Did solar power cause Spain’s blackout?

At roughly midday on Monday, April 28, the lights went out in Spain. The grid blackout, which extended into parts of Portugal and France, affected tens of millions of people—flights were grounded, cell networks went down, and businesses closed for the day.

Over a week later, officials still aren’t entirely sure what happened, but some (including the US energy secretary, Chris Wright) have suggested that renewables may have played a role, because just before the outage happened, wind and solar accounted for about 70% of electricity generation. Others, including Spanish government officials, insisted that it’s too early to assign blame.

It’ll take weeks to get the full report, but we do know a few things about what happened. And even as we wait for the bigger picture, there are a few takeaways that could help our future grid.

Let’s start with what we know so far about what happened, according to the Spanish grid operator Red Eléctrica:

  • A disruption in electricity generation took place a little after 12:30 p.m. This may have been a power plant flipping off or some transmission equipment going down.
  • A little over a second later, the grid lost another bit of generation.
  • A few seconds after that, the main interconnector between Spain and southwestern France got disconnected as a result of grid instability.
  • Immediately after, virtually all of Spain’s electricity generation tripped offline.

One of the theories floating around is that things went wrong because the grid diverged from its normal frequency. (All power grids have a set frequency: In Europe the standard is 50 hertz, which means the current switches directions 50 times per second.) The frequency needs to be constant across the grid to keep things running smoothly.

There are signs that the outage could be frequency-related. Some experts pointed out that strange oscillations in the grid frequency occurred shortly before the blackout.

Normally, our grid can handle small problems like an oscillation in frequency or a drop that comes from a power plant going offline. But some of the grid’s ability to stabilize itself is tied up in old ways of generating electricity.

Power plants like those that run on coal and natural gas have massive rotating generators. If there are brief issues on the grid that upset the balance, those physical bits of equipment have inertia: They’ll keep moving at least for a few seconds, providing some time for other power sources to respond and pick up the slack. (I’m simplifying here—for more details I’d highly recommend this report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.)

Solar panels don’t have inertia—they rely on inverters to change electricity into a form that’s compatible with the grid and matches its frequency. Generally, these inverters are “grid-following,” meaning if frequency is dropping, they follow that drop.

In the case of the blackout in Spain, it’s possible that having a lot of power on the grid coming from sources without inertia made it more possible for a small problem to become a much bigger one.

Some key questions here are still unanswered. The order matters, for example. During that drop in generation, did wind and solar plants go offline first? Or did everything go down together?

Whether or not solar and wind contributed to the blackout as a root cause, we do know that wind and solar don’t contribute to grid stability in the same way that some other power sources do, says Seaver Wang, climate lead of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research organization. Regardless of whether renewables are to blame, more capability to stabilize the grid would only help, he adds.

It’s not that a renewable-heavy grid is doomed to fail. As Wang put it in an analysis he wrote last week: “This blackout is not the inevitable outcome of running an electricity system with substantial amounts of wind and solar power.”

One solution: We can make sure the grid includes enough equipment that does provide inertia, like nuclear power and hydropower. Reversing a plan to shut down Spain’s nuclear reactors beginning in 2027 would be helpful, Wang says. Other options include building massive machines that lend physical inertia and using inverters that are “grid-forming,” meaning they can actively help regulate frequency and provide a sort of synthetic inertia.

Inertia isn’t everything, though. Grid operators can also rely on installing a lot of batteries that can respond quickly when problems arise. (Spain has much less grid storage than other places with a high level of renewable penetration, like Texas and California.)

Ultimately, if there’s one takeaway here, it’s that as the grid evolves, our methods to keep it reliable and stable will need to evolve too.

If you’re curious to hear more on this story, I’d recommend this Q&A from Carbon Brief about the event and its aftermath and this piece from Heatmap about inertia, renewables, and the blackout.

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

A long-abandoned US nuclear technology is making a comeback in China

China has once again beat everyone else to a clean energy milestone—its new nuclear reactor is reportedly one of the first to use thorium instead of uranium as a fuel and the first of its kind that can be refueled while it’s running.

It’s an interesting (if decidedly experimental) development out of a country that’s edging toward becoming the world leader in nuclear energy. China has now surpassed France in terms of generation, though not capacity; it still lags behind the US in both categories. But one recurring theme in media coverage about the reactor struck me, because it’s so familiar: This technology was invented decades ago, and then abandoned.

You can basically copy and paste that line into countless stories about today’s advanced reactor technology. Molten-salt cooling systems? Invented in the mid-20th century but never commercialized. Same for several alternative fuels, like TRISO. And, of course, there’s thorium.

This one research reactor in China running with an alternative fuel says a lot about this moment for nuclear energy technology: Many groups are looking into the past for technologies, with a new appetite for building them.

First, it’s important to note that China is the hot spot for nuclear energy right now. While the US still has the most operational reactors in the world, China is catching up quickly. The country is building reactors at a remarkable clip and currently has more reactors under construction than any other country by far. Just this week, China approved 10 new reactors, totaling over $27 billion in investment.

China is also leading the way for some advanced reactor technologies (that category includes basically anything that deviates from the standard blueprint of what’s on the grid today: large reactors that use enriched uranium for fuel and high-pressure water to keep the reactor cool). High-temperature reactors that use gas as a coolant are one major area of focus for China—a few reactors that use this technology have recently started up, and more are in the planning stages or under construction.

Now, Chinese state media is reporting that scientists in the country reached a milestone with a thorium-based reactor. The reactor came online in June 2024, but researchers say it recently went through refueling without shutting down. (Conventional reactors generally need to be stopped to replenish the fuel supply.) The project’s lead scientists shared the results during a closed meeting at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

I’ll emphasize here that this isn’t some massive power plant: This reactor is tiny. It generates just two megawatts of heat—less than the research reactor on MIT’s campus, which rings in at six megawatts. (To be fair, MIT’s is one of the largest university research reactors in the US, but still … it’s small.)

Regardless, progress is progress for thorium reactors, as the world has been entirely focused on uranium for the last 50 years or so.

Much of the original research on thorium came out of the US, which pumped resources into all sorts of different reactor technologies in the 1950s and ’60s. A reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee that ran in the 1960s used Uranium-233 fuel (which can be generated when thorium is bombarded with radiation).

Eventually, though, the world more or less settled on a blueprint for nuclear reactors, focusing on those that use Uranium-238 as fuel and are cooled by water at a high pressure. One reason for the focus on uranium for energy tech? The research could also be applied to nuclear weapons.

But now there’s a renewed interest in alternative nuclear technologies, and the thorium-fueled reactor is just one of several examples. A prominent one we’ve covered before: Kairos Power is building reactors that use molten salt as a coolant for small nuclear reactors, also a technology invented and developed in the 1950s and ’60s before being abandoned. 

Another old-but-new concept is using high-temperature gas to cool reactors, as X-energy is aiming to do in its proposed power station at a chemical plant in Texas. (That reactor will be able to be refueled while it’s running, like the new thorium reactor.) 

Some problems from decades ago that contributed to technologies being abandoned will still need to be dealt with today. In the case of molten-salt reactors, for example, it can be tricky to find materials that can withstand the corrosive properties of super-hot salt. For thorium reactors, the process of transforming thorium into U-233 fuel has historically been one of the hurdles. 

But as early progress shows, the archives could provide fodder for new commercial reactors, and revisiting these old ideas could give the nuclear industry a much-needed boost. 

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 vibes are shifting for US climate tech

The past few years have been an almost nonstop parade of good news for climate tech in the US. Headlines about billion-dollar grants from the government, massive private funding rounds, and labs churning out advance after advance have been routine. Now, though, things are starting to shift.  

About $8 billion worth of US climate tech projects have been canceled or downsized so far in 2025. (You can see a map of those projects in my latest story here.) 

There are still projects moving forward, but these cancellations definitely aren’t a good sign. And now we have tariffs to think about, adding additional layers of expense and, worse, uncertainty. (Businesses, especially those whose plans require gobs of money, really don’t like uncertainty.) Honestly, I’m still getting used to an environment that isn’t such a positive one for climate technology. How worried should we be? Let’s get into the context.

Sometimes, one piece of news can really drive home a much larger trend. For example, I’ve read a bazillion studies about extreme weather and global warming, but every time a hurricane comes close to my mom’s home in Florida, the threat of climate-fueled extreme weather becomes much more real for me. A recent announcement about climate tech hit me in much the same fashion.

In February, Aspen Aerogels announced it was abandoning plans for a Georgia factory that would have made materials that can suppress battery fires. The news struck me, because just a few months before, in October, I had written about the Department of Energy’s $670 million loan commitment for the project. It was a really fun story, both because I found the tech fascinating and because MIT Technology Review got the exclusive access to cover it first.

And now, suddenly, that plan is just dead. Aspen said it will shift some of its production to a factory in Rhode Island and send some overseas. (I reached out to the company with questions for my story last week, but they didn’t get back to me.)

One example doesn’t always mean there’s a trend; I got food poisoning at a sushi restaurant once, but I haven’t cut out sashimi permanently. The bad news, though, is that Aspen’s cancellation is just one of many. Over a dozen major projects in climate technology have gotten killed so far this year, as the nonprofit E2 tallied up in a new report last week. That’s far from typical.

I got some additional context from Jay Turner, who runs Big Green Machine, a database that also tracks investments in the climate-tech supply chain. That project includes some data that E2 doesn’t account for: news about when projects are delayed or take steps forward. On Monday, the Big Green Machine team released a new update, one that Turner called “concerning.”

Since Donald Trump took office on January 20, about $10.5 billion worth of investment in climate tech projects has progressed in some way. That basically means 26 projects were announced, secured new funding, increased in scale, or started construction or production.

Meanwhile, $12.2 billion across 14 projects has slowed down in some way. This covers projects that were canceled, were delayed significantly, or lost funding, as well as companies that went bankrupt. So by total investment, there’s been more bad news in climate tech than good news, according to Turner’s tracking.

It’s tempting to look for the silver lining here. The projects still moving forward are certainly positive, and we’ll hopefully continue to see some companies making progress even as we head into even more uncertain times. But the signs don’t look good.

One question that I have going forward is how a seemingly inevitable US slowdown on climate technology will ripple around the rest of the world. Several experts I’ve spoken with seem to agree that this will be a great thing for China, which has aggressively and consistently worked to establish itself as a global superpower in industries like EVs and batteries.

In other words, the energy transition is rolling on. Will the US get left behind? 

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 quest to build islands with ocean currents in the Maldives

In satellite images, the 20-odd coral atolls of the Maldives look something like skeletal remains or chalk lines at a crime scene. But these landforms, which circle the peaks of a mountain range that has vanished under the Indian Ocean, are far from inert. They’re the products of living processes—places where coral has grown toward the surface over hundreds of thousands of years. Shifting ocean currents have gradually pushed sand—made from broken-up bits of this same coral—into more than 1,000 other islands that poke above the surface. 

But these currents can also be remarkably transient, constructing new sandbanks or washing them away in a matter of weeks. In the coming decades, the daily lives of the half-million people who live on this archipelago—the world’s lowest-lying nation—will depend on finding ways to keep a solid foothold amid these shifting sands. More than 90% of the islands have experienced severe erosion, and climate change could make much of the country uninhabitable by the middle of the century.

Off one atoll, just south of the Maldives’ capital, Malé, researchers are testing one way to capture sand in strategic locations—to grow islands, rebuild beaches, and protect coastal communities from sea-level rise. Swim 10 minutes out into the En’boodhoofinolhu Lagoon and you’ll find the Ramp Ring, an unusual structure made up of six tough-skinned geotextile bladders. These submerged bags, part of a recent effort called the Growing Islands project, form a pair of parentheses separated by 90 meters (around 300 feet).

The bags, each about two meters tall, were deployed in December 2024, and by February, underwater images showed that sand had climbed about a meter and a half up the surface of each one, demonstrating how passive structures can quickly replenish beaches and, in time, build a solid foundation for new land. “There’s just a ton of sand in there. It’s really looking good,” says Skylar Tibbits, an architect and founder of the MIT Self-Assembly Lab, which is developing the project in partnership with the Malé-based climate tech company Invena.

The Self-Assembly Lab designs material technologies that can be programmed to transform or “self-assemble” in the air or underwater, exploiting natural forces like gravity, wind, waves, and sunlight. Its creations include sheets of wood fiber that form into three-dimensional structures when splashed with water, which the researchers hope could be used for tool-free flat-pack furniture. 

Growing Islands is their largest-scale undertaking yet. Since 2017, the project has deployed 10 experiments in the Maldives, testing different materials, locations, and strategies, including inflatable structures and mesh nets. The Ramp Ring is many times larger than previous deployments and aims to overcome their biggest limitation. 

In the Maldives, the direction of the currents changes with the seasons. Past experiments have been able to capture only one seasonal flow, meaning they lie dormant for months of the year. By contrast, the Ramp Ring is “omnidirectional,” capturing sand year-round. “It’s basically a big ring, a big loop, and no matter which monsoon season and which wave direction, it accumulates sand in the same area,” Tibbits says.

The approach points to a more sustainable way to protect the archipelago, whose growing population is supported by an economy that caters to 2 million annual tourists drawn by its white beaches and teeming coral reefs. Most of the country’s 187 inhabited islands have already had some form of human intervention to reclaim land or defend against erosion, such as concrete blocks, jetties, and breakwaters. Since the 1990s, dredging has become by far the most significant strategy. Boats equipped with high-power pumping systems vacuum up sand from one part of the seabed and spray it into a pile somewhere else. This temporary process allows resort developers and densely populated islands like Malé to quickly replenish beaches and build limitlessly customizable islands. But it also leaves behind dead zones where sand has been extracted—and plumes of sediment that cloud the water with a sort of choking marine smog. Last year, the government placed a temporary ban on dredging to prevent damage to reef ecosystems, which were already struggling amid spiking ocean temperatures.

Holly East, a geographer at the University of Northumbria, says Growing Islands’ structures offer an exciting alternative to dredging. But East, who is not involved in the project, warns that they must be sited carefully to avoid interrupting sand flows that already build up islands’ coastlines. 

To do this, Tibbits and Invena cofounder Sarah Dole are conducting long-term satellite analysis of the En’boodhoofinolhu Lagoon to understand how sediment flows move around atolls. On the basis of this work, the team is currently spinning out a predictive coastal intelligence platform called Littoral. The aim is for it to be “a global health monitoring system for sediment transport,” Dole says. It’s meant not only to show where beaches are losing sand but to “tell us where erosion is going to happen,” allowing government agencies and developers to know where new structures like Ramp Rings can best be placed.

Growing Islands has been supported by the National Geographic Society, MIT, the Sri Lankan engineering group Sanken, and tourist resort developers. In 2023, it got a big bump from the US Agency for International Development: a $250,000 grant that funded the construction of the Ramp Ring deployment and would have provided opportunities to scale up the approach. But the termination of nearly all USAID contracts following the inauguration of President Trump means the project is looking for new partners.

Matthew Ponsford is a freelance reporter based in London.

$8 billion of US climate tech projects have been canceled so far in 2025

This year has been rough for climate technology: Companies have canceled, downsized, or shut down at least 16 large-scale projects worth $8 billion in total in the first quarter of 2025, according to a new report.

That’s far more cancellations than have typically occurred in recent years, according to a new report from E2, a nonpartisan policy group. The trend is due to a variety of reasons, including drastically revised federal policies.

In recent months, the White House has worked to claw back federal investments, including some of those promised under the Inflation Reduction Act. New tariffs on imported goods, including those from China (which dominates supply chains for batteries and other energy technologies), are also contributing to the precarious environment. And demand for some technologies, like EVs, is lagging behind expectations. 

E2, which has been tracking new investments in manufacturing and large-scale energy projects, is now expanding its regular reports to include project cancellations, shutdowns, and downsizings as well.  From August 2022 to the end of 2024, 18 projects were canceled, closed, or downsized, according to E2’s data. The first three months of 2025 have already seen 16 projects canceled.

“I wasn’t sure it was going to be this clear,” says Michael Timberlake, communications director of E2. “What you’re really seeing is that there’s a lot of market uncertainty.”

Despite the big number, it is not comprehensive. The group only tracks large-scale investments, not smaller announcements that can be more difficult to follow. The list also leaves out projects that companies have paused.

“The incredible uncertainty in the clean energy sector is leading to a lot of projects being canceled or downsized, or just slowed down,” says Jay Turner, a professor of environmental studies at Wellesley College. Turner leads a team that also tracks the supply chain for clean energy in the US in a database called the Big Green Machine.

Some turnover is normal, and there have been a lot of projects announced since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed in 2022—so there are more in the pipeline to potentially be canceled, Turner says. So many battery and EV projects were announced that supply would have exceeded demand “even in a best-case scenario,” Turner says. So some of the project cancellations are a result of right-sizing, or getting supply and demand in sync.

Other projects are still moving forward, with hundreds of manufacturing facilities under construction or operational. But it’s not as many as we’d see in a more stable policy landscape, Turner says.

The cancellations include a factory in Georgia from Aspen Aerogels, which received a $670 million loan commitment from the US Department of Energy in October. The facility would have made materials that can help prevent or slow fires in battery packs. In a February earnings call, executives said the company plans to focus on an existing Rhode Island facility and projects in other countries, including China and Mexico. Aspen Aerogels didn’t respond to a request for further comment. 

Hundreds of projects that have been announced in just the last few years are under construction or operational despite the wave of cancellations. But it is an early sign of growing uncertainty for climate technology. 

 “You’re seeing a business environment that’s just unsure what’s next and is hesitant to commit one way or another,” Timberlake says.

These four charts sum up the state of AI and energy

While it’s rare to look at the news without finding some headline related to AI and energy, a lot of us are stuck waving our hands when it comes to what it all means.

Sure, you’ve probably read that AI will drive an increase in electricity demand. But how that fits into the context of the current and future grid can feel less clear from the headlines. That’s true even for people working in the field. 

A new report from the International Energy Agency digs into the details of energy and AI, and I think it’s worth looking at some of the data to help clear things up. Here are four charts from the report that sum up the crucial points about AI and energy demand.

1. AI is power hungry, and the world will need to ramp up electricity supply to meet demand. 

This point is the most obvious, but it bears repeating: AI is exploding, and it’s going to lead to higher energy demand from data centers. “AI has gone from an academic pursuit to an industry with trillions of dollars at stake,” as the IEA report’s executive summary puts it.

Data centers used less than 300 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2020. That could increase to nearly 1,000 terawatt-hours in the next five years, which is more than Japan’s total electricity consumption today.

Today, the US has about 45% of the world’s data center capacity, followed by China. Those two countries will continue to represent the overwhelming majority of capacity through 2035.  

2. The electricity needed to power data centers will largely come from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas in the near term, but nuclear and renewables could play a key role, especially after 2030.

The IEA report is relatively optimistic on the potential for renewables to power data centers, projecting that nearly half of global growth by 2035 will be met with renewables like wind and solar. (In Europe, the IEA projects, renewables will meet 85% of new demand.)

In the near term, though, natural gas and coal will also expand. An additional 175 terawatt-hours from gas will help meet demand in the next decade, largely in the US, according to the IEA’s projections. Another report, published this week by the energy consultancy BloombergNEF, suggests that fossil fuels will play an even larger role than the IEA projects, accounting for two-thirds of additional electricity generation between now and 2035.

Nuclear energy, a favorite of big tech companies looking to power operations without generating massive emissions, could start to make a dent after 2030, according to the IEA data.

3. Data centers are just a small piece of expected electricity demand growth this decade.

We should be talking more about appliances, industry, and EVs when we talk about energy! Electricity demand is on the rise from a whole host of sources: Electric vehicles, air-conditioning, and appliances will each drive more electricity demand than data centers between now and the end of the decade. In total, data centers make up a little over 8% of electricity demand expected between now and 2030.

There are interesting regional effects here, though. Growing economies will see more demand from the likes of air-conditioning than from data centers. On the other hand, the US has seen relatively flat electricity demand from consumers and industry for years, so newly rising demand from high-performance computing will make up a larger chunk. 

4. Data centers tend to be clustered together and close to population centers, making them a unique challenge for the power grid.  

The grid is no stranger to facilities that use huge amounts of energy: Cement plants, aluminum smelters, and coal mines all pull a lot of power in one place. However, data centers are a unique sort of beast.

First, they tend to be closely clustered together. Globally, data centers make up about 1.5% of total electricity demand. However, in Ireland, that number is 20%, and in Virginia, it’s 25%. That trend looks likely to continue, too: Half of data centers under development in the US are in preexisting clusters.

Data centers also tend to be closer to urban areas than other energy-intensive facilities like factories and mines. 

Since data centers are close both to each other and to communities, they could have significant impacts on the regions where they’re situated, whether by bringing on more fossil fuels close to urban centers or by adding strain to the local grid. Or both.

Overall, AI and data centers more broadly are going to be a major driving force for electricity demand. It’s not the whole story, but it’s a unique part of our energy picture to continue watching moving forward. 

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 architect wants to build cities out of lava

Arnhildur Pálmadóttir was around three years old when she saw a red sky from her living room window. A volcano was erupting about 25 miles away from where she lived on the northeastern coast of Iceland. Though it posed no immediate threat, its ominous presence seeped into her subconscious, populating her dreams with streaks of light in the night sky.

Fifty years later, these “gloomy, strange dreams,” as Pálmadóttir now describes them, have led to a career as an architect with an extraordinary mission: to harness molten lava and build cities out of it.

Pálmadóttir today lives in Reykjavik, where she runs her own architecture studio, S.AP Arkitektar, and the Icelandic branch of the Danish architecture company Lendager, which specializes in reusing building materials.

The architect believes the lava that flows from a single eruption could yield enough building material to lay the foundations of an entire city. She has been researching this possibility for more than five years as part of a project she calls Lavaforming. Together with her son and colleague Arnar Skarphéðinsson, she has identified three potential techniques: drill straight into magma pockets and extract the lava; channel molten lava into pre-dug trenches that could form a city’s foundations; or 3D-print bricks from molten lava in a technique similar to the way objects can be printed out of molten glass.

Pálmadóttir and Skarphéðinsson first presented the concept during a talk at Reykjavik’s DesignMarch festival in 2022. This year they are producing a speculative film set in 2150, in an imaginary city called Eldborg. Their film, titled Lavaforming, follows the lives of Eldborg’s residents and looks back on how they learned to use molten lava as a building material. It will be presented at the Venice Biennale, a leading architecture festival, in May. 

lava around a structure
Set in 2150, her speculative film Lavaforming presents a fictional city built from molten lava.
COURTESY OF S.AP ARKITEKTAR

Buildings and construction materials like concrete and steel currently contribute a staggering 37% of the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions. Many architects are advocating for the use of natural or preexisting materials, but mixing earth and water into a mold is one thing; tinkering with 2,000 °F lava is another. 

Still, Pálmadóttir is piggybacking on research already being done in Iceland, which has 30 active volcanoes. Since 2021, eruptions have intensified in the Reykjanes Peninsula, which is close to the capital and to tourist hot spots like the Blue Lagoon. In 2024 alone, there were six volcanic eruptions in that area. This frequency has given volcanologists opportunities to study how lava behaves after a volcano erupts. “We try to follow this beast,” says Gro Birkefeldt M. Pedersen, a volcanologist at the Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO), who has consulted with Pálmadóttir on a few occasions. “There is so much going on, and we’re just trying to catch up and be prepared.”

Pálmadóttir’s concept assumes that many years from now, volcanologists will be able to forecast lava flow accurately enough for cities to plan on using it in building. They will know when and where to dig trenches so that when a volcano erupts, the lava will flow into them and solidify into either walls or foundations.

Today, forecasting lava flows is a complex science that requires remote sensing technology and tremendous amounts of computational power to run simulations on supercomputers. The IMO typically runs two simulations for every new eruption—one based on data from previous eruptions, and another based on additional data acquired shortly after the eruption (from various sources like specially outfitted planes). With every event, the team accumulates more data, which makes the simulations of lava flow more accurate. Pedersen says there is much research yet to be done, but she expects “a lot of advancement” in the next 10 years or so. 

To design the speculative city of Eldborg for their film, Pálmadóttir and Skarphéðinsson used 3D-modeling software similar to what Pedersen uses for her simulations. The city is primarily built on a network of trenches that were filled with lava over the course of several eruptions, while buildings are constructed out of lava bricks. “We’re going to let nature design the buildings that will pop up,” says Pálmadóttir. 

The aesthetic of the city they envision will be less modernist and more fantastical—a bit “like [Gaudi’s] Sagrada Familia,” says Pálmadóttir. But the aesthetic output is not really the point; the architects’ goal is to galvanize architects today and spark an urgent discussion about the impact of climate change on our cities. She stresses the value of what can only be described as moonshot thinking. “I think it is important for architects not to be only in the present,” she told me. “Because if we are only in the present, working inside the system, we won’t change anything.”

Pálmadóttir was born in 1972 in Húsavik, a town known as the whale-watching capital of Iceland. But she was more interested in space and technology and spent a lot of time flying with her father, a construction engineer who owned a small plane. She credits his job for the curiosity she developed about science and “how things were put together”—an inclination that proved useful later, when she started researching volcanoes. So was the fact that Icelanders “learn to live with volcanoes from birth.” At 21, she moved to Norway, where she spent seven years working in 3D visualization before returning to Reykjavik and enrolling in an architecture program at the Iceland University of the Arts. But things didn’t click until she moved to Barcelona for a master’s degree at the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia. “I remember being there and feeling, finally, like I was in the exact right place,” she says. 

Before, architecture had seemed like a commodity and architects like “slaves to investment companies,” she says. Now, it felt like a path with potential. 

Lava has proved to be a strong, durable building material, at least in its solid state. To explore its potential, Pálmadóttir and Skarphéðinsson envision a city built on a network of trenches that have filled with lava over the course of several eruptions, while buildings are constructed with lava bricks.

She returned to Reykjavik in 2009 and worked as an architect until she founded S.AP (for “studio Arnhildur Pálmadóttir”) Arkitektar in 2018; her son started working with her in 2019 and officially joined her as an architect this year, after graduating from the Southern California Institute of Architecture. 

In 2021, the pair witnessed their first eruption up close, near the Fagradalsfjall volcano on the Reykjanes Peninsula. It was there that Pálmadóttir became aware of the sheer quantity of material coursing through the planet’s veins, and the potential to divert it into channels. 

Lava has already proved to be a strong, long-lasting building material—at least in its solid state. When it cools, it solidifies into volcanic rock like basalt or rhyolite. The type of rock depends on the composition of the lava, but basaltic lava—like the kind found in Iceland and Hawaii—forms one of the hardest rocks on Earth, which means that structures built from this type of lava would be durable and resilient. 

For years, architects in Mexico, Iceland, and Hawaii (where lava is widely available) have built structures out of volcanic rock. But quarrying that rock is an energy-intensive process that requires heavy machines to extract, cut, and haul it, often across long distances, leaving a big carbon footprint. Harnessing lava in its molten state, however, could unlock new methods for sustainable construction. Jeffrey Karson, a professor emeritus at Syracuse University who specializes in volcanic activity and who cofounded the Syracuse University Lava Project, agrees that lava is abundant enough to warrant interest as a building material. To understand how it behaves, Karson has spent the past 15 years performing over a thousand controlled lava pours from giant furnaces. If we figure out how to build up its strength as it cools, he says, “that stuff has a lot of potential.” 

In his research, Karson found that inserting metal rods into the lava flow helps reduce the kind of uneven cooling that would lead to thermal cracking—and therefore makes the material stronger (a bit like rebar in concrete). Like glass and other molten materials, lava behaves differently depending on how fast it cools. When glass or lava cools slowly, crystals start forming, strengthening the material. Replicating this process—perhaps in a kiln—could slow down the rate of cooling and let the lava become stronger. This kind of controlled cooling is “easy to do on small things like bricks,” says Karson, so “it’s not impossible to make a wall.” 

Pálmadóttir is clear-eyed about the challenges before her. She knows the techniques she and Skarphéðinsson are exploring may not lead to anything tangible in their lifetimes, but they still believe that the ripple effect the projects could create in the architecture community is worth pursuing.

Both Karson and Pedersen caution that more experiments are necessary to study this material’s potential. For Skarphéðinsson, that potential transcends the building industry. More than 12 years ago, Icelanders voted that the island’s natural resources, like its volcanoes and fishing waters, should be declared national property. That means any city built from lava flowing out of these volcanoes would be controlled not by deep-pocketed individuals or companies, but by the nation itself. (The referendum was considered illegal almost as soon as it was approved by voters and has since stalled.) 

For Skarphéðinsson, the Lavaforming project is less about the material than about the “political implications that get brought to the surface with this material.” “That is the change I want to see in the world,” he says. “It could force us to make radical changes and be a catalyst for something”—perhaps a social megalopolis where citizens have more say in how resources are used and profits are shared more evenly.

Cynics might dismiss the idea of harnessing lava as pure folly. But the more I spoke with Pálmadóttir, the more convinced I became. It wouldn’t be the first time in modern history that a seemingly dangerous idea (for example, drilling into scalding pockets of underground hot springs) proved revolutionary. Once entirely dependent on oil, Iceland today obtains 85% of its electricity and heat from renewable sources. “[My friends] probably think I’m pretty crazy, but they think maybe we could be clever geniuses,” she told me with a laugh. Maybe she is a little bit of both.

Elissaveta M. Brandon is a regular contributor to Fast Company and Wired.

This Texas chemical plant could get its own nuclear reactors

Nuclear reactors could someday power a chemical plant in Texas, making it the first with such a facility onsite. The factory, which makes plastics and other materials, could become a model for power-hungry data centers and other industrial operations going forward.

The plans are the work of Dow Chemical and X-energy, which last week applied for a construction permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency in the US that governs nuclear energy.

It’ll be years before nuclear reactors will actually turn on, but this application marks a major milestone for the project, and for the potential of advanced nuclear technology to power industrial processes.

“This has been a long time coming,” says Harlan Bowers, senior vice president at X-energy. The company has been working with the NRC since 2016 and submitted its first regulatory engagement plan in 2018, he says.

In 2020, the US Department of Energy chose X-energy as one of the awardees of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, which provides funding for next-generation nuclear technologies. And it’s been two years since X-energy and Dow first announced plans for a joint development agreement at Dow’s plant in Seadrift, Texas.  

The Seadrift plant produces 4 billion pounds of materials each year, including plastic used for food and pharmaceutical packaging and chemicals used in products like antifreeze, soaps, and paint. A natural-gas plant onsite currently provides both steam and electricity. That equipment is getting older, so the company was looking for alternatives.  

“Dow saw the opportunity to replace end-of-life assets with safe, reliable, lower-carbon-emissions technology,” said Edward Stones, an executive at Dow, in a written statement in response to questions from MIT Technology Review.

Advanced nuclear reactors designed by X-energy emerged as a fit for the Seadrift site in part because of their ability to deliver high-temperature steam, Stones said in the statement.

X-energy’s reactor is not only smaller than most nuclear plants coming online today but also employs different fuel and different cooling methods. The design is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, which flows helium over self-contained pebbles of nuclear fuel. The fuel can reach temperatures of around 1,000 °C (1,800 °F). As it flows through the reactor and around the pebbles, the helium reaches up to 750 °C (about 1,400 °F). Then that hot helium flows through a generator, making steam at a high temperature and pressure that can be piped directly to industrial equipment or converted into electricity.

The Seadrift facility will include four of X-energy’s Xe-100 reactors, each of which can produce about 200 megawatts’ worth of steam or about 80 megawatts of electricity.

A facility like Dow’s requires an extremely consistent supply of steam, Bowers says. So during normal operation, two of the modules will deliver steam, one will deliver electricity, and the final unit will sell electricity to the local grid. If any single reactor needs to shut down for some reason, there will still be enough onsite power to keep running, he explains.

The progress with the NRC is positive news for the companies involved, but it also represents an achievement for advanced reactor technology more broadly, says Erik Cothron, a senior analyst at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit think tank. “It demonstrates real-world momentum toward deploying new nuclear reactors for industrial decarbonization,” Cothron says.

While there are other companies looking to bring advanced nuclear reactor technology online, this project could be the first to incorporate nuclear power onsite at a factory. It thus sets a precedent for how new nuclear energy technologies can integrate directly with industry, Cothron says—for example, showing a pathway for tech giants looking to power data centers.

It could take up to two and a half years for the NRC to review the construction permit application for this site. The site will also need to receive an operating license before it can start up. Operations are expected to begin “early next decade,” according to Dow.

Correction: A previous version of this story misspelled Erik Cothron’s name.

Tariffs are bad news for batteries

Update: Since this story was first published in The Spark, our weekly climate newsletter, the White House announced that most reciprocal tariffs would be paused for 90 days. That pause does not apply to China, which will see an increased tariff rate of 125%.

Today, new tariffs go into effect for goods imported into the US from basically every country on the planet.

Since Donald Trump announced his plans for sweeping tariffs last week, the vibes have been, in a word, chaotic. Markets have seen one of the quickest drops in the last century, and it’s widely anticipated that the global economic order may be forever changed.  

While many try not to look at the effects on their savings and retirement accounts, experts are scrambling to understand what these tariffs might mean for various industries. As my colleague James Temple wrote in a new story last week, anxieties are especially high in climate technology.

These tariffs could be particularly rough on the battery industry. China dominates the entire supply chain and is subject to monster tariff rates, and even US battery makers won’t escape the effects.   

First, in case you need it, a super-quick refresher: Tariffs are taxes charged on goods that are imported (in this case, into the US). If I’m a US company selling bracelets, and I typically buy my beads and string from another country, I’ll now be paying the US government an additional percentage of what those goods cost to import. Under Trump’s plan, that might be 10%, 20%, or upwards of 50%, depending on the country sending them to me. 

In theory, tariffs should help domestic producers, since products from competitors outside the country become more expensive. But since so many of the products we use have supply chains that stretch all over the world, even products made in the USA often have some components that would be tariffed.

In the case of batteries, we could be talking about really high tariff rates, because most batteries and their components currently come from China. As of 2023, the country made more than 75% of the world’s lithium-ion battery cells, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

Trump’s new plan adds a 34% tariff on all Chinese goods, and that stacks on top of a 20% tariff that was already in place, making the total 54%. (Then, as of Wednesday, the White House further raised the tariff on China, making the total 104%.)

But when it comes to batteries, that’s not even the whole story. There was already a 3.5% tariff on all lithium-ion batteries, for example, as well as a 7.5% tariff on batteries from China that’s set to increase to 25% next year.

If we add all those up, lithium-ion batteries from China could have a tariff of 82% in 2026. (Or 132%, with this additional retaliatory tariff.) In any case, that’ll make EVs and grid storage installations a whole lot more expensive, along with phones, laptops, and other rechargeable devices.

The economic effects could be huge. The US still imports the majority of its lithium-ion batteries, and nearly 70% of those imports are from China. The US imported $4 billion worth of lithium-ion batteries from China just during the first four months of 2024.

Although US battery makers could theoretically stand to benefit, there are a limited number of US-based factories. And most of those factories are still purchasing components from China that will be subject to the tariffs, because it’s hard to overstate just how dominant China is in battery supply chains.

While China makes roughly three-quarters of lithium-ion cells, it’s even more dominant in components: 80% of the world’s cathode materials are made in China, along with over 90% of anode materials. (For those who haven’t been subject to my battery ramblings before, the cathode and anode are two of the main components of a battery—basically, the plus and minus ends.)

Even battery makers that work in alternative chemistries don’t seem to be jumping for joy over tariffs. Lyten is a California-based company working to build lithium-sulfur batteries, and most of its components can be sourced in the US. (For more on the company’s approach, check out this story from 2024.) But tariffs could still spell trouble. Lyten has plans for a new factory, scheduled for 2027, that rely on sourcing affordable construction materials. Will that be possible? “We’re not drawing any conclusions quite yet,” Lyten’s chief sustainability officer, Keith Norman, told Heatmap News.

The battery industry in the US was already in a pretty tough spot. Billions of dollars’ worth of factories have been canceled since Trump took office.  Companies making investments that can total hundreds of millions or billions of dollars don’t love uncertainty, and tariffs are certainly adding to an already uncertain environment.

We’ll be digging deeper into what the tariffs mean for climate technology broadly, and specifically some of the industries we cover. If you have questions, or if you have thoughts to share about what this will mean for your area of research or business, I’d love to hear them at casey.crownhart@technologyreview.com. I’m also on Bluesky @caseycrownhart.bsky.social.

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

We should talk more about air-conditioning

Things are starting to warm up here in the New York City area, and it’s got me thinking once again about something that people aren’t talking about enough: energy demand for air conditioners. 

I get it: Data centers are the shiny new thing to worry about. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t be thinking about the strain that gigawatt-scale computing installations put on the grid. But a little bit of perspective is important here.

According to a report from the International Energy Agency last year, data centers will make up less than 10% of the increase in energy demand between now and 2030, far less than the energy demand from space cooling (mostly air-conditioning).

I just finished up a new story that’s out today about a novel way to make heat exchangers, a crucial component in air conditioners and a whole host of other technologies that cool our buildings, food, and electronics. Let’s dig into why I’m writing about the guts of cooling technologies, and why this sector really needs innovation. 

One twisted thing about cooling and climate change: It’s all a vicious cycle. As temperatures rise, the need for cooling technologies increases. In turn, more fossil-fuel power plants are firing up to meet that demand, turning up the temperature of the planet in the process.

“Cooling degree days” are one measure of the need for additional cooling. Basically, you take a preset baseline temperature and figure out how much the temperature exceeds it. Say the baseline (above which you’d likely need to flip on a cooling device) is 21 °C (70 °F). If the average temperature for a day is 26 °C, that’s five cooling degree days on a single day. Repeat that every day for a month, and you wind up with 150 cooling degree days.

I explain this arguably weird metric because it’s a good measure of total energy demand for cooling—it lumps together both how many hot days there are and just how hot it is.  

And the number of cooling degree days is steadily ticking up globally. Global cooling degree days were 6% higher in 2024 than in 2023, and 20% higher than the long-term average for the first two decades of the century. Regions that have high cooling demand, like China, India, and the US, were particularly affected, according to the IEA report. You can see a month-by-month breakdown of this data from the IEA here.

That increase in cooling degree days is leading to more demand for air conditioners, and for energy to power them. Air-conditioning accounted for 7% of the world’s electricity demand in 2022, and it’s only going to get more important from here.

There were fewer than 2 billion AC units in the world in 2016. By 2050, that could be nearly 6 billion, according to a 2018 report from the IEA. This is a measure of progress and, in a way, something we should be happy about; the number of air conditioners tends to rise with household income. But it does present a challenge to the grid.  

Another piece of this whole thing: It’s not just about how much total electricity we need to run air conditioners but about when that demand tends to come. As we’ve covered in this newsletter before, your air-conditioning habits aren’t unique. Cooling devices tend to flip on around the same time—when it’s hot. In some parts of the US, for example, air conditioners can represent more than 70% of residential energy demand at times when the grid is most stressed.

The good news is that we’re seeing innovations in cooling technology. Some companies are building cooling systems that include an energy storage component, so they can charge up when energy is plentiful and demand is low. Then they can start cooling when it’s most needed, without sucking as much energy from the grid during peak hours.

We’ve also covered alternatives to air conditioners called desiccant cooling systems, which use special moisture-sucking materials to help cool spaces and deal with humidity more efficiently than standard options.

And in my latest story, I dug into new developments in heat exchanger technology. Heat exchangers are a crucial component of air conditioners, but you can really find them everywhere—in heat pumps, refrigerators, and, yes, the cooling systems in large buildings and large electronics installations, including data centers.

We’ve been building heat exchangers basically the same way for nearly a century. These components basically move heat around, and there are a few known ways to do so with devices that are relatively straightforward to manufacture. Now, though, one team of researchers has 3D-printed a heat exchanger that outperforms some standard designs and rivals others. This is still a long way from solving our looming air-conditioning crisis, but the details are fascinating—I hope you’ll give it a read

We need more innovation in cooling technology to help meet global demand efficiently so we don’t stay stuck in this cycle. And we’ll need policy and public support to make sure that these technologies make a difference and that everyone has access to them too. 

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