Sorry, AI won’t “fix” climate change

In an essay last week, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, argued that the accelerating capabilities of AI will usher in an idyllic “Intelligence Age,” unleashing “unimaginable” prosperity and “astounding triumphs” like “fixing the climate.”

It’s a promise that no one is in a position to make—and one that, when it comes to the topic of climate change, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the problem. 

More maddening, the argument suggests that the technology’s massive consumption of electricity today doesn’t much matter, since it will allow us to generate abundant clean power in the future. That casually waves away growing concerns about a technology that’s already accelerating proposals for natural-gas plants and diverting major tech companies from their corporate climate targets

By all accounts, AI’s energy demands will only continue to increase, even as the world scrambles to build larger, cleaner power systems to meet the increasing needs of EV charging, green hydrogen production, heat pumps, and other low-carbon technologies. Altman himself reportedly just met with White House officials to make the case for building absolutely massive AI data centers, which could require the equivalent of five dedicated nuclear reactors to run.  

It’s a bedrock perspective of MIT Technology Review that technological advances can deliver real benefits and accelerate societal progress in meaningful ways. But for decades researchers and companies have oversold the potential of AI to deliver blockbuster medicines, achieve super intelligence, and free humanity from the need to work. To be fair, there have been significant advances, but nothing on the order of what’s been hyped.

Given that track record, I’d argue you need to develop a tool that does more than plagiarize journalism and help students cheat on homework before you can credibly assert that it will solve humanity’s thorniest problems, whether the target is rampant poverty or global warming.

To be sure, AI may help the world address the rising dangers of climate change. We have begun to see research groups and startups harness the technology to try to manage power grids more effectively, put out wildfires faster, and discover materials that could create cheaper, better batteries or solar panels.

All those advances are still relatively incremental. But let’s say AI does bring about an energy miracle. Perhaps its pattern-recognition prowess will deliver the key insight that finally cracks fusion—a technology that Altman is betting on heavily as an investor.

That would be fantastic. But technological advances are just the start—necessary but far from sufficient to eliminate the world’s climate emissions.

How do I know?

Because between nuclear fission plants, solar farms, wind turbines, and batteries, we already have every technology we need to clean up the power sector. This should be the low-hanging fruit of the energy transition. Yet in the largest economy on Earth, fossil fuels still generate 60% of the electricity. The fact that so much of our power still comes from coal, petroleum, and natural gas is a regulatory failure as much as a technological one. 

“As long as we effectively subsidize fossil fuels by allowing them to use the atmosphere as a waste dump, we are not allowing clean energy to compete on a level playing field,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the independent research organization Berkeley Earth, wrote on X in a response to Altman’s post. “We need policy changes, not just tech breakthroughs, to meet our climate goals.”

That’s not to say there aren’t big technical problems we still need to solve. Just look at the continuing struggles to develop clean, cost-competitive ways of fertilizing crops or flying planes. But the fundamental challenges of climate change are sunk costs, development obstacles, and inertia.

We’ve built and paid for a global economy that spews out planet-warming gases, investing trillions of dollars in power plants, steel mills, factories, jets, boilers, water heaters, stoves, and SUVs that run on fossil fuels. And few people or companies will happily write off those investments so long as those products and plants still work. AI can’t remedy all that just by generating better ideas. 

To raze and replace the machinery of every industry around the world at the speed now required, we will need increasingly aggressive climate policies that incentivize or force everyone to switch to cleaner plants, products, and practices.

But with every proposal for a stricter law or some big new wind or solar farm, forces will push back, because the plan will hit someone’s wallet, block someone’s views, or threaten the areas or traditions someone cherishes. Climate change is an infrastructure problem, and building infrastructure is a messy human endeavor. 

Tech advances can ease some of these issues. Cheaper, better alternatives to legacy industries make hard choices more politically palatable. But there are no improvements to AI algorithms or underlying data sets that solve the challenge of NIMBYism, the conflict between human interests, or the desire to breathe the fresh air in an unsullied wilderness. 

To assert that a single technology—that just happens to be the one your company develops—can miraculously untangle these intractable conflicts of human society is at best self-serving, if not a little naïve. And it’s a troubling idea to proclaim at a point when the growth of that very technology is threatening to undermine the meager progress the world has begun to make on climate change.

As it is, the one thing we can state confidently about generative AI is that it’s making the hardest problem we’ve ever had to solve that much harder to solve.

Coming soon: Our 2024 list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch

MIT Technology Review set out last year to recognize 15 companies from around the world that demonstrated they have a real shot at meaningfully driving down greenhouse-gas emissions and safeguarding society from the worst impacts of climate change.

We’re excited to announce that we took up the task again this year and will publish our 2024 list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch on October 1. We’ll reveal it first on stage to attendees at our upcoming EmTech MIT event, and then share it online later that day.

The work these companies are doing is needed now more than ever. Global warming appears to be accelerating. The oceans are heating up faster than expected. And some scientists fear the planet is approaching tipping points that could trigger dramatic shifts in Earth’s ecosystems.

Nations must cut the greenhouse-gas pollution fueling that warming, and the heat waves, hurricanes, droughts, and fires it brings, as fast as possible. But we can’t simply halt emissions without plunging the global economy into a deep depression and the world into chaos. 

Any realistic plan to cut billions of tons of emissions over the next few decades requires us to develop and scale up cleaner ways of producing electricity, manufacturing goods, generating heat and cooling, and moving people and stuff around the world. 

To do that, we need competitive companies that can displace heavily polluting industries, or force them to clean up their acts. Those firms need to provide consumers with low-emissions options that, ideally, don’t feel like a sacrifice. And because climate change is underway, we also need technologies and services and infrastructure that can keep communities safe even as the world grows hotter and the weather becomes more erratic and extreme.

As we stated last year, we don’t claim to be oracles or soothsayers. The success of any one business depends on many hard-to-predict variables, including market conditions, political winds, investor sentiment, and consumer preferences. Taking aim at the business model and margins of conglomerates is especially fraught—and some of these firms may well fail.

But we did our best to select companies with solid track records that are tackling critical climate problems and have shown recent progress. 

This year’s list includes companies working to cut stubborn agricultural emissions, mine the metals needed for the energy transition in cleaner ways, and help communities tamp out wildfires before they become infernos. Others are figuring out new ways to produce fuels that can power our vehicles and industries, without adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. 

A few companies from last year’s list also made the cut again because they’ve made notable strides toward their goals in the past 12 months.

We’re proud to publish the full list in the coming weeks. We hope you’ll take a look, ideally learn something new, and perhaps leave feeling encouraged that the world can make the changes needed to ease the risks of climate change and build a more sustainable future.

Why one developer won’t quit fighting to connect the US’s grids

Michael Skelly hasn’t learned to take no for an answer.

For much of the last 15 years, the Houston-based energy entrepreneur has worked to develop long-haul transmission lines to carry wind power across the Great Plains, Midwest, and Southwest, delivering clean electricity to cities like Albuquerque, Chicago, and Memphis. But so far, he has little to show for the effort. 

Skelly has long argued that building such lines and linking together the nation’s grids would accelerate the shift from coal- and natural-gas-fueled power plants to the renewables needed to cut the pollution driving climate change. But his previous business, Clean Line Energy Partners, shut down in 2019, after halting two of its projects and selling off interests in three more.

Skelly contends he was early, not wrong, about the need for such lines, and that the market and policymakers are increasingly coming around to his perspective. Indeed, the US Department of Energy just blessed his latest company’s proposed line with hundreds of millions in grants. 

The North Plains Connector would stretch about 420 miles from southeast Montana to the heart of North Dakota and create the first major connection between the US’s two largest grids, enabling system operators to draw on electricity generated by hydro, solar, wind, and other resources across much of the country. This could help keep regional power systems online during extreme weather events and boost the overall share of electricity generated by those clean sources. 

Skelly says he’s already secured the support of nine utilities around the region for the project, as well as more than 90% of the landowners along the route.

Michael Skelly
Michael Skelly founded Clean Line Energy Partners in 2009.
GRID UNITED

He says that more and more local energy companies have come to recognize that rising electricity demands, the growing threat storms and fires pose to power systems, and the increasing reliance on renewables have hastened the need for more transmission lines to stitch together and reinforce the country’s fraying, fractured grids.

“There’s a real understanding, really, across the country of the need to invest more in the grid,” says Skelly, now chief executive of Grid United, the Houston-based transmission development firm he founded in 2021. “We need more wires in the air.” 

Still, proposals to build long transmission lines frequently stir up controversy in the communities they would cross. It remains to be seen whether this growing understanding will be enough for Skelly’s project to succeed, or to get the US building anywhere near the number of transmission lines it now desperately needs.

Linking grids

Transmission lines are the unappreciated linchpin of the clean-energy transition, arguably as essential as solar panels in cutting emissions and as important as seawalls in keeping people safe.

These long, high, thick wires are often described as the highways of our power systems. They connect the big wind farms, hydroelectric plants, solar facilities, and other power plants to the edges of cities, where substations step down the voltage before delivering electricity into homes and businesses along distribution lines that are more akin to city streets. 

There are three major grid systems in the US: the Western Interconnection, the Eastern Interconnection, and the Texas Interconnected System. Regional grid operators such as the California Independent System Operator, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, and the New York Independent System Operator oversee smaller local grids that are connected, to a greater or lesser extent, within those larger networks.

Transmission lines that could add significant capacity for sharing electricity back and forth across the nation’s major grid systems are especially valuable for cutting emissions and improving the stability of the power system. That’s because they allow those independent system operators to draw on a far larger pool of electricity sources. So if solar power is fading in one part of the country, they could still access wind or hydropower somewhere else. The ability to balance out fluctuations in renewables across regions and seasons, in turn, reduces the need to rely on the steady output of fossil-fuel plants. 

“There’s typically excess wind or hydro or other resources somewhere,” says James Hewett, manager of the US policy lobbying group at Breakthrough Energy, the Bill Gates–backed organization focusing on clean energy and climate issues. “But today, the limiting constraint is the ability to move resources from the place where they’re excessive to where they’re needed.” 

(Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the investment arm of the firm, doesn’t hold any investments in the North Plains Connector project or Grid United.)

It also means that even if regional wildfires, floods, hurricanes, or heat waves knock out power lines and plants in one area, operators may still be able to tap into adjacent systems to keep the lights on and air-conditioning running. That can be a matter of life and death in the event of such emergencies, as we’ve witnessed in the aftermath of heat waves and hurricanes in recent years.  

Studies have shown that weaving together the nation’s grids can boost the share of electricity that renewables reliably provide, significantly cut power-sector emissions, and lower system costs. A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that the lines interconnecting the US’s major grids and the regions within them offer the greatest economic value among transmission projects, potentially providing more than $100 million in cost savings per year for every additional gigawatt of added capacity. (The study presupposes that the lines are operated efficiently and to their full capacity, among other simplifying assumptions.)

Experts say that grid interconnections can more than pay for themselves over time because, among other improved efficiencies, they allow grid operators to find cheaper sources of electricity at any given time and enable regions to get by with fewer power plants by relying on the redundancy provided by their neighbors.

But as it stands, the meager links between the Eastern Interconnection and Western Interconnection amount to “tiny little soda straws connecting two Olympic swimming pools,” says Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies, a consultancy in Washington, DC. 

A win-win-win”

Grid United’s North Plains Connector, in contrast, would be a fat pipe.

The $3.2 billion, three-gigawatt project would more than double the amount of electricity that could zip back and forth between those grid systems, and it would tightly interlink a trio of grid operators that oversee regional parts of those larger systems: the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, and the Southwest Power Pool. If the line is developed, each could then more easily tap into the richest, cheapest sources at any given time across a huge expanse of the nation, be it hydropower generated in the Northwest, wind turbines cranking across the Midwest, or solar power produced anywhere.

The North Plains Connector transmission line would stretch from from southeast Montana to the heart of North Dakota, connecting the nation's two biggest grids.
The North Plains Connector transmission line would stretch from from southeast Montana to the heart of North Dakota, connecting the nation’s two biggest grids.
COURTESY: ALLETE

This would ensure that utilities could get greater economic value out of those energy plants, which are expensive to build but relatively cheap to operate, and it would improve the reliability of the system during extreme weather, Skelly says.

“If you’ve got a heat dome in the Northwest, you can send power west,” he says. “If you have a winter storm in the Midwest, you can send power to the east.”

Grid United is developing the project as a joint venture with Allete, an energy company in Duluth, Minnesota, that operates several utilities in the region. 

The Department of Energy granted $700 million to a larger regional effort, known as the North Plains Connector Interregional Innovation project, which encompasses two smaller proposals in addition to Grid United’s. The grants will be issued through a more than $10 billion program established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted by President Joe Biden in 2021. 

That funding will likely be distributed to regional utilities and other parties as partial matching grants, designed to incentivize investments in the project among those likely to benefit from it. That design may also help address a chicken-and-egg problem that plagues independent transmission developers like Grid United, Breakthrough’s Hewett says. 

Regional utilities can pass along the costs of projects to their electricity customers. Companies like Grid United, however, generally can’t sign up the power producers that will pay to use their lines until they’ve got project approval, but they also often can’t secure traditional financing until they’ve lined up customers.

The DOE funding could ease that issue by providing an assurance of capital that would help get the project through the lengthy permitting process, Hewett says. 

“The states are benefiting, local utilities are benefiting, and the developer will benefit,” he says. “It’s a win-win-win.”

Transmission hurdles

Over the years, developers have floated various proposals to more tightly interlink the nation’s major grid systems. But it’s proved notoriously difficult to build any new transmission lines in the US—a problem that has only worsened in recent years. 

The nation is developing only 20% of the transmission capacity per year in the 2020s that it did in the early 2010s. On average, interstate transmission lines take eight to 10 years to develop “if they succeed at all,” according to a report from the Niskanen Center.

The biggest challenge in adding connections between grids, says Gramlich of Grid Strategies, is that there’s no clear processes for authorizing lines that cross multiple jurisdictions and no dedicated regional or federal agencies overseeing such proposals. The fact that numerous areas may benefit from such lines also sparks interregional squabbling over how the costs should be allocated. 

In addition, communities often balk at the sight of wires and towers, particularly if the benefits of the lines mostly accrue around the end points, not necessarily in all the areas the wires cross. Any city, county, or state, or even one landowner, can hold up a project for years, if not kill it.

But energy companies themselves share much of the blame as well. Regional energy agencies, grid operators, and utilities have actively fought proposals from independent developers to erect wires passing through their territories. They often simply don’t want to forfeit control of their systems, invite added competition, or deal with the regulatory complexity of such projects. 

The long delays in building new grid capacity have become a growing impediment to building new energy projects.

As of last year, there were 2,600 gigawatts’ worth of proposed energy generation or storage projects waiting in the wings for transmission capacity that would carry their electricity to customers, according to a recent analysis by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. That’s roughly the electricity output of 2,600 nuclear reactors, or more than double the nation’s entire power system. 

The capacity of projects in the queue has risen almost eightfold from a decade ago, and about 95% of them are solar, wind, or battery proposals.

“Grid interconnection remains a persistent bottleneck,” Joseph Rand, an energy policy researcher at the lab and the lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The legacy of Clean Line Energy

Skelly spent the aughts as the chief development officer of Horizon Wind Energy, a large US wind developer that the Portuguese energy giant EDP snapped up in 2007 for more than $2 billion. Skelly then made a spirited though ill-fated run for Congress in 2008, as the Democratic nominee for the 7th Congressional District of Texas. He ran on a pro-renewables, pro-education campaign but lost by a sizable margin in a district that was solidly Republican.

The following year, he founded Clean Line Energy Partners. The company raised tens of millions of dollars and spent a decade striving to develop five long-range transmission projects that could connect the sorts of wind projects Skelly had worked to build before.

The company did successfully earn some of the permits required for several lines. But it was forced to shut down or offload its projects amid pushback from landowner groups and politicians opposed to renewables, as well as from regional utilities and public utility commissions. 

“He was going to play in other people’s sandboxes and they weren’t exactly keen on having him in there,” says Russell Gold, author of Superpower: One Man’s Quest to Transform American Energy, which recounted Skelly’s and Clean Line Energy’s efforts and failures.

Ultimately, those obstacles dragged out the projects beyond the patience of the company’s investors, who declined to continue throwing more money at them, he says. 

The company was forced to halt the Centennial West line through New Mexico and the Rock Island project across the Midwest. In addition, it sold off its stake in the Grain Belt Express, which would stretch from Kansas to Indiana, to Invenergy; the Oklahoma portion of the Plains and Eastern line to NextEra Energy; and the Western Spirit line through New Mexico, along with an associated wind farm project, to Pattern Development. 

Clean Line Energy itself wound down in 2019.

The Western Spirit transmission line was electrified in late 2021, but the other two projects are still slogging through planning and permitting.

“These things take a long time,” Skelly says. 

For all the challenges the company faced, Gold still credits it with raising awareness about the importance and necessity of long-distance interregional transmission. He says it helped spark conversations that led the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to eventually enact rules to support regional transmission planning and encouraged other big players to focus more on building transmission lines.

“I do believe that there is a broader social, political, and commercial awareness now that the United States needs to interconnect its grids,” Gold says. 

Lessons learned

Skelly spent a few years as a senior advisor at Lazard, consulting with companies on renewable energy. But he was soon ready to take another shot at developing long-haul transmission lines and started Grid United in 2021.

The new company has proposed four transmission projects in addition to the North Plains Connector—one between Arizona and New Mexico, one between Colorado and Oklahoma, and one each within Texas and Wyoming.

Asked what he thinks the legacy of Clean Line Energy is, Skelly says it’s mixed. But he soon adds that the history of US infrastructure building is replete with projects that didn’t move ahead. The important thing, he says, is to draw the right lessons from those failures.

“When we’re smart about it, we look at the past to see what we can learn,” he says. “We certainly do that today in our business.”

Skelly says one of the biggest takeaways was that it’s important to do the expensive upfront work of meeting with landowners well in advance of applying for permitting, and to use their feedback to guide the line of the route. 

Anne Hedges, director of policy and legislative affairs at the Montana Environmental Information Center, confirms that this is the approach Grid United has taken in the region so far.

“A lot of developers seem to be more focused on drawing a straight line on a map rather than working with communities to figure out the best placement for the transmission system,” she says. “Grid United didn’t do that. They got out on the ground and talked to people and planned a route that wasn’t linear.”

The other change that may make Grid United’s project there more likely to move forward has more to do with what the industry’s learned than what Skelly has.  

Gramlich says regional grid operators and utilities have become more receptive to collaborating with developers on transmission lines—and for self-interested reasons. They’ll need greater capacity, and soon, to stay online and meet the growing energy demands of data centers, manufacturing facilities, electric vehicles, and buildings, and address the risks to power systems from extreme weather events.

Industry observers are also hopeful that an energy permitting reform bill pending in Congress, along with the added federal funding and new rules requiring transmission providers to do more advance planning, will also help accelerate development. The bipartisan bill promises to shorten the approval process for projects that are determined to be in the national interest. It would also require neighboring areas to work together on interregional transmission planning.

Hundreds of environmental groups have sharply criticized the proposal, which would also streamline approvals for certain oil and gas operations.

“This legislation guts bedrock environmental protections, endangers public health, opens up tens of millions of acres of public lands and hundreds of millions of acres of offshore waters to further oil and gas leasing, gives public lands to mining companies, and would defacto rubberstamp gas export projects that harm frontline communities and perpetuate the climate crisis,” argued a letter signed by 350.org, Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and hundreds of other groups.

But a recent analysis by Third Way, a center-left think tank in Washington, DC, found that the emissions benefits from accelerating transmission permitting could significantly outweigh the added climate pollution from the fossil-fuel provisions in the bill. It projects that the bill would, on balance, reduce global emissions by 400 million to 16.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide through 2050. 

“Guardedly optimistic” 

Grid United expects to begin applying for county and state permits in the next few months and for federal permits toward the end of the year. It hopes to begin construction within the next four years and switch the line on in 2032.

Since the applications haven’t been made, it’s not clear what individuals or groups are or will be opposed to it—though, given the history of such projects, some will surely object.

Hedges says the Montana Environmental Information Center is reserving judgment until it sees the actual application. She says the organization will be particularly focused on any potential impact on water and wildlife across the region, “making sure that they’re not harming what are already struggling resources in this area.”

So if Skelly was too early with his last company, the obvious question is: Are the market, regulatory, and societal conditions now ripe for interregional transmission lines?

“We’re gonna find out if they are, right?” he says. “We don’t know yet.”

Skelly adds that he doesn’t think the US is going to build as much transmission as it needs to. But he does believe we’ll start to see more projects moving forward—including, he hopes, the North Plains Connector.

“You just can’t count on anything, and you’ve just got to keep going and push, push, push,” he says. “But we’re making good progress. There’s a lot of utility interest. We have a big grant from the DOE, which will help bring down the cost of the project. So knock on wood, we’re guardedly optimistic.”

Addressing climate change impacts

The reality of climate change has spurred enormous public and private investment worldwide, funding initiatives to mitigate its effects and to adapt to its impacts. That investment has spawned entire industries and countless new businesses, resulting in the creation of new green jobs and contributions to economic growth. In the United States, this includes the single largest climate-related investment in the country’s history, made in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

For most US businesses, however, the costs imposed by climate change and the future risks it poses will outweigh growth opportunities afforded by the green sector. In a survey of 300 senior US executives conducted by MIT Technology Review, every respondent agrees that climate change is either harming the economy today or will do so in the future. Most expect their organizations to contend with extreme weather, such as severe storms, flooding, and extreme heat, in the near term. Respondents also report their businesses are already incurring costs related to climate change.

This research examines how US businesses view their climate change risk and the steps they are taking to adapt to climate change’s impacts. The results make clear that climate considerations, such as frequency of extreme weather and access to natural resources, are now a prime factor in businesses’ site location decisions. As climate change accelerates, such considerations are certain to grow in importance.

Key findings include the following:

Businesses are weighing relocation due to climate risks. Most executives in the survey (62%) deem their physical infrastructure (some or all of it) exposed to the impacts of climate change, with 20% reporting it is “very exposed.” A full 75% of respondents report their organization has considered relocating due to climate risk, with 6% indicating they have concrete plans to relocate facilities within the next five years due to climate factors. And 24% report they have already relocated physical infrastructure to prepare for climate change impacts.

Companies must lock in the costs of climate change adaptation. Nearly all US businesses have already suffered from the effects of climate change, judging by the survey. Weighing most heavily thus far, and likely in the future, are increases in operational costs (affecting 64%) and insurance premiums (63%), as well as disruption to operations (61%) and damage to infrastructure (55%).

Executives know climate change is here, and many are planning for it. Four-fifths (81%) of survey respondents deem climate planning and preparedness important to their business, and one-third describe it as very important. There is a seeming lag at some companies, however, at translating this perceived importance into actual planning: only 62% have developed a climate change adaptation plan, and 52% have conducted a climate risk assessment.

Climate-planning resources are a key criterion in site location. When judging a potential new business site on its climate mitigation features, 71% of executives highlight the availability of climate-planning resources as among their top criteria. Nearly two-thirds (64%) also cite the importance of a location’s access to critical natural resources.

Though climate change will affect everyone, its risks and impacts vary by region. No US region is immune to climate change: a majority of surveyed businesses in every region have experienced at least some negative climate change impacts. However, respondents believe the risks are lowest in the Midwest, with nearly half of respondents (47%) naming that region as least exposed to climate change risk.

Download the full report.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

How AI can help spot wildfires

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

In February 2024, a broken utility pole brought down power lines near the small town of Stinnett, Texas. In the following weeks, the fire reportedly sparked by that equipment grew to burn over 1 million acres, the biggest wildfire in the state’s history.

Anything from stray fireworks to lightning strikes can start a wildfire. While it’s natural for many ecosystems to see some level of fire activity, the hotter, drier conditions brought on by climate change are fueling longer fire seasons with larger fires that burn more land.

This means that the need to spot wildfires earlier is becoming ever more crucial, and some groups are turning to technology to help. My colleague James Temple just wrote about a new effort from Google to fund an AI-powered wildfire-spotting satellite constellation. Read his full story for the details, and in the meantime, let’s dig into how this project fits into the world of fire-detection tech and some of the challenges that lie ahead.

The earliest moments in the progression of a fire can be crucial. Today, many fires are reported to authorities by bystanders who happen to spot them and call emergency services. Technologies could help officials by detecting fires earlier, well before they grow into monster blazes.

One such effort is called FireSat. It’s a project from the Earth Fire Alliance, a collaboration between Google’s nonprofit and research arms, the Environmental Defense Fund, Muon Space (a satellite company), and others. This planned system of 52 satellites should be able to spot fires as small as five by five meters (about 16 feet by 16 feet), and images will refresh every 20 minutes.

These wouldn’t be the first satellites to help with wildfire detection, but many existing efforts can either deliver high-resolution images or refresh often—not both, as the new project is aiming to do.

A startup based in Germany, called OroraTech, is also working to launch new satellites that specialize in wildfire detection. The small satellites (around the size of a shoebox) will orbit close to Earth and use sensors that detect heat. The company’s long-term goal is to launch 100 of the satellites into space and deliver images every 30 minutes.

Other companies are staying on Earth, deploying camera stations that can help officials identify, confirm, and monitor fires. Pano AI is using high-tech camera stations to try to spot fires earlier. The company mounts cameras on high vantage points, like the tops of mountains, and spins them around to get a full 360-degree view of the surrounding area. It says the tech can spot wildfire activity within a 15-mile radius. The cameras pair up with algorithms to automatically send an alert to human analysts when a potential fire is detected.

Having more tools to help detect wildfires is great. But whenever I hear about such efforts, I’m struck by a couple of major challenges for this field. 

First, prevention of any sort can often be undervalued, since a problem that never happens feels much less urgent than one that needs to be solved.

Pano AI, which has a few camera stations deployed, points to examples in which its technology detected fires earlier than bystander reports. In one case in Oregon, the company’s system issued a warning 14 minutes before the first emergency call came in, according to a report given to TechCrunch.

Intuitively, it makes sense that catching a blaze early is a good thing. And modeling can show what might have happened if a fire hadn’t been caught early. But it’s really difficult to determine the impact of something that didn’t happen. These systems will need to be deployed for a long time, and researchers will need to undertake large-scale, systematic studies, before we’ll be able to say for sure how effective they are at preventing damaging fires. 

The prospect of cost is also a tricky piece of this for me to wrap my head around. It’s in the public interest to prevent wildfires that will end up producing greenhouse-gas emissions, not to mention endangering human lives. But who’s going to pay for that?

Each of PanoAI’s stations costs something like $50,000 per year. The company’s customers include utilities, which have a vested interest in making sure their equipment doesn’t start fires and watching out for blazes that could damage its infrastructure.

The electric utility Xcel, whose equipment allegedly sparked that fire in Texas earlier this year, is facing lawsuits over its role. And utilities can face huge costs after fires. Last year’s deadly blazes in Hawaii caused billions of dollars in damages, and Hawaiian Electric recently agreed to pay roughly $2 billion for its role in those fires. 

The proposed satellite system from the Earth Fire Alliance will cost more than $400 million all told. The group has secured about two-thirds of what it needs for the first phase of the program, which includes the first four launches, but it’ll need to raise a lot more money to make its AI-powered wildfire-detecting satellite constellation a reality.


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Read more about how an AI-powered satellite constellation can help spot wildfires faster here

Other companies are aiming to use balloons that will surf on wind currents to track fires. Urban Sky is deploying balloons in Colorado this year

Satellite images can also be used to tally up the damage and emissions caused by fires. Earlier this year I wrote about last year’s Canadian wildfires, which produced more emissions than the fossil fuels in most countries in 2023. 

Another thing

We’re just two weeks away from EmTech MIT, our signature event on emerging technologies. I’ll be on stage speaking with tech leaders on topics like net-zero buildings and emissions from Big Tech. We’ll also be revealing our 2024 list of Climate Tech Companies to Watch. 

For a preview of the event, check out this conversation I had with MIT Technology Review executive editor Amy Nordrum and editor in chief Mat Honan. You can register to join us on September 30 and October 1 at the MIT campus or online—hope to see you there!

Keeping up with climate  

The US Postal Service is finally getting its long-awaited electric vehicles. They’re funny-looking, and the drivers seem to love them already. (Associated Press)

→ Check out this timeline I made in December 2022 of the multi-year saga it took for the agency to go all in on EVs. (MIT Technology Review)

Microsoft is billing itself as a leader in AI for climate innovation. At the same time, the tech giant is selling its technology to oil and gas companies. Check out this fascinating investigation from my former colleague Karen Hao. (The Atlantic)

Imagine solar panels that aren’t affected by a cloudy day … because they’re in space. Space-based solar power sounds like a dream, but advances in solar tech and falling launch costs have proponents arguing that it’s a dream closer than ever to becoming reality. Many are still skeptical. (Cipher)

Norway is the first country with more EVs on the road than gas-powered cars. Diesel vehicles are still the most common, though. (Washington Post

The emissions cost of delivering Amazon packages keeps ticking up. A new report from Stand.earth estimates that delivery emissions have increased by 75% since just 2019. (Wired)

BYD has been dominant in China’s EV market. The company is working to expand, but to compete in the UK and Europe, it will need to win over wary drivers. (Bloomberg)

Some companies want to make air-conditioning systems in big buildings smarter to help cut emissions. Grid-interactive efficient buildings can cut energy costs and demand at peak hours. (Canary Media)

Google is funding an AI-powered satellite constellation that will spot wildfires faster

Early next year, Google and its partners plan to launch the first in a series of satellites that together would provide close-up, frequently refreshed images of wildfires around the world, offering data that could help firefighters battle blazes more rapidly, effectively, and safely.

The online search giant’s nonprofit and research arms have collaborated with the Moore Foundation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the satellite company Muon Space, and others to deploy 52 satellites equipped with custom-developed sensors over the coming years. 

The FireSat satellites will be able to spot fires as small as 5 by 5 meters (16 by 16 feet) on any speck of the globe. Once the full constellation is in place, the system should be capable of updating those images about every 20 minutes, the group says.

Those capabilities together would mark a significant upgrade over what’s available from the satellites that currently provide data to fire agencies. Generally, they can provide either high-resolution images that aren’t updated rapidly enough to track fires closely or frequently refreshed images that are relatively low-resolution.

The Earth Fire Alliance collaboration will also leverage Google’s AI wildfire tools, which have been trained to detect early indications of wildfires and track their progression, to draw additional insights from the data.

The images and analysis will be provided free to fire agencies around the world, helping to improve understanding of where fires are, where they’re moving, and how hot they’re burning. The information could help agencies stamp out small fires before they turn into raging infernos, place limited firefighting resources where they’ll do the most good, and evacuate people along the safest paths.

“In the satellite image of the Earth, a lot of things can be mistaken for a fire: a glint, a hot roof, smoke from another fire,” says Chris Van Arsdale, climate and energy research lead at Google Research and chairman of the Earth Fire Alliance. “Detecting fires becomes a game of looking for needles in a world of haystacks. Solving this will enable first responders to act quickly and precisely when a fire is detected.”

Some details of FireSat were unveiled earlier this year. But the organizations involved will announce additional information about their plans today, including the news that Google.org, the company’s charitable arm, has provided $13 million to the program and that the inaugural launch is scheduled to occur next year. 

Reducing the fog of war

The news comes as large fires rage across millions of acres in the western US, putting people and property at risk. The blazes include the Line Fire in Southern California, the Shoe Fly Fire in central Oregon, and the Davis Fire south of Reno, Nevada.

Wildfires have become more frequent, extreme, and dangerous in recent decades. That, in part, is a consequence of climate change: Rising temperatures suck the moisture from trees, shrubs, and grasses. But fires increasingly contribute to global warming as well. A recent study found that the fires that scorched millions of acres across Canada last year pumped out 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide, four times the annual pollution produced by the airline industry.

GOOGLE

Humans have also increased fire risk by suppressing natural fires for decades, which has allowed fuel to build up in forests and grasslands, and by constructing communities on the edge of wilderness boundaries without appropriate rules, materials, and safeguards

Observers say that FireSat could play an important role in combating fires, both by enabling fire agencies to extinguish small ones before they grow into large ones and by informing effective strategies for battling them once they’re crossed that point.

“What these satellites will do is reduce the fog of war,” says Michael Wara, director of the climate and energy policy program at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, who is focused on fire policy issues. “Like when a situation is really dynamic and very dangerous for firefighters and they’re trying to make decisions very quickly about whether to move in to defend structures or try to evacuate people.” 

(Wara serves on the advisory board of the Moore Foundation’s Wildfire Resilience Initiative.)

Some areas, like California, already have greater visibility into the current state of fires or early signs of outbreaks, thanks to technology like Department of Defense satellites, remote camera networks, and planes, helicopters, and drones. But FireSat will be especially helpful for “countries that have less-well-resourced wildland fighting capability,” Wara adds.

Better images, more data, and AI will not be able to fully counter the increased fire dangers. Wara and other fire experts argue that regions need to use prescribed burns and other efforts to more aggressively reduce the buildup of fuel, rethink where and how we build communities in fire-prone areas, and do more to fund and support the work of firefighters on the ground. 

Sounding an earlier alarm for fires will only help reduce dangers when regions have, or develop, the added firefighting resources needed to combat the most dangerous ones quickly and effectively. Communities will also need to put in place better policies to determine what types of fires should be left to burn, and under what conditions.

‘A game changer’

Kate Dargan Marquis, a senior wildfire advisor to the Moore Foundation who previously served as state fire marshal for California, says she can “personally attest” to the difference that such tools will make to firefighters in the field.

“It is a game changer, especially as wildfires are becoming more extreme, more frequent, and more dangerous for everyone,” she says. “Information like this will make a lifesaving difference for firefighters and communities around the globe.”

Kate Dargan Marquis, senior advisor, Moore Foundation.
GOOGLE

Google Research developed the sensors for the satellite and tested them as well as the company’s AI fire detection models by conducting flights over controlled burns in California. Google intends to work with Earth Fire Alliance “to ensure AI can help make this data as useful as possible, and also that wildfire information is shared as widely as possible,” the company said.

Google’s Van Arsdale says that providing visual images of every incident around the world from start to finish will be enormously valuable to scientists studying wildfires and climate change. 

“We can combine this data with Google’s existing models of the Earth to help advance our understanding of fire behavior and fire dynamics across all of Earth’s ecosystems,” he says. “All this together really has the potential to help mitigate the environmental and social impact of fire while also improving people’s health and safety.”

Specifically, it could improve assessments of fire risk, as well as our understanding of the most effective means of preventing or slowing the spread of fires. For instance, it could help communities determine where it would be most cost-effective to remove trees and underbrush. 

Figuring out the best ways to conduct such interventions is another key goal of the program, given their high cost and the limited funds available for managing wildlands, says Genny Biggs, the program director for the Moore Foundation’s Wildfire Resilience Initiative.

The launch

The idea for FireSat grew out of a series of meetings that began with a 2019 workshop hosted by the Moore Foundation, which provided the first philanthropic funding for the program. 

The first satellite, scheduled to be launched aboard a SpaceX rocket early next year, will be fully functional aside from some data transmission features. The goals of the “protoflight” mission include testing the onboard systems and the data they send back. The Earth Fire Alliance will work with a handful of early-adopter agencies to prepare for the next phases. 

The group intends to launch three fully operational satellites in 2026, with additional deployments in the years that follow. Muon Space will build and operate the satellites. 

Agencies around the world should be able to receive hourly wildfire updates once about half of the constellation is operational, says Brian Collins, executive director of the Earth Fire Alliance. It hopes to launch all 52 satellites by around the end of this decade.

Each satellite is designed to last about five years, so the organization will eventually need to deploy 10 more each year to maintain the constellation.

The Earth Fire Alliance has secured about two-thirds of the funding it needs for the first phase of the program, which includes the first four launches. The organization will need to raise additional money from government agencies, international organizations, philanthropies, and other groups  to deploy, maintain, and operate the full constellation. It estimates the total cost will exceed $400 million, which Collins notes “is 1/1000th of the economic losses due to extreme wildfires annually in the US alone.”

Asked if commercial uses of the data could also support the program, including potentially military ones, Collins said in an email: “Adjacent applications range from land use management and agriculture to risk management and industrial impact and mitigation.” 

“At the same time, we know that as large agencies and government agencies adopt FireSat data to support a broad public safety mandate, they may develop all-hazard, emergenc[y] management, and security related uses of data,” he added. “As long as opportunities are in balance with our charter to advance a global approach to wildfire and climate resilience, we welcome new ideas and applications of our data.”

‘Living with fire’

A wide variety of startups have emerged in recent years promising to use technology to reduce the frequency and severity of wildfires—for example, by installing cameras and sensors in forests and grasslands, developing robots to carry out controlled burns, deploying autonomous helicopters that can drop suppressant, and harnessing AI to predict wildfire behavior and inform forest and fire management strategies

So far, even with all these new tools, it’s still been difficult for communities to keep pace with the rising dangers.

Dargan Marquis—who founded her own wildfire software company, Intterra—says she is confident the incidence of disastrous fires can be meaningfully reduced with programs like FireSat, along with other improved technologies and policies. But she says it’s likely to take decades to catch up with the growing risks, as the world continues warming up.

“We’re going to struggle in places like California, these Mediterranean climates around the world, while our technology and our capabilities and our inventions, etc., catch up with that level of the problem,” she says. 

“We can turn that corner,” she adds. “If we work together on a comprehensive strategy with the right data and a convincing plan over the next 50 years, I do think that by the end of the century, we absolutely can be living with fire.”

Meet 2024’s climate innovators under 35

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

One way to know where a field is going? Take a look at what the sharpest new innovators are working on.

Good news for all of us: MIT Technology Review’s list of 35 Innovators Under 35 just dropped. And a decent number of the people who made the list are working in fields that touch climate and energy in one way or another.

Looking through, I noticed a few trends that might provide some hints about the future of climate tech. Let’s dig into this year’s list and consider what these innovators’ work might mean for efforts to combat climate change.

Power to the people

Perhaps unsurprisingly, quite a few innovators on this list are working on energy—and many of them have an interest in making energy consistently available where and when it’s needed. Wind and solar are getting cheap, but we need solutions for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

Tim Latimer cofounded Fervo Energy, a geothermal company hoping to provide consistently available, carbon-free energy using Earth’s heat. You may be familiar with his work, since Fervo was on our list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch in 2023.

Another energy-focused innovator on the list is Andrew Ponec of Antora Energy, a company working to build thermal energy storage systems. Basically, the company’s technology heats up blocks when cheap renewables are available, and then stores that heat and delivers it to industrial processes that need constant power. (You, the readers, named thermal energy storage the readers’ choice on this year’s 10 Breakthrough Technologies list.)

Rock stars

While new ways of generating electricity and storing energy can help cut our emissions in the future, other people are focused on how to clean up the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. At this point, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is basically required for any scenario where we limit warming to 1.5 °C over preindustrial levels. A few of the new class of innovators are turning to rocks for help soaking up and locking away atmospheric carbon. 

Noah McQueen cofounded Heirloom Carbon Technologies, a carbon removal company. The technology works by tweaking the way minerals soak up carbon dioxide from the air (before releasing it under controlled conditions, so they can do it all again). The company has plans for facilities that could remove hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide each year. 

Another major area of research focuses on how we might store captured carbon dioxide. Claire Nelson is the cofounder of Cella Mineral Storage, a company working on storage methods to better trap carbon dioxide underground once it’s been mopped up.  

Material world

Finally, some of the most interesting work on our new list of innovators is in materials. Some people are finding new ones that could help us address our toughest problems, and others are trying to reinvent old ones to clean up their climate impacts.

Julia Carpenter found a way to make a foam-like material from metal. Its high surface area makes it a stellar heat sink, meaning it can help cool things down efficiently. It could be a huge help in data centers, where 40% of energy demand goes to cooling.

And I spoke with Cody Finke, cofounder and CEO of Brimstone, a company working on cleaner ways of making cement. Cement alone is responsible for nearly 7% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and about half of those come from chemical reactions necessary to make it. Finke and Brimstone are working to wipe out the need for these reactions by using different starting materials to make this crucial infrastructural glue.

Addressing climate change is a sprawling challenge, but the researchers and founders on this list are tackling a few of the biggest issues I think about every day. 

Ensuring that we can power our grid, and all the industrial processes that we rely on for the stuff in our daily lives, is one of the most substantial remaining challenges. Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in an efficient, cheap process could help limit future warming and buy us time to clean up the toughest sectors. And finding new materials, and new methods of producing old ones, could be a major key to unlocking new climate solutions. 

To read more about the folks I mentioned here and other innovators working in climate change and beyond, check out the full list.


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Fervo Energy (cofounded by 2024 innovator Tim Latimer) showed last year that its wells can be used like a giant underground battery.

A growing number of companies—including Antora Energy, whose CEO Andrew Ponec is a 2024 innovator—are working to bring thermal energy storage systems to heavy industry.

Cement is one of our toughest challenges, as Brimstone CEO and 2024 innovator Cody Finke will tell you. I wrote about Brimstone and other efforts to reinvent cement earlier this year.

A plant with yellow flowers

Another thing

We need a whole lot of metals to address climate change, from the copper in transmission lines to the nickel in lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles. Some researchers think plants might be able to help. 

Roughly 750 species of plants are so-called hyperaccumulators, meaning they naturally soak up and tolerate relatively high concentrations of metal. A new program is funding research into how we might use this trait to help source nickel, and potentially other metals, in the future. Read the full story here.

Keeping up with climate  

A hurricane that recently formed in the Gulf of Mexico is headed for Louisiana, ending an eerily quiet few weeks of the season. (Scientific American)

→ After forecasters predicted a particularly active season, the lull in hurricane activity was surprising. (New Scientist)

Rising sea levels are one of the symptoms of a changing climate, but nailing down exactly what “sea level” means is more complicated than you might think. We’ve gotten better at measuring sea level over the past few centuries, though. (New Yorker)

The US Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office has nearly $400 million in lending authority. This year’s election could shift the focus of that office drastically, making it a bellwether of how the results could affect energy priorities. (Bloomberg)

What if fusion power ends up working, but it’s too expensive to play a significant role on the grid? Some modelers think the technology will remain expensive and could come too late to make a dent in emissions. (Heatmap)

Electric-vehicle sales are up overall, but some major automakers are backing away from goals on zero-emissions vehicles. Even though sales are increasing, uptake is slower than many thought it would be, contributing to the nervous energy in the industry. (Canary Media)

It’s a tough time to be in the business of next-generation batteries. The woes of three startups reveal that difficult times are here, likely for a while. (The Information)

A brief guide to the greenhouse gases driving climate change

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

For the last week or so, I’ve been obsessed with a gas that I’d never given much thought to before. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is used in high-voltage equipment on the grid. It’s also, somewhat inconveniently, a monster greenhouse gas. 

Greenhouse gases are those that trap heat in the atmosphere. SF6 and other fluorinated gases can be thousands of times more powerful at warming the planet than carbon dioxide, and yet, because they tend to escape in relatively small amounts, we hardly ever talk about them. Taken alone, their effects might be minor compared with those of carbon dioxide, but together, these gases add significantly to the challenge of addressing climate change. 

For more on the specifics of sulfur hexafluoride, check out my story from earlier this week. And in the meantime, here’s a quick cheat sheet on the most important greenhouse gases you need to know about. 

Carbon dioxide: The leading actor

I couldn’t in good conscience put together a list of greenhouse gases and not at least mention the big one. Human activities released 37.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2023. It’s the most abundant greenhouse gas we emit, and the most significant one driving climate change. 

It’s difficult to nail down exactly how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere, since the gas participates in a global carbon cycle—some will immediately be soaked up by oceans, forests, or other ecosystems, while the rest lingers in the atmosphere for centuries. 

Carbon dioxide comes from nearly every corner of our economy—the largest source is power plants, followed by transportation and then industrial activities. 

Methane: The flash in the pan

Methane is also a powerful contributor to climate change, making up about 30% of the warming we’ve experienced to date, even though carbon dioxide is roughly 200 times more abundant in the atmosphere. 

What’s most different about methane is that the gas is very short-lived, having a lifetime of somewhere around a decade in the atmosphere before it breaks down. But in that time, methane can cause about 86 times more warming than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. (Quick side note: Comparisons of greenhouse gases are usually made over a specific period of time, since gases all have different lifetimes and there’s no one number that can represent the complexity of atmospheric chemistry and physics.)

Methane’s largest sources are the fossil-fuel industry, agriculture, and waste. Cutting down leaks from the process of extracting oil and gas is one of the most straightforward and currently available ways to slim down methane emissions. There’s a growing movement to track methane more accurately—with satellites, among other techniques—and hold accountable the oil and gas companies that are releasing the most. 

Nitrous oxide: No laughing matter

You may have come across nitrous oxide at the dentist, where it might be called “laughing gas.” But its effects on climate change are serious, as the gas makes up about 6% of warming to date

Nitrous oxide emissions come almost entirely from agriculture. Applying certain nitrogen-based fertilizers can release the gas as bacteria break those chemicals down. Emissions can also come from burning certain agricultural wastes. 

Nitrous oxide emissions grew roughly 40% from 1980 to 2020. The gas lasts in the atmosphere for roughly a century, and over that time it can trap over 200 times more heat than carbon dioxide does in the same period. 

Cutting down on these emissions will largely require careful adjustment of soil management practices in agriculture. Decreasing use of synthetic fertilizers, applying the fertilizer we do use more efficiently, and choosing products that eliminate as many emissions as possible will be the main levers we can pull.

Fluorinated gases: The quiet giants

Last but certainly not least, fluorinated gases are some of the most powerful greenhouse gases that we emit. A variety of them fall under this umbrella, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and SF6. They last for centuries (or even millennia) in the atmosphere and have some eye-popping effects, with each having at least 10,000 times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide. 

HFCs are refrigerants, used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and similar appliances. One major area of research in heat pumps seeks alternative refrigerants that don’t have the same potential to warm the planet. The chemicals are also used in aerosol cans (think hair spray), as well as in fire retardants and solvents. 

SF6 is used in high-voltage power equipment, and it’s the single worst greenhouse gas that’s been covered by the International Panel on Climate change, clocking in at 23,500 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over the course of a century. Scientists are trying to find alternatives, but it’s turning out to be a difficult switch—as you’ll see if you read my latest story.

The good news is that we know change is possible when it comes to fluorinated gases. We’ve already moved away from one category, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These were generally used in the same industries that use HFCs today, but they had the nasty habit of tearing a hole in the ozone layer. The 1987 Montreal Protocol successfully spurred a phaseout of CFCs, and we would be on track for significantly more warming without the change.


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Some scientists want to speed up or encourage chemical reactions that remove methane from the atmosphere, including researchers and companies who aim to spray iron particles above the ocean

Methane can come from food waste, and some companies want to capture that gas and use it for energy instead of allowing it to escape into the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide emissions from aviation are only one source of the industry’s climate impact. Planes also emit clouds of water vapor and particulate matter called contrails, and they’re a huge cause of the warming from air travel. Rerouting planes could help.

Another thing

We’re inching closer to climate tipping points, thresholds where ecosystems and planetary processes can create feedback loops or rapid shifts. A UK research agency just launched a $106 million effort to develop early warning systems that could alert us if we get dangerously close to these tipping points. 

The agency will focus on two main areas: the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the weakening of the North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre. Read more about the program’s goals in my colleague James Temple’s latest story.

Keeping up with climate  

Volkswagen has thrown over $20 billion at EV, battery, and software startups over the past six years. Experts aren’t sure this shotgun approach is helping the automaker compete on electric cars. (The Information)

We’re finally starting to understand how clouds affect climate change. Clouds reflect light back into space, but they also trap heat in the atmosphere. Researchers are starting to puzzle out how this will add up in our future climate. (New Scientist)

Vehicles in the US just keep getting bigger, and the trend is deadly. Larger vehicles are safer for their occupants but more dangerous for everyone around them. (The Economist)

→ Big cars can also be a problem for climate change, since they require bigger batteries and more power to get around. (MIT Technology Review)

The plant-based-meat industry has had trouble converting consumers in the US, and sales are on the decline. Now advocates are appealing to Congress for help. (Vox)

Last Energy wants to build small nuclear reactors, and the startup just secured $40 million in funding. The company is claiming that it can meet aggressive timelines and says it’ll bring its first reactor online as early as 2026 in Europe. (Canary Media)

There could be 43 million tons of wind turbine blades in landfills by 2050. Researchers say they’ve found alternative materials for the blades that could make them recyclable. (New York Times)

→ Other research aims to recycle the fiberglass in current blades using chemical methods. (MIT Technology Review)

The last coal-fired power plant in the UK is set to shut down at the end of the month. The facility just accepted its final fuel delivery. (BBC

How plants could mine metals from the soil

Nickel may not grow on trees—but there’s a chance it could someday be mined using plants. Many plant species naturally soak up metal and concentrate it in their tissues, and new funding will support research on how to use that trait for plant-based mining, or phytomining. 

Seven phytomining projects just received $9.9 million in funding from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). The goal is to better understand which plants could help with mining and determine how researchers can tweak them to get our hands on all the critical metals we’ll need in the future.

Metals like nickel, crucial for the lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, are in high demand. But building new mines to meet that demand can be difficult because the mining industry has historically faced community backlash, often over environmental concerns. New mining technologies could help diversify the supply of crucial metals and potentially offer alternatives to traditional mines.  

“Everyone wants to talk about opening a new gigafactory, but no one wants to talk about opening a new mine,” says Philseok Kim, program director at ARPA-E for the phytomining project. The agency saw a need for sustainable, responsible new mining technologies, even if they’re a major departure from what’s currently used in the industry. Phytomining is a prime example. “It’s a crazy idea,” Kim says.

Roughly 750 species of plants are known to be hyperaccumulators, meaning they soak up large amounts of metals and hold them within their tissues, Kim says. The plants, which tend to absorb these metals along with other nutrients in the soil, have adapted to tolerate them.

Of the species known to take in and concentrate metals, more than two-thirds do so with nickel. While nickel is generally toxic to plants at high concentrations, these species have evolved to thrive in nickel-rich soils, which are common in some parts of the world where geologic processes have brought the metal to the surface. 

Even in hyperaccumulators, the overall level of nickel in a plant’s tissues would still be relatively small—something like one milligram of metal for every gram of dried plant material. But burning a dried plant (which largely removes the organic material) can result in ash that’s roughly 25% nickel or even higher.

The sheer number of nickel-tolerant plants, plus the metal’s importance for energy technologies, made it the natural focus for early research, Kim says.

But while plants already have a head start on nickel mining, it wouldn’t be feasible to start commercial operations with them today. The most efficient known hyperaccumulators might be able to produce 50 to 100 kilograms of nickel per hectare of land each year, Kim says. That would yield enough of the metal for just two to four EV batteries, on average, and require more land than a typical soccer field. The research program will aim to boost that yield to at least 250 kilograms per hectare in an attempt to improve the prospects for economical mining.

The seven projects being funded will aim to increase production in several ways. Some of the researchers are hunting for species that accumulate nickel even more efficiently than known species. One candidate is vetiver, a perennial grass that grows deep roots. It’s known to accumulate metals like lead and is often used in cleanup projects, so it could be a good prospect for soaking up other metals like nickel, says Rupali Datta, a biology researcher at Michigan Technological University and head of one of the projects.

Another awardee will examine over 100,000 herbarium samples—preserved and catalogued plant specimens. Using a technique called x-ray fluorescence scanning, the researchers will look for nickel in those plants’ tissues in the hopes of identifying new hyperaccumulator species. 

Other researchers are looking to boost the mining talents of known nickel hyperaccumulators. One problem with many of the established options is that they don’t have very high biomass—in other words, they’re small. So even if the plant has a relatively high concentration of nickel in its tissues, each plant will collect only a small amount of the metal. Researchers want to tweak the known hyperaccumulators to plump them up—for example, by giving them bigger root systems that would allow them to reach deeper into the soil for metal.

Another potential way to improve nickel uptake is to change the plants’ growth cycle. Most perennial plants will basically stop growing once they flower, says Richard Amasino, a biochemistry researcher at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. So one of his goals for the project is figuring out a way to delay flowering in Odontarrhena, a family of plants with bright yellow flowers, so they have more time to soak up nickel before they quit growing for the season.

Researchers are also working with these known target species to make sure they won’t become invasive in the places they’re planted. For example, Odontarrhena are native to Europe, and researchers want to make sure they wouldn’t run wild and disrupt natural ecosystems if they’re brought to the US or other climates where they’d grow well.

Hyperaccumulating plants are already used in mineral exploration, but they likely won’t be able to produce the high volumes of nickel we mine today, Simon Jowitt, director of the Center for Research in Economic Geology at the University of Nevada, Reno, said in an email. But plants might be a feasible solution for dealing with mine waste, he said. 

There’s also the question of what will happen once plants suck up the metals from a given area of soil. According to Jowitt, that layer may need to be removed to access more metal from the lower layers after a crop is planted and harvested. 

In addition to identifying and altering target species, researchers on all these projects need to gain a better understanding where plants might be grown and whether and how natural processes like groundwater movement might replenish target metals in the soil, Kim says. Also, scientists will need to analyze the environmental sustainability of phytomining, he adds. For example, burning plants to produce nickel-rich ash will lead to greenhouse-gas emissions. 

Even so, addressing climate change is all about making and installing things, Kim adds, and we need lots of materials to do that. Phytomining may be able to help in the future. “This is something we believe is possible,” Kim says, “but it’s extremely hard.”

The race to replace the powerful greenhouse gas that underpins the power grid

The power grid is underpinned by a single gas that is used to insulate a range of high-voltage equipment. The problem is, it’s also a super powerful greenhouse gas, a nightmare for climate change.

Sulfur hexafluoride (or SF6) is far from the most common gas that warms the planet, contributing around 1% of warming to date—carbon dioxide and methane are much more well-known and abundant. However, like many other fluorinated gases, SF6 is especially potent: It traps about 20,000 times more energy than carbon dioxide does over the course of a century, and it can last in the atmosphere for 1,000 years or more.

Despite their relatively small contributions so far, emissions of the gas are ticking up, and the growth rate has been climbing every year. SF6 emissions in China nearly doubled between 2011 and 2021, accounting for more than half the world’s emissions of the gas.

Now, companies are looking to do away with equipment that relies on the gas and searching for replacements that can match its performance. Last week, Hitachi Energy announced it’s producing new equipment that replaces SF6 with other materials. And there’s momentum building to ban SF6 in the power industry, including a recently passed plan in the European Union that will phase out the gas’s use in high-voltage equipment by 2032. 

As equipment manufacturers work to produce alternatives, some researchers say that we should go even further and are trying to find solutions that avoid fluorine-containing materials entirely.

High voltage, high stakes

You probably have a circuit-breaker box in your home—if a circuit gets overloaded, the breaker flips, stopping the flow of electricity. The power grid has something similar, called switchgear.  

The difference is, it often needs to handle something like a million times more energy than your home’s equipment does, says Markus Heimbach, executive vice president and managing director of the high-voltage products business unit at Hitachi Energy. That’s because parts of the power grid operate at high voltages, allowing them to move energy around while losing as little as possible. Those high voltages require careful insulation at all times and safety measures in case something goes wrong.

Some switchgear uses the same materials as your home circuit-breaker boxes—there’s air around it to insulate it. But when it’s scaled up to handle high voltage, it ends up being gigantic and requiring a large land footprint, making it inconvenient for larger, denser cities.

The solution today is SF6, “a super gas, from a technology point of view,” Heimbach says. It’s able to insulate equipment during normal operation and help interrupt current when needed. And the whole thing has a much smaller footprint than air-insulated equipment.

The problem is, small amounts of SF6 leak out of equipment during normal operation, and more can be released during a failure or when old equipment isn’t handled properly. When the gas escapes, its strong ability to trap heat and the fact that it has such a long lifetime makes it a menace in the atmosphere.

Some governments will soon ban the gas for the power industry, which makes up the vast majority of the emissions. The European Union agreed to ban SF6-containing medium-voltage switchgear by 2030, and high-voltage switchgear that uses the gas by 2032. Several states in the US have proposed or adopted limits and phaseouts.

Making changes 

Hitachi Energy recently announced it’s producing high-voltage switchgear that can handle up to 550 kilovolts (kV). The model follows products rated for 420 kV the company began installing in 2023—there are more than 250 booked by customers today, Heimbach says.  

Hitachi Energy’s new switchgear substitutes SF6 with a gas mixture that contains mostly carbon dioxide and oxygen. It works as well as SF6 and is as safe and reliable but with a much lower global warming potential, trapping 99% less energy in the atmosphere, Heimbach says. 

However, for some of its new equipment, Hitachi Energy still uses some C4-fluoronitriles, which helps with insulation, Heimbach says. This gas is present at a low fraction, less than 5% of the mixture, and it’s less potent than SF6, Heimbach says. But C4-fluoronitriles are still powerful greenhouse gases, up to a few thousand times more potent than carbon dioxide. These and other fluorinated substances could soon be in trouble too—chemical giant 3M announced in late 2022 that the company would stop manufacturing all fluoropolymers, fluorinated fluids, and PFAS-additive products by 2025.

In order to eliminate the need for fluorine-containing gases, some researchers are looking into the grid’s past for alternatives. “We know that there’s no one-for-one replacement gas that has the properties of SF6,” says Lukas Graber, an associate professor in electrical engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology.

SF6 is both extremely stable and extremely electronegative, meaning it tends to grab onto free electrons, and nothing else can quite match it, Graber says. So he’s working on a research project that aims to replace SF6 gas with supercritical carbon dioxide. (Supercritical fluids are those at temperatures and pressures so high that distinct liquid and gas phases don’t quite exist.) The inspiration came from equipment that used to use oil-based materials—instead of trying to grab electrons like SF6, supercritical carbon dioxide can basically slow them down.

Graber and his research team received project funding from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy. The first small-scale prototype is nearly finished, he adds, and the plan is to test out a full-scale prototype in 2025.

Utilities are known for being conservative, since the safety and reliability of the electrical grid have high stakes, Hitachi Energy’s Heimbach says. But with more SF6 bans coming, they’ll need to find and adopt solutions that don’t rely on the gas.