Jan 28 2024
The contentious path to a cleaner future

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

The world is building solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and other crucial climate technologies faster than ever. As the pace picks up, though, a challenge is looming: we need a whole lot of materials to build it all. 

From cement and steel to nickel and lithium, the ingredient list for the clean energy transition is a long one. And in some cases, getting our hands on all those materials won’t be simple, and the trade-offs are starting to become abundantly clear. 

My colleague James Temple, senior editor for energy here at MIT Technology Review, has spent over a year digging into the building tensions around mining for critical minerals. In a new story published this week, James highlights one community in rural Minnesota and the conflicts over a mining project planned for the nearby area. 

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend you check out that article. In the meantime, I got to sit down with James to ask him a few questions about the process of reporting and writing this feature and chat about critical minerals and the energy transition. Here’s some of what we talked about. 

So, what’s the big deal with critical minerals?

To address climate change, “we just need to build an enormous amount of stuff,” James says. And building all of it means a whole lot of demand for materials. 

We might need nearly 20 times more nickel in 2040 than the annual supply in 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. That multiple is 25 times for graphite, and for lithium it’s over 40 times the current figure. 

Even if people agree in the abstract that we need to extract and process the materials needed to build the stuff to address climate change, figuring out where it all should come from is easier said than done. “We came to realize that mining proposals were creating community tensions basically anywhere they appeared in the US,” James says. 

There’s pushback to all sorts of different climate tech projects—we’ve seen very vocal opposition to proposed wind farms, for example. But there seems to be an additional layer to the concerns around mining, James says. Among other reasons, it’s a legacy industry with a particularly checkered past in terms of environmental impact. 

Even as communities raise concerns over new mining projects, “you also saw the companies proposing them stressing the potential benefits to cleantech and climate goals,” James says. This combination of clear potential climate benefits with community concerns was worth exploring, he tells me. 

What does a proposed nickel mine near a small town in Minnesota tell us about conflict over critical minerals?  

The town of Tamarack, Minnesota, has a population of around 70. 

Despite its small size, Tamarack could soon be key to a crucial landmark for climate technology, because Talon Metals wants to build a huge mine outside the town that could dig up as much as 725,000 metric tons of raw ore each year. The primary target is nickel, a metal that’s crucial to building high-performance EV batteries. 

Talon has been very explicit in claiming that this mine would have benefits for the planet, going as far as applying to trademark the term “Green Nickel.” That’s one of the reasons this particular site piqued James’s interest, he says. 

At the same time, local concerns are growing. Drilling could release 2.6 million gallons of water into the mine every day, which Talon plans to pump out and treat before it’s released into nearby wetlands. This part of the plan has caused some of the greatest unease, since local fresh water is crucial to the community’s economy and identity. 

The central tension was abundantly clear on a nearly weeklong trip to Tamarack and the surrounding communities, James tells me. He went to Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge and learned about native wild rice that grows there and its importance to Indigenous groups. He went to see samples of the ore that Talon dug up and spoke to a geologist about the resources in the region. He also attended community meetings that got a little heated, and even had to contend with some local bees. 

“We’re talking about a story of two different, very precious resources that have created a really difficult-to-address conflict,” he says. “It’s a tension that’s ultimately going to be very hard to resolve.”

There are rarely easy answers when it comes to the massive task of addressing climate change. If you’re interested in getting a better understanding of this complicated web of trade-offs, take the time to read James’s story. You’ll get all the details about why this particular deposit is such a big deal, and hear more about where things are likely to go from here.

And the story doesn’t stop there. James also has another big project out this week, in which he worked to understand how this one mine could unlock billions of dollars in government subsidies. Dig into that here.  

Related reading

Yes, we have enough materials to power the world with clean energy. Mining and processing it all might prove tricky, though.

Here’s how China hopes to secure its supply chain for critical minerals. 

Some companies are looking deep in the ocean for new sources of nickel and other metals crucial to the energy transition. Deep-sea rocks that look like potatoes could hold the key.

Keeping up with climate  

Some truck drivers are falling in love with EVs. Electric trucks are still limited in range, and they make up a small fraction of the trucks on the road, but drivers are starting to see the upside, even as critics say the move to electric is going too fast. (Washington Post)

Gas prices are down in the US, but charging up an EV is still way cheaper. Here’s how cheap gas has to get in every state to compete with EV charging. (Yale Climate Connections)

Old cell phones might provide a much-needed source of rare earth metals. These metals are crucial for motors, including the ones in electric vehicles and wind turbines, and recycling could meet as much as 40% of US demand by 2050. (New York Times)

→ Old personal devices can be a source for other metals, like lithium and cobalt, as I wrote in this story on battery recycling from last year. (MIT Technology Review)

Nobody knows when the next nuclear plant will come online in the US. The former front-runner was a NuScale modular reactor array, but the future of that project is uncertain now. (Canary Media)

Local bans can eliminate nearly 300 single-use plastic bags per person per year, according to a new report. Bottom line: the policies work. (Grist)

→ Think that your plastic is being recycled? Think again. (MIT Technology Review)

Europe will need 34,000 miles (54,000 kilometers) of additional transmission lines to handle the growth in offshore wind power. It could be Europe’s third-biggest energy source by 2050, if infrastructure can keep up. (Bloomberg)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 21 2024
The next generation of nuclear reactors is getting more advanced. Here’s how.

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

I’ve got nuclear power on the brain this week. 

The workings of nuclear power plants have always fascinated me. They’re massive, technically complicated, and feel a little bit magic (splitting the atom—what a concept). But I’ve reached new levels of obsession recently, because I’ve spent the past week or so digging into advanced nuclear technology. 

Advanced nuclear is a mushy category that basically includes anything different from the commercial reactors operating now, since those basically all follow the same general formula. And there’s a whole world of possibilities out there. 

I was mostly focused on the version that’s being developed by Kairos Power for a story (which was published today, check it out if you haven’t!). But I went down some rabbit holes on other potential options for future nuclear plants too. So for the newsletter this week, let’s take a peek at the menu of options for advanced nuclear technology today. 

The basics

Before we get into the advanced stuff, let’s recap the basics.

Nuclear power plants generate electricity via fission reactions, where atoms split apart, releasing energy as heat and radiation. Neutrons released during these splits collide with other atoms and split them, creating a chain reaction.

In nuclear power plants today, there are basically two absolutely essential pieces. First, the fuel, which is what feeds the reactions. (Pretty obvious why this one is important.) Second, it’s vital that the chain reactions happen in a controlled manner, or you can get into nuclear meltdown territory. So the other essential piece of a nuclear plant is the cooling system, which keeps the whole thing from getting too hot and causing problems. (There’s also the moderator and a million other pieces, but let’s stick with two so you’re not reading this newsletter all day.)

In the vast majority of reactors on the grid today, these two components follow the same general formula: the fuel is enriched uranium that’s packed into ceramic pellets, loaded into metal pipes, and arranged into the reactor’s core. And the cooling system pumps pressurized water around the reactor to keep the temperature controlled.  

But for a whole host of reasons, companies are starting to work on making changes to this tried-and-true formula. There are roughly 70 companies in the US working on designs for advanced nuclear reactors, with six or seven far enough along to be working with regulators, says Jessica Lovering, cofounder and co-executive director at the Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization that advocates for the use of nuclear energy.

Many of these so-called advanced technologies were invented and even demonstrated over 50 years ago, before the industry converged on the standard water-cooled plant designs. But now there’s renewed interest in getting alternative nuclear reactors up and running. New designs could help improve safety, efficiency, and even cost. 

Coolant

Alternative coolants can improve on safety over water-based designs, since they don’t always need to be kept at high pressures. Many can also reach higher temperatures, which can allow reactors to run more efficiently. 

Molten salt is one leading contender for alternative coolants, used in designs from Kairos Power, Terrestrial Energy, and Moltex Energy. These designs can use less fuel and produce waste that’s easier to manage. 

Other companies are looking to liquid metals, including sodium and lead. There are a few sodium-cooled reactors operating today, mainly in Russia, and the country is also at the forefront in developing lead-cooled reactors. Metal-cooled reactors share many of the potential safety benefits of molten-salt designs. Helium and other gases can also be used to reach higher temperatures than water-cooled systems. X-energy is designing a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor using helium. 

Fuel

Most reactors that use an alternative coolant also use an alternative fuel.  

TRISO, or tri-structural isotropic particle fuel, is one of the most popular options. TRISO particles contain uranium, enclosed in ceramic and carbon-based layers. This keeps the fuel contained, keeping all the products of fission reactions inside and allowing the fuel to resist corrosion and melting. Kairos and X-energy both plan to use TRISO fuel in their reactors. 

Other reactors use HALEU: high-assay low-enriched uranium. Most nuclear fuel used in commercial reactors contains between 3% and 5% uranium-235. HALEU, on the other hand, contains between 5% and 20% uranium-235, allowing reactors to get more power in a smaller space. 

Size

I know I said I’d keep this to two things, but let’s include a bonus category. In addition to changing up the specifics of things like fuel and coolant, many companies are working to build reactors of different (mostly smaller) sizes.

Today, most reactors coming on the grid are massive, in the range of 1,000 or more megawatts—enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes. Building those huge projects takes a long time, and each one requires a bespoke process. Small modular reactors (SMRs) could be easier to build, since the procedure is the same for each one, allowing them to be manufactured in something resembling a huge assembly line. 

NuScale has been one of the leaders in this area—its reactor design uses commercial fuel and water coolant, but the whole thing is scaled down. Things haven’t been going so well for the company in recent months, though: its first project is pretty much dead in the water, and it laid off nearly 30% of its employees in early January. Other companies are still carrying the SMR torch, including many that are also going after alternative fuels and coolants. 

If you’re hungry for more advanced nuclear news, take a look at my story on Kairos Power. You can also check out some of our recent stories from the vault. 

Related reading

Germany shut down the last of its nuclear reactors last year. Here’s a look at the power struggle over nuclear power in the country.

MIT runs a small test reactor on campus, and I got to take a look inside. See how this old reactor could spark new technology.

We were promised smaller nuclear reactors, but so far that promise hasn’t really materialized. What gives?

We named NuScale one of our Climate Tech Companies to Watch in 2023. We’re definitely … watching, given the recent bumps in the road. 

6 full-size perovskite tandem cells in a metal assembly carriage

SWIFT SOLAR

Another thing

Super-efficient solar cells are on our list of the 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2024. (If you haven’t seen that list, you can find it here!) By sandwiching other materials with traditional silicon, tandem perovskite solar cells could help cut solar costs and generate more electricity. 

But what will it actually take to get next-generation solar technology to the market? Here’s a look at a few of the companies working to make it happen.

Keeping up with climate  

Hertz was billing itself as a leader in renting out electric vehicles (remember that Tom Brady commercial?). Now the company is selling off a third of its EV fleet. (Tech Crunch)

A mountain of clothes accumulated in the desert in Chile. Then it caught fire. This is a fascinating deep dive into the problem of textile waste. (Grist)

New uranium mines will be the first to begin operations in the US in eight years. The mines could help bring more low-carbon nuclear power to the grid, but they’re also drawing sharp criticism. (Inside Climate News)

Researchers at Microsoft and a US national lab used AI to find a new candidate material for batteries. It could eventually be used in batteries to reduce the amount of lithium needed to build them. (The Verge)

→ I talked about this and other science news of the week on Science Friday. Give it a listen! (Science Friday)

Animals are always evolving. A few lucky ones might even be able to do it fast enough to keep up with climate change. (Hakai Magazine)

All that new renewable energy coming onto the grid is helping make a dent in US emissions. Buildout of clean energy cut greenhouse-gas emissions by nearly 2% in 2023. (Canary Media)

The Biden administration will fine oil and gas companies for excess methane emissions. Penalties for emitting this super-powerful greenhouse gas are part of the landmark climate bill passed in 2023. (New York Times)

Texas has had a host of upgrades to its electric grid in the years since a powerful storm devastated the state in 2021. Now experts are watching to see how the grid holds up against cold weather this week. (Washington Post)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 18 2024
How hot salt could transform nuclear power

For more than a month in total, 12 metric tons of molten salt coursed through pipes at Kairos Power in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The company is developing a new type of nuclear reactor that will be cooled using this salt mixture, and its first large-scale test cooling system just completed 1,000 hours of operation in early January. This is the second major milestone for Kairos in recent weeks. In December, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted a construction permit for the company’s first nuclear test reactor.  

Nuclear power plants can provide a steady source of carbon-free energy, a crucial component in addressing climate change. But recent major nuclear installations have been plagued by delays and skyrocketing budgets. Kairos and other companies working on advanced reactor designs hope to revive hopes for nuclear power by presenting a new version of the technology that could cut costs and construction times.

Kairos’s technology and construction approach are “just fundamentally different” from current commercial reactors, says Edward Blandford, cofounder and chief technology officer of Kairos.

Today, nearly all commercial nuclear plants use the same type of enriched uranium as fuel to generate electricity through nuclear fission reactions, and temperature is controlled with a cooling system that uses water.

But a growing number of companies are working to tweak this formula in an effort to improve on cost and safety. In the case of Kairos, the company plans to use an alternative fuel called TRISO, which is made from tiny uranium-containing kernels that can be embedded in graphite casings. TRISO fuel is robust, able to resist high temperatures, radiation, and corrosion. In addition, the reactor’s cooling system uses molten salt instead of water.

Molten salt could be a huge help in making safer nuclear plants, Blandford says. The cooling system in water-cooled reactors needs to be kept at high pressure to ensure that the water doesn’t boil off, which would leave the reactor without coolant and in danger of overheating and running out of control. It’s technically possible to boil salt, but it could only happen at very high temperatures. So those high pressures become unnecessary.

Molten-salt nuclear reactors were developed in the 1950s but were largely shelved as the industry moved toward water-cooled designs. Now, with a growing need for low-carbon power, “there’s a lot of interest in these technologies again,” says Jessica Lovering, cofounder and executive director of the Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization that advocates for the use of nuclear energy. New reactor technology options could help avoid some of the fears around the safety of water-cooled reactors, and they can also generate electricity more efficiently. 

Technology has changed a lot in the past seven decades, and molten-salt reactors never made it to large-scale commercial operation. So there’s still plenty of testing to be done before this kind of cooling system can be put to work in the highly controlled environment of a nuclear reactor. That’s where Kairos’s engineering test unit comes in. It’s the world’s largest system built to circulate Flibe, a fluoride-based salt coolant.

The system uses electric heaters to simulate the heat that would be generated by nuclear reactions in the finished reactor. Tests involve pumping a Flibe mixture through a cooling loop while engineers monitor the temperature throughout the system and the purity of the salt along the way. The company has also tested what it would be like to refuel the reactor, and how power coming out of the system can be monitored and adjusted.

Building an entire cooling system that won’t ever be used in a nuclear reactor is a considerable investment of time, money, and resources, but this approach of taking baby steps could help Kairos succeed in introducing a new nuclear technology—a historically difficult task, says Patrick White, research director at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit think tank.

“One of the challenges with nuclear is that usually, the first step is to design the reactor on paper, and the next step is build the whole thing,” White says. Kairos is trying a different path, testing out components more along the way to help speed up development and avoid getting stuck in late-stage construction.

Kairos is making progress on construction, too. The company received approval in December from the NRC to build Hermes-1, its first nuclear test reactor. Hermes-1 will produce about 35 megawatts of thermal power (today’s commercial reactors typically produce around 1,000 megawatts of electricity). It’s planned for completion as soon as 2026.

Several other companies are also using molten salt or TRISO fuel in their advanced nuclear designs. X-energy, based in Maryland, is developing a gas-cooled reactor that uses TRISO fuel, and TerraPower and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy are developing a sodium-cooled reactor that uses molten salt to store energy. 

There’s still a long road ahead before Kairos’s design and other advanced reactors can make it onto the grid. The company plans to build at least two more large-scale test cooling systems before putting the pieces together for Hermes-1, Blandford says. 

The company will also need to win an operating license for Hermes-1, the second of two major regulatory steps it’ll go through with the NRC. Next comes Hermes-2, which will include two reactors that are similar in scale and design to Hermes-1, plus a system to transform the heat generated into electricity. Finally, the company will move on to larger, commercial-scale reactors.

All of that will take some time, but Kairos and others feel the result will be worth it. “With our technology, it is unique,” Blandford says, “and it does open up unique opportunities to explore spaces that other technologies have not.”

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 13 2024
What’s next for offshore wind

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 our series here.

It’s a turbulent time for offshore wind power.

Large groups of turbines installed along coastlines can harness the powerful, consistent winds that blow offshore. Given that 40% of the global population lives within 60 miles of the ocean, offshore wind farms can be a major boon to efforts to clean up the electricity supply around the world. 

But in recent months, projects around the world have been delayed or even canceled as costs have skyrocketed and supply chain disruptions have swelled. These setbacks could spell trouble for efforts to cut the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change.

The coming year and beyond will likely be littered with more delayed and canceled projects, but the industry is also seeing new starts and continuing technological development. The question is whether current troubles are more like a speed bump or a sign that 2024 will see the industry run off the road. Here’s what’s next for offshore wind power.

Speed bumps and setbacks

Wind giant Ørsted cited rising interest rates, high inflation, and supply chain bottlenecks in late October when it canceled its highly anticipated Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2 projects. The two projects would have supplied just over 2.2 gigawatts to the New Jersey grid—enough energy to power over a million homes. Ørsted is one of the world’s leading offshore wind developers, and the company was included in MIT Technology Review’s list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch in 2023. 

The shuttered projects are far from the only setback for offshore wind in the US today—over 12 gigawatts’ worth of contracts were either canceled or targeted for renegotiation in 2023, according to analysis by BloombergNEF, an energy research group.

Part of the problem lies in how projects are typically built and financed, says Chelsea Jean-Michel, a wind analyst at BloombergNEF. After securing a place to build a wind farm, a developer sets up contracts to sell the electricity that will be generated by the turbines. That price gets locked in years before the project is finished. For projects getting underway now, contracts were generally negotiated in 2019 or 2020.

A lot has changed in just the past five years. Prices for steel, one of the most important materials in turbine construction, increased by over 50% from January 2019 through the end of 2022 in North America and northern Europe, according to a 2023 report from the American Clean Power Association.

Inflation has also increased the price for other materials, and higher interest rates mean that borrowing money is more expensive too. So now, developers are arguing that the prices they agreed to previously aren’t reasonable anymore.

Economic trouble for the industry is global. The UK’s last auction for offshore wind leases yielded no bidders. In addition, a major project that had been planned for the North Sea was canceled by the developer in July. Japanese developers that had jumped into projects in Taiwan are suddenly pulling out as costs shoot up in that still-developing market.

China stands out in an otherwise struggling landscape. The country is now the world’s largest offshore wind market, accounting for nearly half of installed capacity globally. Quick development and rising competition have actually led to falling prices for some projects there.

Growing pains

While many projects around the world have seen setbacks over the last year, the problems are most concentrated in newer markets, including the US. Problems have continued since the New Jersey cancellations—in the first weeks of 2024, developers of several New York projects asked to renegotiate their contracts, which could delay progress even if those developments end up going ahead.

While over 10% of electricity in the US comes from wind power, the vast majority is generated by land-based turbines. The offshore wind market in the US is at least a decade behind the more established ones in countries like the UK and Denmark, says Walt Musial, chief engineer of offshore wind energy at the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

One open question over the next year will be how quickly the industry can increase the capacity to build and install wind turbines in the US. “The supply chain in the US for offshore wind is basically in its infancy. It doesn’t really exist,” Jean-Michel says.

That’s been a problem for some projects, especially when it comes for the ships needed to install wind turbines. One of the reasons Ørsted gave for canceling its New Jersey project was a lack of these vessels.

The troubles have been complicated by a single century-old law, which mandates that only ships built and operated by the US can operate from US ports. Projects in the US have worked around this restriction by operating from European ports and using large US barges offshore, but that can slow construction times significantly, Musial says. 

One of the biggest developments in 2024 could be the completion of a single US-built ship that can help with turbine installation. The ship is under construction in Texas, and Dominion Energy has spent over $600 million on it so far. After delays, it’s scheduled to be completed in late 2024. 

Tax credits are providing extra incentive to build out the offshore wind supply chain in the US. Existing credits for offshore wind projects are being extended and expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act, with as much as 40% available on the cost of building a new wind farm. However, to qualify for the full tax credit, projects will need to use domestically sourced materials. Strengthening the supply chain for those materials will be a long process, and the industry is still trying to adjust to existing conditions. 

Still, there are some significant signs of progress for US offshore wind. The nation’s second large-scale offshore wind farm began producing electricity in early January. Several areas of seafloor are expected to go up for auction for new development in 2024, including sites in the central Atlantic and off the coast of Oregon. Sites off the coast of Maine are expected to be offered up the following year. 

But even that forward momentum may not be enough for the nation to meet its offshore wind goals. While the Biden administration has set a target of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity installed by the end of the decade, BloombergNEF’s projection is that the country will likely install around half that, with 16.4 gigawatts of capacity expected by 2030.

Technological transformation

While economic considerations will likely be a limiting factor in offshore wind this year, we’re also going to be on the lookout for technological developments in the industry.

Wind turbines still follow the same blueprint from decades ago, but they are being built bigger and bigger, and that trend is expected to continue. That’s because bigger turbines tend to be more efficient, capturing more energy at a lower cost.

A decade ago, the average offshore wind turbine produced an output of around 4 megawatts. In 2022, that number was just under 8 MW. Now, the major turbine manufacturers are making models in the 15 MW range. These monstrous structures are starting to rival the size of major landmarks, with recent installations nearing the height of the Eiffel Tower.

In 2023, the wind giant Vestas tested a 15 MW model, which earned the distinction of being the world’s most powerful wind turbine. The company received certification for the design at the end of the year, and it will be used in a Danish wind farm that’s expected to begin construction in 2024. 

In addition, we’ll likely see more developments in the technology for floating offshore wind turbines. While most turbines deployed offshore are secured in the seabed floor, some areas, like the west coast of the US, have deep water offshore, making this impossible.

Floating turbines could solve that problem, and several pilot projects are underway around the world, including Hywind Tampen in Norway, which launched in mid-2023, and WindFloat Atlantic in Portugal.

There’s a wide variety of platform designs for floating turbines, including versions resembling camera tripods, broom handles, and tires. It’s possible the industry will start to converge on one in the coming years, since standardization will help bring prices down, says BloombergNEF’s Jean-Michel. But whether that will be enough to continue the growth of this nascent industry will depend on how economic factors shake out. And it’s likely that floating projects will continue to make up less than 5% of offshore wind power installations, even a decade from now. 

The winds of change are blowing for renewable energy around the world. Even with economic uncertainty ahead, offshore wind power will certainly be a technology to watch in 2024.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 13 2024
Three climate technologies breaking through in 2024

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

Awards season is upon us, and I can’t get enough. Red-carpet fashion, host drama, heartwarming speeches—I love it all.

I caught the Golden Globes last weekend, and the Grammys and Oscars aren’t far off. But the best awards, in my humble opinion, are the 10 Breakthrough Technologies, MIT Technology Review’s list of the tech that’s changing our world. 

This year’s list dropped on Monday, and I’m delighted to share that not one, not two, but three climate tech items are featured. So for the newsletter this week, let’s take a look at a few of these award-winning technologies you need to know about. (And to honor awards season, I’ll also be assigning them to bonus—and completely unofficial—categories.)

Super-efficient solar cells

Winner: Best Supporting Actor

Solar panels are among the most important, and perhaps the most recognizable, tools to address climate change. But one next-generation solar technology could help solar power get even more efficient, and cheaper: perovskite tandem solar cells. 

Most solar cells use silicon to soak up sunlight and transform it into electricity. But other materials can do this job too, including perovskites, a class of crystalline materials. And because perovskites and silicon absorb different wavelengths of light, the two materials can be stacked like a sandwich to make one super-efficient cell. 

Because of their outstanding support for traditional silicon solar materials, super-efficient perovskite tandem cells are my winner for this year’s Best Supporting Actor award. 

There are definitely barriers to commercializing this technology: perovskites are tricky to manufacture and have historically degraded quickly outside in the elements. But some companies say they’re closer than ever to using the materials to transform commercial solar. Read more about the technology here. 

Enhanced geothermal systems

Winner: Best New Artist

Sucking heat out from the earth is one of the oldest tricks in the book—there’s evidence that humans were using hot springs for heat more than 10,000 years ago. 

We’ve since leveled up, using geothermal energy to produce electricity. But a specific set of factors is needed to harness the energy radiating out of the planet’s core: heat close to the surface, permeable rock, and underground fluid. 

This narrows the potential sites for usable geothermal energy significantly, so a growing number of projects are working to widen access with so-called enhanced geothermal systems. 

An enhanced geothermal system is essentially a human-created geothermal energy source. This often involves drilling down into rock and pumping fluid into it to open up fractures. We’ve seen some recent progress in this field from a handful of companies, including Fervo Energy, which started up a massive pilot facility in 2023 (and made our list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch). 

Because of its spirit of reinvention and innovation, enhanced geothermal systems are my pick for this year’s Best New Artist Award. 

Some of the biggest projects coming are still a few years from coming online, and it could be tough to scale construction on these plants in some places. But enhanced geothermal is definitely a field to keep an eye on. Read more in my colleague June Kim’s write-up here. 

Heat pumps

Winner: Lifetime Achievement

Last, but certainly not least, we have the venerable heat pump. These devices, which can cool and heat using electricity, are a personal favorite climate technology of mine. 

Heat pumps are super efficient, sometimes almost seeming to defy the laws of physics. They don’t really break any laws, physical or otherwise, as I outlined in a deep dive into how the technology works last year.

While they’re not exactly new, heat pumps are definitely breaking through in a new way. The technology outsold gas furnaces for the first time in the US last year, and sales have been climbing around the world. Globally, heat pumps have the potential to cut emissions by 500 million metric tons in 2030—as much as pulling all the cars in Europe today off the roads. 

For their long-standing and ongoing contributions to decarbonization, heat pumps are my choice for this year’s Lifetime Achievement Award. 

It’s going to be tough to get heat pumps into all the places they need to go to meet climate goals. For more on all things heat pumps, check out my write-up here. 

Congratulations to all our winners! Be sure to check out the rest of the list. It includes everything from wearable headsets to innovative new CRISPR treatments. 

And if you’d like to weigh in on one more award, you can vote for our reader-chosen 11th breakthrough technology here. The candidates are some of the other items we considered for the list. I don’t want to unfairly influence you, but you know my heart always goes with batteries, so feel free to vote accordingly …  

Related reading

Technology is always changing. Don’t miss our list of the technologies breaking through in 2024.

Perovskites were supposed to change the solar world. What’s the holdup?

This startup showed that its underground wells can be used as a massive battery.

Everything you need to know about the wild world of heat pumps.

Another thing

an Orsted wind turbine off the coast of Block Island

AP PHOTO/JULIA NIKHINSON

It’s been a turbulent time for offshore wind power. Projects are getting delayed and canceled left and right, it seems. 

In 2024, some big moments could determine whether these troubles are more of a bump in the road or a sign of more serious issues. For everything you should watch out for in offshore wind, check out my latest story here.

Keeping up with climate  

It’s officially official—2023 was the hottest year on record, according to the EU’s climate service. Check out the details and some stunning graphics on the record-breaking year. (BBC)

A national lab in California made waves in late 2022 when it achieved a huge milestone for fusion research. You may not know that the facility actually had a massive fusion reactor in the 1980s that never got switched on. (MIT Technology Review)

→ Here’s what’s coming next for fusion research, according to the lab’s current director. (MIT Technology Review)

India is rushing to meet growing demand for electricity, and the country is turning to coal to do it. The government plans to roughly double coal production by 2030. (Bloomberg)

One person’s wastewater is another one’s … heat? New systems can harness the heat in wastewater to heat whole neighborhoods. (BBC)

Norway will open up parts of the Norwegian Sea for seabed mining exploration. The country joins nations including Japan, New Zealand, and Namibia that are considering allowing this new industry to operate in their waters. (New York Times)

→ Seabed mining could be a new source of materials for batteries. But environmentalists are worried about the potential harm. (MIT Technology Review)

Lack of charging infrastructure is a huge barrier to EV adoption. Here are three ways to encourage new chargers in charging deserts. (Canary Media)

Rising temperatures means beavers are moving north—and they’re causing trouble. Specifically, the rodents are creating a feedback loop that’s thawing the ground and disrupting ecosystems. (The Guardian)

Chinese automaker BYD is set to take the world by storm. The company sold more plug-in hybrids and EVs than Tesla did in 2023, and is set to continue its rapid growth this year. (Bloomberg)→ BYD was one of our climate tech companies to watch in 2023. (MIT Technology Review)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Jan 10 2024
Heat pumps: 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2024

WHO

Daikin, Mitsubishi, Viessmann

WHEN

Now

We’ve entered the era of the heat pump. 

Heat pumps are appliances that can cool and heat spaces using electricity. Many buildings today are still heated with fossil fuels, specifically natural gas. Switching to electric heat pumps that run on renewable energy could help homes, offices, and even manufacturing facilities cut their emissions dramatically. 

While heat pumps have been used in buildings since the mid-20th century, the technology is breaking through in a new way. Global sales of heat pumps grew by 11% in 2022, the second consecutive year of double-digit growth, though that rate may have slowed in 2023. Europe saw the most dramatic shift, with a 40% growth in heat pump installations through 2022, largely driven by the energy crisis stemming from the Russia-Ukraine war and by efforts to move away from natural gas. 

Asia is another hot spot, with China leading global installations and China and Japan together accounting for more than half of new patents filed on heat pump technology since 2010. New approaches are enabling heat pumps to reach higher temperatures, which could allow the technology to help clean up industrial manufacturing by supplying power to generate steam used in food processing and paper making. 

In total, heat pumps have the potential to cut global emissions by 500 million tons in 2030—as much as pulling all cars in Europe today off the roads. That would require the total number of heat pumps installed to reach about 600 million by the end of the decade. (That’s about 20% of the heating needs for all the world’s buildings.) 

There are still big challenges ahead for heat pumps, including ramping production to meet rising demand and ensuring that the electrical grid is robust enough to supply electricity to these and other climate-­focused technologies. But all signs indicate that heat pumps are entering their heyday. 

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 28 2023
Six takeaways from a climate-tech boom

The surge of climate-tech startups seeking to reinvent clean energy and transform huge industrial markets is fueling optimism about our prospects for addressing climate change. Tens of billions are pouring into these venture-backed companies in just about every field you can imagine, from green steel to nuclear fusion.

As I explain in “Climate tech is back—and this time, it can’t afford to fail,” investments led by venture capitalists could play a critical role in developing novel sources of clean energy and greener industrial processes. Speaking to numerous VCs, people at startups, and those academics who study innovation in so-called deep tech, I became convinced we’re in the early stages of a carbon-free economy. 

But the optimism comes with a warning. As a journalist who wrote extensively about cleantech 1.0, which began around 2006 and collapsed by 2013 as countless solar, battery, and biofuel firms failed, I have a sense of wariness. All of it feels a bit too familiar: the exuberance of the VCs, the hundred of millions going to risky demonstration plants testing unproven technologies, and the potential political backlash over government support of aggressive climate policies. Writing about the current climate-tech boom means keeping in mind that most previous venture-backed startups in cleantech have failed miserably.

Today’s investors and entrepreneurs hope this time is different. As I discovered in speaking with them, there are plenty of reasons they might be right; there is far more money available, and far more demand for cleaner products from consumers and industrial customers. Yet many of the challenges seen in the first boom still exist and provide ample reason to worry about the success of today’s climate-tech startups.

Here are some of the key lessons from cleantech 1.0. To learn more, you can read my full report here. 

six die with the facing sides arranged in a line from one to six.

Lesson #1: Demand matters. This is basic to any market but is oft ignored in climate tech: someone needs to want to buy your product. Despite the public and scientific concerns over climate change, it’s a tough sell to get people and companies to pay extra for, say, green concrete or clean electricity.

A recent study by David Popp at Syracuse University and his colleague Matthias van den Heuvel suggests that weak demand, more than the costs and risks associated with scaling up startups, was what doomed the first cleantech wave. 

Many of the products in cleantech are commodities; price often matters above all else, and green products, especially when they are first introduced, are typically too expensive to compete. The argument helps to explain the great exception to the cleantech 1.0 bust: Tesla Motors. “Tesla’s been able to differentiate their product: the brand itself has value,” says Popp. But, he adds, “it’s hard to imagine that there’s going to be a trendy [green] hydrogen brand.”  

The findings suggest that government policies are probably most effective when they help to create demand for, say, green hydrogen or cement rather than directly funding startups as they struggle toward commercialization. 

Lesson #2: Hubris hurts. One of the most obvious problems in cleantech 1.0 was the extreme hubris of many of its advocates. Leading cheerleaders and money men (yes, nearly all were men) had made their fortunes on computers, software, and the web and sought to apply the same strategies to cleantech.

“Rule number one: do not have people invest in a category who do not know about the category,” says Matthew Nordan, general partner at Azolla Ventures. “Cleantech 1.0 investors were largely folks from tech and biotech, desperately trying to come up to speed on industrial categories they knew little about.”

These days many venture capitalists profess to be chastened by the experience of cleantech 1.0 and deeply ingrained in the industries they hope to disrupt. But there are still some high-profile investors parachuting in from making fortunes in Big Tech who are convinced they have the solution to the world’s biggest problem.  

I asked Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School who studies how venture capital works, why such investors haven’t learned from the past. The pessimistic view, he says, “is that these guys are just megalomaniac characters who want to save the world and view themselves as heroes, and they’re just fools plunging again even though they had their head handed to them before.” A more optimistic view, he says, is that they might be able “to take some of the knowledge and innovations that happened in the software arena and put them to work here.”

Lesson #3: Molecules are different from bits. Yes, of course, we know writing code is easier and cheaper than building a steel plant. But just how much riskier and unpredictable it is to scale up molecule-based businesses was an unpleasant surprise to many during cleantech 1.0. Poor yields or the synthesis of unwanted by-products—problems that might have seemed like small hiccups in the lab—can be show stoppers as the process is scaled up and must compete against existing technologies.

Finding out whether a process is commercially competitive typically means building a demonstration plant, often costing $100 million or more. Many startups during cleantech 1.0 got tripped up when processes that worked fine in the lab didn’t work nearly as well in larger facilities. You just don’t know if an industrial process will work until you build it.

The hope these days is that far more computation power and the use of artificial intelligence will allow startups to simulate how processes will work before actually building anything. Running a new way to make green hydrogen in silico to see what goes wrong is certainly far cheaper and safer than building a $100 million demonstration plant.

Lesson #4: The real takeaway from Solyndra. The failure of the company, which received a $535 million loan guarantee from the US government to manufacture a novel type of solar panel, is the one that everyone remembers from cleantech 1.0. And it’s often offered as strong evidence of what goes wrong when governments try to pick winners. But the lingering lesson from the failure of Solyndra is quite different.

First—whether you’re in government or a venture capitalist—don’t invest in technology that makes little manufacturing sense and has dubious market demand. Solyndra’s product was a highly complex cylinder-shaped solar panel that required custom and unproven equipment to build. 

See lessons #1, #2, and #3. I wrote this in 2011: “What Solyndra lacked, though, was market savvy and manufacturing flexibility. Although the company had quickly traversed what Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs like to call ‘the valley of death’—the risky financial period between receiving initial venture funding and beginning to earn revenues—it badly faltered in turning its operations into a viable, long-term business. If there is a prevailing lesson from the Solyndra debacle, it has to do with the danger of trying to do too much too quickly—and doing it alone.”

Solyndra would likely have failed anyway, but had the company gone slower, a lot of people, including both US taxpayers and the VCs who ponied up hundreds of millions, would have lost a lot less money.

Lesson #5: Politics can change everything. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which helped fuel the recent wave of cleantech investments, passed Congress without a single Republican vote. Simply put, electing a Republican president in 2024 could mean an end to the aggressive federal climate policies.

And there is an ongoing backlash in many other industrial countries. Recently in the UK, the prime minister proposed weakening the country’s climate policies. Even Germany is showing signs of backing away from political support and funding for cleantech. 

In his recent paper, Syracuse’s Popp and his coauthor traced the woes of cleantech 1.0 back to a largely forgotten Senate election in early 2010. After the death of the liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts voters elected the Republican Scott Brown, dooming a comprehensive climate bill being debated in Congress. Without the possibility of carbon pricing, many venture investors lost interest in clean-energy startups. 

By the end of the year, a newly elected Republican majority in the US House of Representatives had doomed additional large federal investments in clean energy.

Politics do matter. And they can change overnight.

Lesson #6: Survival is all about the economics. The early days of cleantech 1.0 were filled with enthusiasm and good intentions. People saw climate change as an existential crisis, and technology, led by visionary entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, was going to solve it. The vibes these days are in many ways similar; in fact, people are even more intense and committed. The brilliance of many new climate technologies is evident, and we desperately need them.

But none of that will ensure success. Venture-backed startups will need to survive on the basis of economics and financial advantages, not good intentions. 

The simple fact is that we have too few examples of prosperous climate-tech startups with radical new technology. It’s all still a grand experiment. Cleantech 1.0 taught us what can go wrong. We’re still learning how to get it right.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 23 2023
Is this the most energy-efficient way to build homes?

When the Canadian engineer Harold Orr and his colleagues began designing an ultra-efficient home in Saskatchewan in the late ’70s, responding to a provincial conservation mandate during the oil embargo, they knew that the trick wasn’t generating energy in a greener way, but using less of it. They needed to make a better thermos, not a cheaper coffee maker.

illustration of a house with numbered features

ARTHUR MOUNT

1

High-performance windows with orientation and shading

Heat loss and gain through standard windows accounts for 25% to 30% of residential energy use.

2

Airtight building
envelope

Keeping air, and thus heat, from leaking out or in further reduces the need for heating and cooling.

3

Climate-appropriate
insulation levels

Some homes are even built entirely from insulating materials to minimize the need for energy supply.

4

Thermal-bridge-free design

Weak points in a building envelope that allow heat to drain out of a house are eliminated.

5

Continuous ventilation
with heat recovery

Fresh, filtered air enters the home through a heat recovery ventilation (HRV) system.

The result was the 1978 Saskatchewan Conservation House, a cedar-clad trapezoid that cut energy usage by 85%—and helped inspire today’s globally recognized passive-house standard for building design. Adopted by thousands of buildings comprising tens of thousands of housing units, this concept marries vernacular building techniques, like orienting toward the sun, with cutting-edge insulation and air circulation systems. The formula for these efficient homes, standardized and shared by the German physicist Wolfgang Feist and the Swedish structural engineer Bo Adamson beginning in 1988, also bestows health benefits. With airtight exteriors and better air circulation, these homes offer improved interior air quality and significant noise reduction.

Passive houses now account for less than 1% of multifamily construction. 

It’s a marriage of efficiency and rigorously applied physics, says Bronwyn Barry, a passive-house pioneer and principal of a Bay Area architecture firm. If homes are machines for living, passive-house design principles offer a blueprint for a better machine, highlighting just how poorly constructed postwar suburban sprawl can be.

Passive design focuses on the exterior, or envelope, which needs to be tightly insulated to avoid allowing heat out or unwanted heat in. This means using thick thermal insulation and high-quality, often triple-pane windows, which let in the sun’s light and warmth but keep heat from escaping. Heat loss (and, in warm weather, gain) through standard windows necessitates 25% to 30% of residential energy use. Construction also eliminates thermal bridges, or breaks in the envelope or insulation that allow heat to drain out. Think “boxy but beautiful,” as Barry once wrote: houses boast continuous layers of insulation while minimizing the cantilevers, corners, dormers, and other features that characterize the messy rooflines of McMansions. These design requirements result in airtight buildings, as measured by a blower door test: after a specially calibrated door-mounted fan sucks air out of the house to lower the air pressure inside, technicians look for gaps and cracks where higher-­pressure air from the outside flows in. 

While this single-minded focus on efficiency, or building the best thermos, leads to exceptional performance—up to a 90% reduction in heating and cooling demand—passive houses can’t circulate air like traditional builds. But heat recovery ventilators or energy recovery ventilators can address that problem, exchanging air without sacrificing interior heat.

Often considered a cold-climate approach, passive houses actually have universal benefits. Warmer climates simply require different windows and exteriors, and additional shading to combat excessive heat gain. 

The passive-house movement has expanded well beyond single-family homes and the German and Nordic regions where it’s most popular. There are now 275-plus finished multifamily projects in the US alone, including dorms at Cornell University, scores of affordable housing projects across New York City, and the newly opened Winthrop Center, a 53-story skyscraper in downtown Boston. But even though the Passive House Network, an educational organization for the building industry, has found that costs are competitive for these large-scale projects, and incentives introduced by the Biden administration through the Inflation Reduction Act could decrease costs even more, passive houses still account for less than 1% of all multifamily construction in the US in the past decade. 

Patrick Sisson, a Chicago expat living in Los Angeles, covers technology and urbanism.

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 22 2023
There was some good climate news in 2023. Really.

Bad climate news was everywhere in 2023. 

It’s been the hottest year on record, with January through November clocking in at 1.46 °C (2.62 °F) warmer on average than preindustrial temperatures. Meanwhile, emissions from fossil fuels hit a new high—36.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 1.1% more than in 2022. 

Scientists are loudly warning that the world is running out of time to avoid dangerous warming levels. The picture is grim. But if you know where to look, there are a few bright spots shining through the darkness.

New technologies that can help address climate change, from heat pumps to solar panels to EVs, are coming to the market and getting cheaper. Climate policy is also developing, from incentives to support new technology to rule-making around pollution. And efforts to help the most vulnerable nations adapt to climate change are growing. 

Here are a few of those bright spots that our climate reporters saw in 2023. 

The brakes are off for electric vehicles

There’s been a spate of good news for EVs. We put the “inevitable EV” on our list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies in January, noting that strong policy support and expanding supply chains were combining to vault the technology to new relevance. 

Those trends have largely continued through 2023, and that means good news for climate change, since the transportation sector accounts for nearly 20% of global emissions. 

EVs are on track to make up 15.5% of automotive sales this year, according to BNEF. Between battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, this new growth means there are almost 41 million passenger EVs on the road. China has the largest share of EVs in the world, making up nearly a quarter of the global fleet. 

Batteries to power all those vehicles are becoming more widely available and cheaper. Global manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries increased by over 30% this year. And while prices ticked up slightly last year, they are down again in 2023, representing the largest annual decline since 2018. 

A wide range of policies could help continue the growth of electric vehicles. Some governments are mandating the switch away from fossil-fuel-powered cars—the European Union and United Kingdom both passed policies in 2023 mandating that all new passenger vehicles sold be zero-emissions starting in 2035. Several states in the US have adopted the same policy, with California leading the way last year and more signing on in 2023. 

Incentives are also driving consumers toward EVs. The Inflation Reduction Act in the US serves up a huge menu of tax credits for battery manufacturing, EV manufacturing, and mineral processing. 

While many signs are positive, it’s not all rosy for electric vehicles. Growth in sales slowed between 2022 and 2023, and changing demand has some automakers slowing production for models like the Ford F-150 Lightning. Charging infrastructure isn’t available or reliable enough in most markets, a problem that has become one of the biggest barriers to EV adoption. 

Cars are being sold at a record pace and road emissions are still going up, so EV sales need to accelerate to make a dent in transportation’s climate impact. But EVs’ progress so far seems to be an encouraging story of a new climate-friendly technology becoming a mainstream option. Let’s hope it keeps going in 2024—all gas, no brakes. 

—Casey Crownhart

Countries and companies are cracking down on methane 

Another encouraging development on the otherwise daunting topic of climate change is the growing recognition that cutting methane pollution is one of the most powerful levers we can pull to limit global warming over the coming years. 

Carbon dioxide has long overshadowed methane, since we emit so much more of it. But methane traps about 80 times as much heat over a 20-year period and accounts for at least a quarter of overall warming above our preindustrial past. 

On the other hand, it also breaks down far faster in the atmosphere. Together, those qualities mean that rapid cuts in methane emissions today could deliver an outsize impact on climate change, potentially shaving a quarter-degree off total warming by midcentury. That could easily make the difference between a planet that does or doesn’t tip past 2 °C.

So it was encouraging to finally hear the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency announce, at the recent UN climate conference, that it will soon require oil and gas companies to monitor methane emissions across their pipelines, wells, and facilities and sharply reduce venting, flaring, and leaks. 

As federal regulations go, preventing emissions of a combustible, planet-warming superpolllutant that isn’t even producing anything of economic value is truly about the least we can ask of an industry. But it’s a step forward that promises to eliminate the warming equivalent of about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2038.

There was other good news on methane at the UN conference as well. A group of major oil and gas companies including BP, Exxon, and Saudi Aramco pledged to cut their methane pollution by at least 80% by 2030. In addition, a handful of additional nations joined an international coalition committed to easing global emissions by 30% this decade, while others stepped up their pledges and funding.

All of this comes on top of growing global efforts to more effectively monitor and report major sources of methane pollution around the globe, and reduce emissions from agriculture and landfills. 

As with every issue when it comes to climate change, none of this is enough, too much of it is voluntary, and complications abound. But these announcements, along with other signs of progress, are slowly adding up to a less grim future, while reminding us all that we’re capable of achieving even more.

—James Temple

A crucial fund to pay for climate damages launched

While the world scrambles to slow our emissions, it’s becoming ever more clear that the damage from climate change is happening in the present tense, with wildfires, floods, and heat waves making headlines. 

So it was welcome news that this year’s UN climate conference started with a historic milestone for vulnerable countries struggling to deal with these problems. On day one of the talks, the long-anticipated loss and damage fund was officially launched.

Historically, a handful of industrialized nations like the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom have been responsible for much of the emissions that are exacerbating extreme weather events and related disasters. Now, they are (nominally) paying for that legacy.

The purpose of this fund is to help poor and developing countries address the increasing harm from climate disasters. Many of these countries—which have contributed the least amount of emissions—are the most vulnerable to climate impacts and often lack adequate resources to manage them. The funds can help them rebuild in the aftermath of events like drought or floods, and improve a nation’s ability to withstand future catastrophes.

Advocates have been quick to point out that the total amount pledged so far is minuscule compared to the actual need on the ground. They estimate that the current pledge equates to less than 0.2% of the potential economic losses facing developing nations from climate disasters every year.

By the end of COP28 on December 12, countries had collectively committed nearly $800 million. The United Arab Emirates and Germany each pledged $100 million, the United Kingdom offered $75 million, and the United States contributed $17.5 million. 

Those numbers sound big, but a few people have made a sports analogy that puts this all in perspective. On December 9, a baseball player, Shohei Ohtani, signed a $700 million contract with the LA Dodgers. The fact that a worldwide effort to address climate change is even remotely comparable to the amount spent by a sports team on a single athlete should be a global embarrassment.

 “The rich world needs to take a good look at itself and its actions so far,” says Ritu Bharadwaj, a principal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development.

That being said, the fund is still a step toward equitable climate resilience. Now the focus is on continuing to scale up the commitments and making the funds more accessible to those who need them.

—June Kim

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments
Dec 22 2023
2023 is breaking all sorts of climate records 

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

This has been quite the year for climate news, with weather disasters, technological breakthroughs, and policy changes making headlines around the world. There’s an abundance of bad news, but there are also some glimmers of hope, if you know where to look.

It’s a lot to make sense of, so for this last newsletter of 2023, let’s take a look back at the year, and let’s do it in data. A “climate wrapped,” if you will. 

A new record on emissions (again)

Technically, we can’t draw definitive conclusions about 2023 just yet. But it’s pretty evident that we’re on track for yet another record year when it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are expected to hit 36.8 billion metric tons in 2023, according to the Global Carbon Budget report, which was released earlier this month. That’s just over 1% higher than last year’s levels.

Hitting another record high for emissions isn’t the best news. Ideally, this line would be going in the other direction, and quickly. 

The story isn’t the same everywhere, though. The US and Europe, for instance, are actually seeing slight decreases in carbon pollution (though these places are among the highest historical emitters). China and India are seeing emissions growth of around 4% and 8%, respectively. 

But that growth could be slowing down soon, and some analysts say that within the next few years we could be nearing peak emissions (the moment when they turn around and start going down). I’ll believe it when I see it. 

It’s getting hot in here

Not only are we seeing record-high emissions, but 2023 is almost certainly going to be the hottest year on record, too. The year through November averaged just under 1.5 °C (or about 2.6 °F) hotter than preindustrial levels.

The warming is noticeable even compared with the last few decades. November was 0.85 °C warmer than the average November was in the 1990s. 

Wherever you look, from the air to the ocean, the planet is heating up, and these rising temperatures and other changing weather patterns have cascading effects, as we saw firsthand in 2023. 

Sea ice hit new low levels. Historic wildfires in Canada brought oppressive smoke sweeping down the east coast of the US. Thousands died in flooding in Libya, and a years-long drought in the Horn of Africa has left millions facing water and food shortages. Name any type of climate disaster you can think of, and one of those probably broke records, somewhere in the world, in 2023. 

Looking back, I think this year I saw a trend that’s been building for the past couple of years: a growing number of people are being directly and dramatically affected by climate change. It’s pushing awareness that climate change isn’t some theoretical future possibility, but something happening in the present tense.

Money money money

It’s not possible to take a look back at this year without talking about bad news. But there are some positives too, I promise! 

For one thing, this year also saw record investment in clean energy, with global total spending of $1.7 trillion. (Yes trillion, with a “t.”) 

Investment in clean energy has been outpacing investment in fossil fuels for a while now, but the gap is starting to widen, with growing amounts of spending on technologies like solar and wind power and energy storage. In fact, solar power alone attracted more investment than fossil fuels for the first time.

The current state of the climate is pretty grim, and it’s important to take note of that and be realistic about where we are and what still needs to happen. But these bright spots of climate news are around, if you know where to look. 

That’s why the MIT Technology Review climate team put together some of the good news we saw in the climate world this year. You can find out more about what’s giving us hope in our new story here. 

Related reading

While we’re looking back, let’s reminisce about some of our top climate and energy stories of 2023. 

Keeping up with climate  

Fewer EVs will qualify for tax credits soon in the US, as new restrictions kick in on January 1. Tesla’s Model 3 and Ford’s Mustang Mach-E will be among those ruled out, according to the automakers. (New York Times)

New details about a tax credit in last year’s climate bill reveal a surprising winner: thermal energy storage. Qualifying for the credits could help these alternative energy storage methods break into the market. (Canary Media)

→ Here’s why bricks are a hot new energy storage technology. (MIT Technology Review)

Lab-grown-meat companies like Upside Foods have raked in billions of dollars in funding promising healthy, climate-friendly meat without the animals. But so far, there’s not much to show for it, and lots of challenges with scaling ahead. (Bloomberg) 

There’s a huge backlog of clean energy projects waiting to connect to the grid in the US. This delay could put 2030 clean-energy targets out of reach for many states. (Canary Media)

After an emissions scandal, automaker Volkswagen agreed to spend $2 billion funding public EV charging stations. Now, those chargers are unreliable—yes, even more so than other public charging networks. (Washington Post)

By the end of the decade, many batteries will need to have a passport—a digital record of their source materials and history. (Quartz)

Carbon removal has gone from a wild idea to a hot topic. Some scientists think that’s a problem, as companies and governments are using this unproven technology to continue with business as usual rather than making hard cuts to emissions. (E&E News)

→ Here’s why some experts say the world is thinking about carbon removal all wrong. (MIT Technology Review)

Despite overwhelming evidence that climate change is real, some people still fall for conspiracy theories. There’s a whole host of reasons why. (Grist)

→ If you’re looking to broach the subject, here are my tips for talking about climate technology over the holidays. (MIT Technology Review)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments