time. In some cases, financing an EV can also be more expensive than financing a gas vehicle—the technology is newer, and banks may see the purchase as more of a risk and charge a higher interest rate, says Kelly Carlin, a manager in the program on carbon-free transportation at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank.

The picture varies widely depending on the country, too. In South Africa, Mauritius, and Botswana, financing conditions are already close to levels required to allow EVs to reach cost parity, according to the study. In higher-risk countries (the study gives examples including Sudan, which is currently in a civil war, and Ghana, which is recovering from a major economic crisis), financing costs would need to be cut drastically for that to be the case. 

Making EVs an affordable option will be a key first step to putting more on the roads in Africa and around the world. “People will start to pick up these technologies when they’re competitive,” says Nelson Nsitem, lead Africa energy transition analyst at BloombergNEF, an energy consultancy. 

Solar-based charging systems, like the ones mentioned in the study, could help make electricity less of a constraint, bringing more EVs to the roads, Nsitem says. But there’s still a need for more charging infrastructure, a major challenge in many countries where the grid needs major upgrades for capacity and reliability, he adds. 

Globally, more EVs are hitting the roads every year. “The global trend is unmistakable,” Carlin says. There are questions about how quickly it’s happening in different places, he says, “but the momentum is there.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Feb 6 2026
Three questions about next-generation nuclear power, answered

Nuclear power continues to be one of the hottest topics in energy today, and in our recent online Roundtables discussion about next-generation nuclear power, hyperscale AI data centers, and the grid, we got dozens of great audience questions.

These ran the gamut, and while we answered quite a few (and I’m keeping some in mind for future reporting), there were a bunch we couldn’t get to, at least not in the depth I would have liked.

So let’s answer a few of your questions about advanced nuclear power. I’ve combined similar ones and edited them for clarity.

How are the fuel needs for next-generation nuclear reactors different, and how are companies addressing the supply chain?

Many next-generation reactors don’t use the low-enriched uranium used in conventional reactors.

It’s worth looking at high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, specifically. This fuel is enriched to higher concentrations of fissile uranium than conventional nuclear fuel, with a proportion of the isotope U-235 that falls between 5% and 20%. (In conventional fuel, it’s below 5%.)

HALEU can be produced with the same technology as low-enriched uranium, but the geopolitics are complicated. Today, Russia basically has a monopoly on HALEU production. In 2024, the US banned the import of Russian nuclear fuel through 2040 in an effort to reduce dependence on the country. Europe hasn’t taken the same measures, but it is working to move away from Russian energy as well.

That leaves companies in the US and Europe with the major challenge of securing the fuel they need when their regular Russian supply has been cut off or restricted.

The US Department of Energy has a stockpile of HALEU, which the government is doling out to companies to help power demonstration reactions. In the longer term, though, there’s still a major need to set up independent HALEU supply chains to support next-generation reactors.

How is safety being addressed, and what’s happening with nuclear safety regulation in the US?

There are some ways that next-generation nuclear power plants could be safer than conventional reactors. Some use alternative coolants that would prevent the need to run at the high pressure required in conventional water-cooled reactors. Many incorporate passive safety shutoffs, so if there are power supply issues, the reactors shut down harmlessly, avoiding risk of meltdown. (These can be incorporated in newer conventional reactors, too.)

But some experts have raised concerns that in the US, the current administration isn’t taking nuclear safety seriously enough.

A recent NPR investigation found that the Trump administration had secretly rewritten nuclear rules, stripping environmental protections and loosening safety and security measures. The government shared the new rules with companies that are part of a program building experimental nuclear reactors, but not with the public.

I’m reminded of a talk during our EmTech MIT event in November, where Koroush Shirvan, an MIT professor of nuclear engineering, spoke on this issue. “I’ve seen some disturbing trends in recent times, where words like ‘rubber-stamping nuclear projects’ are being said,” Shirvan said during that event.  

During the talk, Shirvan shared statistics showing that nuclear power has a very low rate of injury and death. But that’s not inherent to the technology, and there’s a reason injuries and deaths have been low for nuclear power, he added: “It’s because of stringent regulatory oversight.”  

Are next-generation reactors going to be financially competitive?

Building a nuclear power plant is not cheap. Let’s consider the up-front investment needed to build a power plant.  

Plant Vogtle in Georgia hosts the most recent additions to the US nuclear fleet—Units 3 and 4 came online in 2023 and 2024. Together, they had a capital cost of $15,000 per kilowatt, adjusted for inflation, according to a recent report from the US Department of Energy. (This wonky unit I’m using divides the total cost to build the reactors by their expected power output, so we can compare reactors of different sizes.)

That number’s quite high, partly because those were the first of their kind built in the US, and because there were some inefficiencies in the planning. It’s worth noting that China builds reactors for much less, somewhere between $2,000/kW and $3,000/kW, depending on the estimate.

The up-front capital cost for first-of-a-kind advanced nuclear plants will likely run between $6,000 and $10,000 per kilowatt, according to that DOE report. That could come down by up to 40% after the technologies are scaled up and mass-produced.

So new reactors will (hopefully) be cheaper than the ultra-over-budget and behind-schedule Vogtle project, but they aren’t necessarily significantly cheaper than efficiently built conventional plants, if you normalize by their size.

It’ll certainly be cheaper to build new natural-gas plants (setting aside the likely equipment shortages we’re likely going to see for years.) Today’s most efficient natural-gas plants cost just $1,600/kW on the high end, according to data from Lazard.

An important caveat: Capital cost isn’t everything—running a nuclear plant is relatively inexpensive, which is why there’s so much interest in extending the lifetime of existing plants or reopening shuttered ones.

Ultimately, by many metrics, nuclear plants of any type are going to be more expensive than other sources, like wind and solar power. But they provide something many other power sources don’t: a reliable, stable source of electricity that can run for 60 years or more.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Feb 4 2026
Microbes could extract the metal needed for cleantech

In a pine forest on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the only active nickel mine in the US is nearing the end of its life. At a time when carmakers want the metal for electric-vehicle batteries, nickel concentration at Eagle Mine is falling and could soon drop too low to warrant digging.

But earlier this year, the mine’s owner started testing a new process that could eke out a bit more nickel. In a pair of shipping containers recently installed at the mine’s mill, a fermentation-derived broth developed by the startup Allonnia is mixed with concentrated ore to capture and remove impurities. The process allows nickel production from lower-quality ore. 

Kent Sorenson, Allonnia’s chief technology officer, says this approach could help companies continue operating sites that, like Eagle Mine, have burned through their best ore. “The low-hanging fruit is to keep mining the mines that we have,” he says. 

Demand for nickel, copper, and rare earth elements is rapidly increasing amid the explosive growth of metal-intensive data centers, electric cars, and renewable energy projects. But producing these metals is becoming harder and more expensive because miners have already exploited the best resources. Like the age-old technique of rolling up the end of a toothpaste tube, Allonnia’s broth is one of a number of ways that biotechnology could help miners squeeze more metal out of aging mines, mediocre ore, or piles of waste.

The mining industry has intentionally seeded copper ore with microbes for decades. At current copper bioleaching sites, miners pile crushed copper ore into heaps and add sulfuric acid. Acid-loving bacteria like Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans colonize the mound. A chemical the organisms produce breaks the bond between sulfur and copper molecules to liberate the metal.

Until now, beyond maintaining the acidity and blowing air into the heap, there wasn’t much more miners could do to encourage microbial growth. But Elizabeth Dennett, CEO of the startup Endolith, says the decreasing cost of genetic tools is making it possible to manage the communities of microbes in a heap more actively. “The technology we’re using now didn’t exist a few years ago,” she says.

Endolith analyzes bits of DNA and RNA in the copper-rich liquid that flows out of an ore heap to characterize the microbes living inside. Combined with a suite of chemical analyses, the information helps the company determine which microbes to sprinkle on a heap to optimize extraction. 

Two people in white coats and hard hats look up at steel columns inside a warehouse.
Endolith scientists use columns filled with copper ore to test the firm’s method of actively managing microbes in the ore to increase metal extraction.
ENDOLITH

In lab tests on ore from the mining firm BHP, Endolith’s active techniques outperformed passive bioleaching approaches. In November, the company raised $16.5 million to move from its Denver lab to heaps in active mines.

Despite these promising early results, Corale Brierley, an engineer who has worked on metal bioleaching systems since the 1970s, questions whether companies like Endolith that add additional microbes to ore will successfully translate their processes to commercial scales. “What guarantees are you going to give the company that those organisms will actually grow?” Brierley asks.

Big mining firms that have already optimized every hose, nut, and bolt in their process won’t be easy to convince either, says Diana Rasner, an analyst covering mining technology for the research firm Cleantech Group. 

“They are acutely aware of what it takes to scale these technologies because they know the industry,” she says. “They’ll be your biggest supporters, but they’re going to be your biggest critics.”

In addition to technical challenges, Rasner points out that venture-capital-backed biotechnology startups will struggle to deliver the quick returns their investors seek. Mining companies want lots of data before adopting a new process, which could take years of testing to compile. “This is not software,” Rasner says.  

Nuton, a subsidiary of the mining giant Rio Tinto, is a good example. The company has been working for decades on a copper bioleaching process that uses a blend of archaea and bacteria strains, plus some chemical additives. But it started demonstrating the technology only late last year, at a mine in Arizona. 

A large piece of machinery hovers over a mound of red dirt.
Nuton is testing an improved bioleaching process at Gunnison Copper’s Johnson Camp mine in Arizona.
NUTON

While Endolith and Nuton use naturally occurring microbes, the startup 1849 is hoping to achieve a bigger performance boost by genetically engineering microbes.

“You can do what mining companies have traditionally done,” says CEO Jai Padmakumar. “Or you can try to take the moonshot bet and engineer them. If you get that, you have a huge win.”

Genetic engineering would allow 1849 to tailor its microbes to the specific challenges facing a customer. But engineering organisms can also make them harder to grow, warns Buz Barstow, a Cornell University microbiologist who studies applications for biotechnology in mining.

Other companies are trying to avoid that trade-off by applying the products of microbial fermentation, rather than live organisms. Alta Resource Technologies, which closed a $28 million investment round in December, is engineering microbes that make proteins capable of extracting and separating rare earth elements. Similarly, the startup REEgen, based in Ithaca, New York, relies on the organic acids produced by an engineered strain of Gluconobacter oxydans to extract rare earth elements from ore and from waste materials like metal recycling slag, coal ash, or old electronics. “The microbes are the manufacturing,” says CEO Alexa Schmitz, an alumna of Barstow’s lab.

To make a dent in the growing demand for metal, this new wave of biotechnologies will have to go beyond copper and gold, says Barstow. In 2024, he started a project to map out genes that could be useful for extracting and separating a wider range of metals. Even with the challenges ahead, he says, biotechnology has the potential to transform mining the way fracking changed natural gas. “Biomining is one of these areas where the need … is big enough,” he says. 

The challenge will be moving fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Feb 3 2026
What’s next for EV batteries in 2026

MIT Technology Review’s What’s Next series looks across industries, trends, and technologies to give you a first look at the future. You can read the rest of them here.

Demand for electric vehicles and the batteries that power them has never been hotter.

In 2025, EVs made up over a quarter of new vehicle sales globally, up from less than 5% in 2020. Some regions are seeing even higher uptake: In China, more than 50% of new vehicle sales last year were battery electric or plug-in hybrids. In Europe, more purely electric vehicles hit the roads in December than gas-powered ones. (The US is the notable exception here, dragging down the global average with a small sales decline from 2024.)

As EVs become increasingly common on the roads, the battery world is growing too. Looking ahead, we could soon see wider adoption of new chemistries, including some that deliver lower costs or higher performance. Meanwhile, the geopolitics of batteries are shifting, and so is the policy landscape. Here’s what’s coming next for EV batteries in 2026 and beyond.

A big opportunity for sodium-ion batteries

Lithium-ion batteries are the default chemistry used in EVs, personal devices, and even stationary storage systems on the grid today. But in a tough environment in some markets like the US, there’s a growing interest in cheaper alternatives. Automakers right now largely care just about batteries’ cost, regardless of performance improvements, says Kara Rodby, a technical principal at Volta Energy Technologies, a venture capital firm that focuses on energy storage technology.

Sodium-ion cells have long been held up as a potentially less expensive alternative to lithium. The batteries are limited in their energy density, so they deliver a shorter range than lithium-ion. But sodium is also more abundant, so they could be cheaper.

Sodium’s growth has been cursed, however, by the very success of lithium-based batteries, says Shirley Meng, a professor of molecular engineering at the University of Chicago. A lithium-ion battery cell cost $568 per kilowatt-hour in 2013, but that cost had fallen to just $74 per kilowatt-hour by 2025—quite the moving target for cheaper alternatives to chase.

Sodium-ion batteries currently cost about $59 per kilowatt-hour on average. That’s less expensive than the average lithium-ion battery. But if you consider only lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells, a lower-end type of lithium-ion battery that averages $52 per kilowatt-hour, sodium is still more expensive today. 

We could soon see an opening for sodium-batteries, though. Lithium prices have been ticking up in recent months, a shift that could soon slow or reverse the steady downward march of prices for lithium-based batteries. 

Sodium-ion batteries are already being used commercially, largely for stationary storage on the grid. But we’re starting to see sodium-ion cells incorporated into vehicles, too. The Chinese companies Yadea, JMEV, and HiNa Battery have all started producing sodium-ion batteries in limited numbers for EVs, including small, short-range cars and electric scooters that don’t require a battery with high energy density. CATL, a Chinese battery company that’s the world’s largest, says it recently began producing sodium-ion cells. The company plans to launch its first EV using the chemistry by the middle of this year. 

Today, both production and demand for sodium-ion batteries are heavily centered in China. That’s likely to continue, especially after a cutback in tax credits and other financial support for the battery and EV industries in the US. One of the biggest sodium-battery companies in the US, Natron, ceased operations last year after running into funding issues.

We could also see progress in sodium-ion research: Companies and researchers are developing new materials for components including the electrolyte and electrodes, so the cells could get more comparable to lower-end lithium-ion cells in terms of energy density, Meng says. 

Major tests for solid-state batteries

As we enter the second half of this decade, many eyes in the battery world are on big promises and claims about solid-state batteries.

These batteries could pack more energy into a smaller package by removing the liquid electrolyte, the material that ions move through when a battery is charging and discharging. With a higher energy density, they could unlock longer-range EVs.

Companies have been promising solid-state batteries for years. Toyota, for example, once planned to have them in vehicles by 2020. That timeline has been delayed several times, though the company says it’s now on track to launch the new cells in cars in 2027 or 2028.

Historically, battery makers have struggled to produce solid-state batteries at the scale needed to deliver a commercially relevant supply for EVs. There’s been progress in manufacturing techniques, though, and companies could soon actually make good on their promises, Meng says. 

Factorial Energy, a US-based company making solid-state batteries, provided cells for a Mercedes test vehicle that drove over 745 miles on a single charge in a real-world test in September. The company says it plans to bring its tech to market as soon as 2027. Quantumscape, another major solid-state player in the US, is testing its cells with automotive partners and plans to have its batteries in commercial production later this decade.  

Before we see true solid-state batteries, we could see hybrid technologies, often referred to as semi-solid-state batteries. These commonly use materials like gel electrolytes, reducing the liquid inside cells without removing it entirely. Many Chinese companies are looking to build semi-solid-state batteries before transitioning to entirely solid-state ones, says Evelina Stoikou, head of battery technologies and supply chains at BloombergNEF, an energy consultancy.

A global patchwork

The picture for the near future of the EV industry looks drastically different depending on where you’re standing.

Last year, China overtook Japan as the country with the most global auto sales. And more than one in three EVs made in 2025 had a CATL battery in it. Simply put, China is dominating the global battery industry, and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon.

China’s influence outside its domestic market is growing especially quickly. CATL is expected to begin production this year at its second European site; the factory, located in Hungary, is an $8.2 billion project that will supply automakers including BMW and the Mercedes-Benz group. Canada recently signed a deal that will lower the import tax on Chinese EVs from 100% to roughly 6%, effectively opening the Canadian market for Chinese EVs.

Some countries that haven’t historically been major EV markets could become bigger players in the second half of the decade. Annual EV sales in Thailand and Vietnam, where the market was virtually nonexistent just a few years ago, broke 100,000 in 2025. Brazil, in particular, could see its new EV sales more than double in 2026 as major automakers including Volkswagen and BYD set up or ramp up production in the country. 

On the flip side, EVs are facing a real test in 2026 in the US, as this will be the first calendar year after the sunset of federal tax credits that were designed to push more drivers to purchase the vehicles. With those credits gone, growth in sales is expected to continue lagging. 

One bright spot for batteries in the US is outside the EV market altogether. Battery manufacturers are starting to produce low-cost LFP batteries in the US, largely for energy storage applications. LG opened a massive factory to make LFP batteries in mid-2025 in Michigan, and the Korean battery company SK On plans to start making LFP batteries at its facility in Georgia later this year. Those plants could help battery companies cash in on investments as the US EV market faces major headwinds. 

Even as the US lags behind, the world is electrifying transportation. By 2030, 40% of new vehicles sold around the world are projected to be electric. As we approach that milestone, expect to see more global players, a wider selection of EVs, and an even wider menu of batteries to power them. 

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 30 2026
How the grid can ride out winter storms

The eastern half of the US saw a monster snowstorm over the weekend. The good news is the grid has largely been able to keep up with the freezing temperatures and increased demand. But there were some signs of strain, particularly for fossil-fuel plants.

One analysis found that PJM, the nation’s largest grid operator, saw significant unplanned outages in plants that run on natural gas and coal. Historically, these facilities can struggle in extreme winter weather.

Much of the country continues to face record-low temperatures, and the possibility is looming for even more snow this weekend. What lessons can we take from this storm, and how might we shore up the grid to cope with extreme weather?

Living in New Jersey, I have the honor of being one of the roughly 67 million Americans covered by the PJM Interconnection.

So I was in the thick of things this weekend, when PJM saw unplanned outages of over 20 gigawatts on Sunday during the height of the storm. (That’s about 16% of the grid’s demand that afternoon.) Other plants were able to make up the difference, and thankfully, the power didn’t go out in my area. But that’s a lot of capacity offline.

Typically, the grid operator doesn’t announce details about why an outage occurs until later. But analysts at Energy Innovation, a policy and research firm specializing in energy and climate, went digging. By examining publicly available grid mix data (a breakdown of what types of power plants are supplying the grid), the team came to a big conclusion: Fossil fuels failed during the storm.

The analysts found that gas-fired power plants were producing about 10 gigawatts less power on Sunday than the peak demand on Saturday, even while electricity prices were high. Coal- and oil-burning plants were down too. Because these plants weren’t operating, even when high prices would make it quite lucrative, they were likely a significant part of the problem, says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at Energy Innovation.

PJM plans to share more details about the outages at an upcoming committee meeting once the cold snap passes, Dan Lockwood, a PJM spokesperson, told me via email.

Fossil-fuel plants can see reliability challenges during winter: When temperatures drop, pressures in natural-gas lines fall too, which can lead to issues for fuel supply. Freezing temperatures can throw compression stations and other mechanical equipment offline and even freeze piles of coal.

One of the starkest examples came in 2021, when Texas faced freezing temperatures that took many power plants offline and threw the grid into chaos. Many homes lost power for days, and at least 246 people died during that storm.

Texas fared much better this time around. After 2021, the state shored up its grid, adding winter weatherization for power plants and transmission systems. Texas has also seen a huge flood of batteries come online, which has greatly helped the grid during winter demand peaks, especially in the early mornings. Texas was also simply lucky that this storm was less severe there, as one expert told Inside Climate News this week.

Here on the East Coast, we’re not out of the woods yet. The snow has stopped falling, but grids are still facing high electricity demand because of freezing temperatures. (I’ve certainly been living under my heated blanket these last few days.)

PJM could see a peak power demand of 130 gigawatts for seven straight days, a winter streak that the local grid has never experienced, according to an update to the utility’s site on Tuesday morning.

The US Department of Energy issued emergency orders to several grid operators, including PJM, that allow power plants to run while basically ignoring emissions regulations. The department also issued orders allowing several grids to tell data centers and other facilities to begin using backup generators. (This is good news for reliability but bad news for clean air and the climate, since these power sources are often incredibly emissions-intensive.)

We here on the East Coast could learn a thing or two from Texas so we don’t need to resort to these polluting emergency measures to keep the lights on. More energy storage could be a major help in future winter storms, lending flexibility to the grid to help ride out the worst times, Solomon says. Getting offshore wind online could also help, since those facilities typically produce reliable power in the winter. 

No one energy source will solve the massive challenge of building and maintaining a resilient grid. But as we face the continued threat of extreme storms, renewables might actually help us weather them. 

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 23 2026
Why 2026 is a hot year for lithium

In 2026, I’m going to be closely watching the price of lithium.

If you’re not in the habit of obsessively tracking commodity markets, I certainly don’t blame you. (Though the news lately definitely makes the case that minerals can have major implications for global politics and the economy.)

But lithium is worthy of a close look right now.

The metal is crucial for lithium-ion batteries used in phones and laptops, electric vehicles, and large-scale energy storage arrays on the grid. Prices have been on quite the roller coaster over the last few years, and they’re ticking up again after a low period. What happens next could have big implications for mining and battery technology.

Before we look ahead, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane. In 2020, global EV sales started to really take off, driving up demand for the lithium used in their batteries. Because of that growing demand and a limited supply, prices shot up dramatically, with lithium carbonate going from under $10 per kilogram to a high of roughly $70 per kilogram in just two years.

And the tech world took notice. During those high points, there was a ton of interest in developing alternative batteries that didn’t rely on lithium. I was writing about sodium-based batteries, iron-air batteries, and even experimental ones that were made with plastic.

Researchers and startups were also hunting for alternative ways to get lithium, including battery recycling and processing methods like direct lithium extraction (more on this in a moment).

But soon, prices crashed back down to earth. We saw lower-than-expected demand for EVs in the US, and developers ramped up mining and processing to meet demand. Through late 2024 and 2025, lithium carbonate was back around $10 a kilogram again. Avoiding lithium or finding new ways to get it suddenly looked a lot less crucial.

That brings us to today: lithium prices are ticking up again. So far, it’s nowhere close to the dramatic rise we saw a few years ago, but analysts are watching closely. Strong EV growth in China is playing a major role—EVs still make up about 75% of battery demand today. But growth in stationary storage, batteries for the grid, is also contributing to rising demand for lithium in both China and the US.

Higher prices could create new opportunities. The possibilities include alternative battery chemistries, specifically sodium-ion batteries, says Evelina Stoikou, head of battery technologies and supply chains at BloombergNEF. (I’ll note here that we recently named sodium-ion batteries to our 2026 list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.)

It’s not just batteries, though. Another industry that could see big changes from a lithium price swing: extraction.

Today, most lithium is mined from rocks, largely in Australia, before being shipped to China for processing. There’s a growing effort to process the mineral in other places, though, as countries try to create their own lithium supply chains. Tesla recently confirmed that it’s started production at its lithium refinery in Texas, which broke ground in 2023. We could see more investment in processing plants outside China if prices continue to climb.

This could also be a key year for direct lithium extraction, as Katie Brigham wrote in a recent story for Heatmap. That technology uses chemical or electrochemical processes to extract lithium from brine (salty water that’s usually sourced from salt lakes or underground reservoirs), quickly and cheaply. Companies including Lilac Solutions, Standard Lithium, and Rio Tinto are all making plans or starting construction on commercial facilities this year in the US and Argentina. 

If there’s anything I’ve learned about following batteries and minerals over the past few years, it’s that predicting the future is impossible. But if you’re looking for tea leaves to read, lithium prices deserve a look. 

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments