Cleaner jet fuel: 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2025

WHO

Gevo, LanzaJet, Montana Renewables, Neste, World Energy

WHEN

Now

All the world’s planes consumed roughly 100 billion gallons of jet fuel as they crisscrossed the planet in 2024. Only about 0.5% of it was something other than fossil fuel. That could soon change.

Alternative jet fuels could slash aviation emissions—which have caused about 4% of global warming to date. These new fuels can be made with materials like used cooking oils, crop residue, industrial waste, and carbon dioxide captured from the air. Depending on the source, they can reduce emissions by half or nearly eliminate them. And they can generally be used in existing planes, which could enable quick climate progress.

Explore the full 2025 list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.

More governments are now setting targets or passing legislation requiring airlines to begin using these alternative fuels (sometimes called sustainable aviation fuels, or SAFs). Starting this year, alternative fuels must make up at least 2% of the fuel used at airports in the European Union and UK. That mandate will ramp up in the coming decades, reaching 70% in the EU by 2050.

Today, nearly all commercially available alternative fuel is made with waste fats, oils, and greases. Montana Renewables recently got a $1.44 billion loan commitment from the US Department of Energy to expand one facility for such production. Still, these materials remain in limited supply.

Companies using other technologies and inputs are making progress scaling up. LanzaJet opened the first commercial-scale facility to make jet fuel from ethanol in early 2024, with a capacity of 9 million gallons annually. Synthetic fuels made with carbon dioxide could further expand options for airlines, though those fuels aren’t being produced at commercial scale yet.

One crucial factor for alternative jet fuels moving forward will be cost—on average, SAFs on the market today tend to be nearly three times more expensive than conventional jet fuel. Having more companies producing more fuel should help bring down the price, though newer fuels could be even more costly. 

Why EVs are (mostly) set for solid growth in 2025

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

It looks as though 2025 will be a solid year for electric vehicles—at least outside the United States, where sales will depend on the incoming administration’s policy choices.

Globally, these cleaner cars and trucks will continue to eat into the market share of gas-guzzlers as costs decline, consumer options expand, and charging stations proliferate.

Despite all the hubbub about an EV slowdown last year, worldwide sales of battery EVs and plug-in hybrids likely hit a record high of nearly 17 million vehicles in 2024 and are expected to rise about 20% this year, according to the market research firm BloombergNEF. 

In addition, numerous automakers are preparing to deliver a variety of cheaper models to auto showrooms around the world. In turn, both the oil demand and the greenhouse-gas emissions stemming from vehicles on the roads are likely to peak over the next few years.

To be sure, the growth rate of EV sales has cooled, as consumers in many regions continue to wait for more affordable options and more convenient charging solutions. 

It also hasn’t helped that a handful of nations, like China, Germany, and New Zealand, have eased back the subsidies that were accelerating the rollout of low-emissions vehicles. And it certainly won’t do the sector any favors if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his campaign pledges to eliminate government support for EVs and erect trade barriers that would raise the cost of producing or purchasing them.

Industry experts and climate scientists argue that the opposite should be happening right now. A critical piece of any realistic strategy to keep climate change in check is to fully supplant internal-combustion vehicles by around 2050. Without stricter mandates or more generous support for EVs, the world will not be on track to meet that goal, BloombergNEF finds and others confirm. 

“We have to push the car companies—and we also have to help them with incentives, R&D, and infrastructure,” says Gil Tal, director of the EV Research Center at the University of California, Davis.

But ultimately, the fate of EV sales will depend on the particular dynamics within specific regions. Here’s a closer look at what’s likely to steer the sector in the world’s three largest markets: the US, the EU, and China.

United States

The US EV market will be a mess of contradictions.

On the one hand, companies are spending tens of billions of dollars to build or expand battery, EV, and charger manufacturing plants across America. Within the next few years, Honda intends to begin running assembly lines retooled to produce EVs in Ohio, Toyota plans to begin producing electric SUVs at its flagship plant in Kentucky, and GM expects to begin cranking out its revived Bolts in Kansas, among dozens of other facilities in planning or under construction.

All that promises to drive down the cost of cleaner vehicles, boost consumer options, create tens of thousands of jobs, and help US auto manufacturers catch up with overseas rivals that are speeding ahead in EV design, production, and innovation.

But it’s not clear that will necessarily translate into lower consumer prices, and thus greater demand, because Trump has pledged to unravel the key policies currently propelling the sector. 

His plans are reported to include rolling back the consumer tax credits of up to $7,500 included in President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. He has also threatened to impose stiff tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, China, Canada, and other nations where many vehicles or parts are manufactured. 

Tal says those policy shifts could more than wipe out any cost reductions brought about as companies scale up production of EV components and vehicles domestically. Tighter trade restrictions could also make it that much harder for foreign companies producing cheaper models to break into the US market.

That matters because the single biggest holdup for American consumers is the lofty expense of EVs. The most affordable models still start at around $30,000 in the US, and many electric cars, trucks, and SUVs top $40,000. 

“There’s nothing available in the more affordable options,” says Bhuvan Atluri, associate director of research at the MIT Mobility Initiative. “And models that were promised are nowhere to be seen.” (MIT owns MIT Technology Review.)

Indeed, Elon Musk still has yet to deliver on his 18-year-old “master plan” to produce a mass-market-priced Tesla EV, most recently calling a $25,000 model “pointless.” 

As noted, there is a revamped Chevy Bolt on the way for US consumers, as well as a $25,000 Jeep. But the actual price tags won’t be clear until these vehicles hit dealerships and the Trump administration translates its campaign rhetoric into policies. 

European Union

The EV story across the Europe Union is likely to be considerably more upbeat in the year to come. That’s because carbon dioxide emissions standards for passenger vehicles are set to tighten, requiring automakers in member countries to reduce climate pollution across their fleet by 15% from 2021 levels. Under the EU’s climate plan, these targets become stricter every five years, with the goal of eliminating emissions from cars and trucks by 2035.

Automakers intend to introduce a number of affordable EV models in the coming months, timed deliberately to help the companies meet the new mandates, says Felipe Rodríguez, Europe deputy managing director at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

Those lower-priced models include Volkwagen’s ID.2all hatchback ($26,000) and the Fiat Panda EV ($28,500), among others.

On average, manufacturers will need to boost the share of battery-electric vehicles from 16% of total sales in 2023 to around 28% in order to meet the goal, according to the ICCT. Some European car companies are raising their prices for combustion vehicles and cutting the price tag on existing EVs to help hit the targets. And predictably, some are also arguing for the European Commission to loosen the rules.

Sales trends in any given country will still depend on local conditions and policy decisions. One big question is whether a new set of tax incentives or additional policy changes will help Germany, Europe’s largest auto market, revive the growth of its EV sector. Sales tanked there last year, after the nation cut off subsidies at the end of 2023.

EVs now make up about 25% of new sales across the EU. The ICCT estimates that they’ll surpass combustion vehicles EU-wide around 2030, when the emissions rules are set to significantly tighten again.

China

After decades of strategic investments and targeted policies, China is now the dominant manufacturer of EVs as well as the world’s largest market. That’s not likely to change for the foreseeable future, no matter what trade barriers the US or other countries impose.

In October, the European Commission enacted sharply higher tariffs on China-built EVs, arguing that the country has provided unfair market advantages to its domestic companies. That followed the Biden administration’s decision last May to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese vehicles, citing unfair trade practices and intellectual-property theft.

Chinese officials, for their part, argue that their domestic companies have earned market advantages by producing affordable, high-quality electric vehicles. More than 60% of Chinese EVs are already cheaper than their combustion-engine counterparts, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates.

“The reality—and what makes this a difficult challenge—is that there is some truth in both perspectives,” writes Scott Kennedy, trustee chair in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

These trade barriers have created significant risks for China’s EV makers, particularly coupled with the country’s sluggish economy, its glut of automotive production capacity, and the fact that most companies in the sector aren’t profitable. China also cut back subsidies for EVs at the end of 2022, replacing them with a policy that requires manufacturers to achieve fuel economy targets.

But the country has been intentionally diversifying its export markets for years and is well positioned to continue increasing its sales of electric cars and buses in countries across Southeast Asia, Latin America and Europe, says Hui He, China regional director at the ICCT. There are also some indications that China and the EU could soon reach a compromise in their trade dispute.

Domestically, China is now looking to rural markets to boost growth for the industry. Officials have created purchase subsidies for residents in the countryside and called for the construction of more charging facilities.

By most estimates, China will continue to see solid growth in EV sales, putting nearly 50 million battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the country’s roads by the end of this year.

How wind tech could help decarbonize cargo shipping

Inhabitants of the Marshall Islands—a chain of coral atolls in the center of the Pacific Ocean—rely on sea transportation for almost everything: moving people from one island to another, importing daily necessities from faraway nations, and exporting their local produce. For millennia they sailed largely in canoes, but much of their seafaring movement today involves big, bulky, diesel-fueled cargo ships that are heavy polluters. 

They’re not alone, of course. Cargo shipping is responsible for about 3% of the world’s annual greenhouse-­gas emissions, and at the current rate of growth, the global industry could account for 10% of emissions by 2050. 

Marshallese shipping represents just a drop in the ocean of global greenhouse-gas pollution; larger, more industrially developed countries are responsible for far more. But the islands have been disproportionately experiencing the consequences of human-made climate change: warming waters, more frequent extreme weather, and rising sea levels.

All this has created a sense of urgency for people like Alson Kelen, who lives and works in Majuro, the islands’ capital. He’s the founder of Waan Aelõñ, a Marshallese canoeing organization that is focused on keeping the region’s ancient and more environmentally sustainable maritime traditions alive. In doing so, he hopes to help his nation fully decarbonize its fleets. Efforts include training local youths to build traditional Marshallese canoes (to replace small, motor-powered speedboats) and larger sailboats fitted with solar panels (to replace medium-size cargo ships). He was also an advisor on construction of the Juren Ae, a cargo sailboat (shown at right) inspired by traditional Marshallese vessels, which made its maiden voyage in 2024 and can carry 300 metric tons of cargo. The Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation hopes it offers a blueprint for cleaner cargo transportation across the Pacific; relative to a fuel-powered cargo ship, the vessel could decrease emissions by up to 80%. It’s “a beautiful big sister of our little canoes,” says Kelen.

Though hyperlocal, Kelen’s work is part of a global project from the International Maritime Organization to reduce emissions associated with cargo shipping to net zero by 2050. Beyond these tiny islands, much of the effort to meet the IMO’s goals focuses on replacing gasoline with alternatives such as ammonia, methane, nuclear power, and hydrogen. And there’s also what the Marshallese people have long relied on: wind power. It’s just one option on the table, but the industry cannot decarbonize quickly enough to meet the IMO’s goals without a role for wind propulsion, says Christiaan De Beukelaer, a political anthropologist and author of Trade Winds: A Voyage to a Sustainable Future for Shipping. “If you take time into consideration, wind is indispensable,” he says. Studies show that deploying wind power on vessels could lower the shipping industry’s carbon dioxide emissions by 20%.     

“What wind does is it effectively cuts out a few uncertainties,” says De Beukelaer—variables such as the fluctuation of fuel prices and the costs from any carbon pricing scheme the industry may adopt. The IMO is technology agnostic, meaning it sets the goals and safety standards but lets the market find the best ways to attain them. A spokesperson from the organization says wind propulsion is one of many avenues being explored.      

Sails can be used either to fully power a vessel or to supplement the motors as a way of reducing fuel consumption for large bulk carriers, oil tankers, and the roll-on/roll-off vessels used to transport airplanes and cars worldwide. Modern cargo sails come in several shapes, sizes, and styles, including wings, rotors, suction sails, and kites.

“If we’ve got five and a half thousand years of experience, isn’t this just a no-brainer?” says Gavin Allwright, secretary-general of the International Windship Association.

Older cargo boats with new sails can use propulsive energy from the wind for up to 30% of their power, while cargo vessels designed specifically for wind could rely on it for up to 80% of their needs, says Allwright, who is still working on standardized measurement criteria to figure out which combination of ship and sail model is most efficient.

“There are so many variables involved,” he says—from the size of the ship to the captain steering it. The 50th large vessel fitted with wind-harnessing tech set sail in October 2024, and he predicts that maritime wind power is set to boom by the beginning of 2026. 


drone view over a ship at sea with vertical metal sails

COURTESY OF OCEANBIRD

Hard wings

One of the more popular designs for cargo ships is a rigid saila hard, winglike structure that is placed vertically on top of the vessel. 

“It’s very much like an airplane wing,” says Niclas Dahl, managing director of Oceanbird, a Swedish company that develops these sails. Each one has a main and a flap, which creates a chamber where the wind speed is faster on the outside than the inside. In an aircraft, that discrepancy generates lift force, but in this case, says Dahl, it propels the ship forward. The wings are rigid, but they can be swiveled around and adjusted to capture the wind depending on where it’s coming from, and they can be folded and retracted close to the deck of the ship when it is nearing a dock.

One of Oceanbird’s sailsthe 40-meter-high, 14-meter-wide Wing 560, made of high-strength steel, glass fiber, and recycled polyethylene terephthalatecould help cargo ships reduce fuel use by up to 10% per trip, according to the company’s calculations. Oceanbird is installing its first set of wings on a cargo vessel that transports cars, which was scheduled to be ready by the end of 2024.

Oceanbird, though, is just one manufacturer; by late 2024, eight cargo vessels propelled by hard wings were cruising around the world, most of them generalized bulk carriers and oil tankers.


COURTESY OF CARGOKITE

Kites

Other engineers and scientists are working to power cargo vessels with kites like those that propel paragliders. These kites are made from mixtures of UV-resistant polyester, and they are tethered to the ship’s bow and fly up to 200 to 300 meters above the ship, where they can make the best use of the constant winds at that altitude to basically tug the boat forward. To maximize lift, the kites are controlled by computers to operate in the sweet spot where wind is most constant. Studies show that a 400-square-meter kite can produce fuel savings of 9% to 15%.

“The main reason for us believing in kites is high-altitude winds,” says Tim Linnenweber, cofounder of CargoKite, which designs micro cargo ships that can be powered this way. “You basically have an increasing wind speed the higher you go, and so more consistent, more reliable, more steady winds.” 


COURTESY OF BOUND4BLUE

Suction sails

Initially used for airplanes in the 1930s, suction sails were designed and tested on boats in the 1980s by the oceanographer and diving pioneer Jacques Cousteau. 

Suction sails are chubby metal sails that look something like rotors but more oval, with a pointed side. And instead of making the whole sail spin around, the motor turns on a fan on the inside of the sail that sucks in wind from the outside. Cristina Aleixendri, cofounder of Bound4Blue, a Spanish company building suction sails, explains that the vent pulls air in through lots of little holes in the shell of the sail and creates what physicists call a boundary layera thin layer of air blanketing the sail and thrusting it forward. Bound4Blue’s modern model generates 20% more thrust per square meter of sail than Cousteau’s original design, says Aleixendri, and up to seven times more thrust than a conventional sail. 

Twelve ships fitted with a total of 26 suction sails are currently operating, ranging from fishing boats and oil tankers to roll-on/roll-off vessels. Bound4Blue is working on fitting six ships and has fitted four alreadyincluding one with the largest suction sail ever installed, at 22 meters tall.


COURTESY OF NORSEPOWER

Rotor sails

In the 1920s, the German engineer Anton Flettner had a vision for a wind-powered ship that used vertical, revolving metal cylinders in place of traditional sails. In 1926, a vessel using his novel design, known as the Flettner rotor, crossed the Atlantic for the first time. 

Flettner rotors work thanks to the Magnus effect, a phenomenon that occurs when a spinning object moves through a fluid, causing a lift force that can deflect the object’s path. With Flettner’s design, motors spin the cylinders around, and the pressure difference between the sides of the spinning object generates thrust forward, much like a soccer player bending the trajectory of a ball.

In a modern upgrade of the rotor sail, designed by the Finnish company Norsepower, the cylinders can spin up to 300 times per minute. This produces 10 times more thrust power than a conventional sail. Norsepower has fitted 27 rotor sails on 14 ships out at sea so far, and six more ships equipped with rotor sails from other companies set sail in 2024.

“According to our calculations, the rotor sail is, at the moment, the most efficient wind-assistive power when you look at eurocent per kilowatt-hour,” says Heikki Pöntynen, Norsepower’s CEO. Results from their vessels currently out at sea suggest that fuel savings are “anywhere between 5% to 30% on the whole voyage.” 

Sofia Quaglia is a freelance science journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, National Geographic, and New Scientist.

The world’s first industrial-scale plant for green steel promises a cleaner future

As of 2023, nearly 2 billion metric tons of it were being produced annually, enough to cover Manhattan in a layer more than 13 feet thick. 

Making this metal produces a huge amount of carbon dioxide. Overall, steelmaking accounts for around 8% of the world’s carbon emissions—one of the largest industrial emitters and far more than such sources as aviation. The most common manufacturing process yields about two tons of carbon dioxide for every ton of steel.  

A handful of groups and companies are now making serious progress toward low- or zero-emission steel. Among them, the Swedish company Stegra stands out. (Originally named H2 Green Steel, the company renamed itself Stegra—which means “to elevate” in Swedish—in September.) The startup, formed in 2020, has raised close to $7 billion and is building a plant in Boden, a town in northern Sweden. It will be the first industrial-scale plant in the world to make green steel. Stegra says it is on track to begin production in 2026, initially producing 2.5 million metric tons per year and eventually making 4.5 million metric tons. 

The company uses so-called green hydrogen, which is produced using renewable energy, to process iron ore into steel. Located in a part of Sweden with abundant hydropower, Stegra’s plant will use hydro and wind power to drive a massive electrolyzer that splits water to make the hydrogen. The hydrogen gas will then be used to pull the oxygen out of iron ore to make metallic iron—a key step in steelmaking.  

This process of using hydrogen to make iron—and subsequently steel—has already been used at pilot plants by Midrex, an American company from which Stegra is purchasing the equipment. But Stegra will have to show that it will work in a far larger plant.

The world produces about 60,000 metric tons of steel every 15 minutes.

“We have multiple steps that haven’t really been proven at scale before,” says Maria Persson Gulda, Stegra’s chief technology officer. These steps include building one of the world’s largest electrolyzers. 

Beyond the unknowns of scaling up a new technology, Stegra also faces serious business challenges. The steel industry is a low-margin, intensely competitive sector in which companies win customers largely on price.

aerial view of construction site
The startup, formed in 2020, has raised close to $7 billion in financing and expects to begin operations in 2026 at its plant in Boden.
STEGRA

Once operations begin, Stegra calculates, it can come close to producing steel at the same cost as the conventional product, largely thanks to its access to cheap electricity. But it plans to charge 20% to 30% more to cover the €4.5 billion it will take to build the plant. Gulda says the company has already sold contracts for 1.2 million metric tons to be produced in the next five to seven years. And its most recent customers—such as car manufacturers seeking to reduce their carbon emissions and market their products as green—have agreed to pay the 30% premium. 

Now the question is: Can Stegra deliver? 

The secret of hydrogen

To make steel—an alloy of iron and carbon, with a few other elements thrown in as needed—you first need to get the oxygen out of the iron ore dug from the ground. That leaves you with the purified metal.

The most common steelmaking process starts in blast furnaces, where the ore is mixed with a carbon-­rich coal derivative called coke and heated. The carbon reacts with the oxygen in the ore to produce carbon dioxide; the metal left behind then enters another type of furnace, where more oxygen is forced into it under high heat and pressure. The gas reacts with remaining impurities to produce various oxides, which are then removed—leaving steel behind.  

The second conventional method, which is used to make a much smaller share of the world’s steel, is a process called direct reduction. This usually employs natural gas, which is separated into hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Both gases react with the oxygen to pull it out of the iron ore, creating carbon dioxide and water as by-products. 

The iron that remains is melted in an electric arc furnace and further processed to remove impurities and create steel. Overall, this method is about 40% lower in emissions than the blast furnace technique, but it still produces over a ton of carbon dioxide for every ton of steel.

But why not just use hydrogen instead of starting with natural gas? The only by-product would be water. And if, as Stegra plans to do, you use green hydrogen made using clean power, the result is a new and promising way of making steel that can theoretically produce close to zero emissions. 

Stegra’s process is very similar to the standard direct reduction technique, except that since it uses only hydrogen, it needs a higher temperature. It’s not the only possible way to make steel with a negligible carbon footprint, but it’s the only method on the verge of being used at an industrial scale. 

Premium marketing

Stegra has laid the foundations for its plant and is putting the roof and walls on its steel mill. The first equipment has been installed in the building where electric arc furnaces will melt the iron and churn out steel, and work is underway on the facility that will house a 700-megawatt electrolyzer, the largest in Europe.

To make hydrogen, purify iron, and produce 2.5 million metric tons of green steel annually, the plant will consume 10 terawatt-hours of electricity. This is a massive amount, on par with the annual usage of a small country such as Estonia. Though the costs of electricity in Stegra’s agreements are confidential, publicly available data suggest rates around €30 ($32) per megawatt-hour or more. (At that rate, 10 terawatt-hours would cost $320 million.) 

STEGRA

Many of the buyers of the premium green steel are in the automotive industry; they include Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, BMW, Volvo Group, and Scania, a Swedish company that makes trucks and buses. Six companies that make furniture, appliances, and construction material—including Ikea—have also signed up, as have five companies that buy steel and distribute it to many different manufacturers.

Some of these automakers—including Volvo, which will buy from Stegra and rival SSAB—are marketing cars made with the green steel as “fossil-free.” And since cars and trucks also have many parts that are much more expensive than the steel they use, steel that costs the automakers a bit more adds only a little to the cost of a vehicle—perhaps a couple of hundred dollars or less, according to some estimates. Many companies have also set internal targets to reduce emissions, and buying green steel can get them closer to those goals.

Stegra’s business model is made possible in part by the unique economic conditions within the European Union. In December 2022, the European Parliament approved a tariff on imported carbon-­intensive products such as steel, known as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). As of 2024, this law requires those who import iron, steel, and other commodities to report the materials’ associated carbon emissions. 

Starting in 2026, companies will have to begin paying fees designed to be proportional to the materials’ carbon footprint. Some companies are already betting that it will be enough to make Stegra’s 30% premium worthwhile. 

crane hoisting an i-beam  next to a steel building frame

STEGRA

Though the law could incentivize decarbonization within the EU and for those importing steel into Europe, green steelmakers will probably also need subsidies to defray the costs of scaling up, says Charlotte Unger, a researcher at the Research Institute for Sustainability in Potsdam, Germany. In Stegra’s case, it will receive €265 million from the European Commission to help build its plant; it was also granted €250 million from the European Union’s Innovation Fund.  

Meanwhile, Stegra is working to reduce costs and beef up revenues. Olof Hernell, the chief digital officer, says the company has invested heavily in digital products to improve efficiency. For example, a semi-automated system will be used to increase or decrease usage of electricity according to its fluctuating price on the grid.

Stegra realized there was no sophisticated software for keeping track of the emissions that the company is producing at every step of the steelmaking process. So it is making its own carbon accounting software, which it will soon sell as part of a new spinoff company. This type of accounting is ultra-important to Stegra, Hernell says, since “we ask for a pretty significant premium, and that premium lives only within the promise of a low carbon footprint.” 

Not for everyone

As long as CBAM stays in place, Stegra believes, there will be more than enough demand for its green steel, especially if other carbon pricing initiatives come into force. The company’s optimism is boosted by the fact that it expects to be the first to market and anticipates costs coming down over time. But for green steel to affect the market more broadly, or stay viable once several companies begin making significant quantities of it, its manufacturing costs will eventually have to be competitive with those of conventional steel.

Stegra has sold contracts for 1.2 million metric tons of steel to be produced in the next five to seven years.

Even if Stegra has a promising outlook in Europe, its hydrogen-based steelmaking scheme is unlikely to make economic sense in many other places in the world—at least in the near future. There are very few regions with such a large amount of clean electricity and easy access to the grid. What’s more, northern Sweden is also rich in high-quality ore that is easy to process using the hydrogen direct reduction method, says Chris Pistorius, a metallurgical engineer and co-director of the Center for Iron and Steelmaking Research at Carnegie Mellon University.

Green steel can be made from lower-grade ore, says Pistorius, “but it does have the negative effects of higher electricity consumption, hence slower processing.”

Given the EU incentives, other hydrogen-based steel plants are in the works in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe. Hybrit, a green steel technology developed by SSAB, the mining company LKAB, and the energy producer Vattenfall, uses a process similar to Stegra’s. LKAB hopes to finish a demonstration plant by 2028 in Gällivare, also in northern Sweden. However, progress has been delayed by challenges in getting the necessary environmental permit.

Meanwhile, a company called Boston Metal is working to commercialize a different technique to break the bonds in iron oxide by running a current through a mixture of iron ore and an electrolyte, creating extremely high heat. This electrochemical process yields a purified iron metal that can be turned into steel. The technology hasn’t been proved at scale yet, but Boston Metal hopes to license its green steel process in 2026. 

Understandably, these new technologies will cost more at first, and consumers or governments will have to foot the bill, says Jessica Allen, an expert on green steel production at the University of Newcastle in Australia. 

In Stegra’s case, both seem willing to do so. But it will be more difficult outside the EU. What’s more, producing enough green steel to make a large dent in the sector’s emissions will likely require a portfolio of different techniques to succeed. 

Still, as the first to market, Stegra is playing a vital role, Allen says, and its performance will color perceptions of green steel for years to come. “Being willing to take a risk and actually build … that’s exactly what we need,” she adds. “We need more companies like this.”

For now, Stegra’s plant—rising from the boreal forests of northern Sweden—represents the industry’s leading effort. When it begins operations in 2026, that plant will be the first demonstration that steel can be made at an industrial scale without releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide—and, just as important, that customers are willing to pay for it. 

Douglas Main is a journalist and former senior editor and writer at National Geographic.

This international surveillance project aims to protect wheat from deadly diseases

When Dave Hodson walked through wheat fields in Ethiopia in 2010, it seemed as if everything had been painted yellow. A rust fungus was in the process of infecting about one-third of the country’s wheat, and winds had carried its spores far and wide, coating everything in their path. “The fields were completely yellow. You’d walk through them and your clothes were just bright yellow,” he says.

Hodson, who was then at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, had flown down to Ethiopia with colleagues to investigate the epidemic. But there was little that could be done: Though the authorities had some fungicides, by the time they realized what was happening, it was too late. Ethiopia, the biggest wheat-producing nation in sub-Saharan Africa, lost between 15% and 20% of its harvest that year. “Talking with farmers—they were just losing everything,” Hodson told MIT Technology Review. “And it’s just like, ‘Well, we should have been able to do more to help you.’”

Hodson, now aprincipal scientist at the international nonprofit CIMMYT, has since been working with colleagues on a plan to stop such losses in the future. Together with Maricelis Acevedo at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, he co-leads the Wheat Disease Early Warning Advisory System, known as Wheat DEWAS, an international initiative that brings together scientists from 23 organizations around the world.

The idea is to scale up a system to track wheat diseases and forecast potential outbreaks to governments and farmers in close to real time. In doing so, they hope to protect a crop that supplies about one-fifth of the world’s calories.

The effort could not be more timely. For as long as there’s been domesticated wheat (about 8,000 years), there has been harvest-devastating rust. Breeding efforts in the mid-20th century led to rust-resistant wheat strains that boosted crop yields, and rust epidemics receded in much of the world. But now, after decades, rusts are considered a reemerging disease in Europe. That’s due partly to climate change, because warmer conditions are more conducive to infection. Vulnerable regions including South Asia and Africa are also under threat.

Wheat DEWAS officially launched in 2023 with $7.3 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (now called the Gates Foundation) and the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. But an earlier incarnation of the system averted disaster in 2021, when another epidemic threatened Ethiopia’s wheat fields. Early field surveys by a local agricultural research team had picked up a new strain of yellow rust. The weather conditions were “super optimal” for the development of rust in the field, Hodson says, but the team’s early warning system meant that action was taken in good time—the government deployed fungicides quickly, and the farmers had a bumper wheat harvest. 

Wheat DEWAS works by scaling up and coordinating efforts and technologies across continents. At the ground level is surveillance—teams of local pathologistswho survey wheat fields, inputting data on smartphones. They gather information on which wheat varieties are growing and take photos and samples. The project is now developing a couple of apps, one of which will use AI to help identify diseases by analyzing photos.

Another arm of the system, based at the John Innes Centre in the UK, focuses on diagnostics. The group there, working with researchers at CIMMYT and the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, developed MARPLE (a loose acronym for “mobile and real-time plant disease”), which Hodson describes as a mini gene sequencer about the size of a cell phone. It can test wheat samples for the rust fungus locally and provide a result within two to three days, whereas conventional diagnostics need months.

 “The beauty of it is you could pick up something new very quickly,” says Hodson. “And it’s often the new things that give the biggest problems.”

The data from the field is sent directly to a team at the Global Rust Reference Center at Aarhus University in Denmark, which combines everything into one huge database. Enabling nations and globally scattered groups to share an infrastructure is key, says Aarhus’s Jens Grønbech Hansen, who leads the data management package for Wheat DEWAS. Without collaborating and harmonizing data, he says, “technology won’t solve these problems all on its own.”

“We build up trust so that by combining the data, we can benefit from a bigger picture and see patterns we couldn’t see when it was all fragmented,” Hansen says.

Their automated system sends data to Chris Gilligan, who leads the modeling arm of Wheat DEWAS at the University of Cambridge. With his team, he works with the UK’s Met Office, using their supercomputer to model how the fungal spores at a given site might spread under specific weather conditions and what the risk is of their landing, germinating, and infecting other areas. The team drew on previous models, including work on the ash plume from the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, which caused havoc in Europe in 2010.

Each day, a downloadable bulletin is posted online with a seven-day forecast. Additional alerts or advisories are also sent out. Information is then disseminated from governments or national authorities to farmers. For example, in Ethiopia, immediate risks are conveyed to farmers by SMS text messaging. Crucially, if there’s likely to be a problem, the alerts offer time to respond. “You’ve got, in effect, three weeks’ grace,” says Gilligan. That is, growers may know of the risk up to a week ahead of time, enabling them to take action as the spores are landing and causing infections.

The project is currently focused on eight countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia in Africa and Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Bhutan in Asia. But the researchers hope they will get additional funding to carry the project on beyond 2026 and, ideally, to extend it in a variety of ways, including the addition of more countries. 

Gilligan says the technology may be potentially transferable to other wheat diseases, and other crops—like rice—that are also affected by weather-­dispersed pathogens.

Dagmar Hanold, a plant pathologist at the University of Adelaide who is not involved in the project, describes it as “vital work for global agriculture.”

“Cereals, including wheat, are vital staples for people and animals worldwide,” Hanold says. Although programs have been set up to breed more pathogen-­resistant crops, new pathogen strains emerge frequently. And if these combine and swap genes, she warns, they could become “even more ­aggressive.”

Shaoni Bhattacharya is a freelance writer and editor based in London.

China banned exports of a few rare minerals to the US. Things could get messier.

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 thought more about gallium and germanium over the last week than I ever have before (and probably more than anyone ever should).

As you may already know, China banned the export of those materials to the US last week and placed restrictions on others. The move is just the latest drama in escalating trade tensions between the two countries.

While the new export bans could have significant economic consequences, this might be only the beginning. China is a powerhouse, and not just in those niche materials—it’s also a juggernaut in clean energy, and particularly in battery supply chains. So what comes next could have significant consequences for EVs and climate action more broadly.

A super-quick catch-up on the news here: The Biden administration recently restricted exports of chips and other technology that could help China develop advanced semiconductors. Also, president-elect Donald Trump has floated all sorts of tariffs on Chinese goods.

Apparently in response to some or all of this, China banned the export of gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials used in manufacturing, and said it may further restrict graphite sales. The materials are all used for both military and civilian technologies, and significantly, gallium and germanium are used in semiconductors.

It’s a ramp-up from last July, when China placed restrictions on gallium and germanium exports after enduring years of restrictions by the US and its Western allies on cutting-edge technology. (For more on the details of China’s most recent move, including potential economic impacts, check out the full coverage from my colleague James Temple.)

What struck me about this news is that this could be only the beginning, because China is central to many of the supply chains snaking around the globe.

This is no accident—take gallium as an example. The metal is a by-product of aluminum production from bauxite ore. China, as the world’s largest aluminum producer, certainly has a leg up to be a major player in the niche material. But other countries could produce gallium, and I’m sure more will. China has a head start because it invested in gallium separation and refining technologies.

A similar situation exists in the battery world. China is a dominant player all over the supply chain for lithium-ion batteries—not because it happens to have the right metals on its shores (it doesn’t), but because it’s invested in extraction and processing technologies.

Take lithium, a crucial component in those batteries. China has around 8% of the world’s lithium reserves but processes about 58% percent of the world’s lithium supply. The situation is similar for other key battery metals. Nickel that’s mined in Indonesia goes to China for processing, and the same goes for cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Over the past two decades, China has thrown money, resources, and policy behind electric vehicles. Now China leads the world in EV registrations, many of the largest EV makers are Chinese companies, and the country is home to a huge chunk of the supply chain for the vehicles and their batteries.

As the world begins a shift toward technologies like EVs, it’s becoming clear just how dominant China’s position is in many of the materials crucial to building that tech.

Lithium prices have dropped by 80% over the past year, and while part of the reason is a slowdown in EV demand, another part is that China is oversupplying lithium, according to US officials. By flooding the market and causing prices to drop, China could make it tougher for other lithium processors to justify sticking around in the business.

The new graphite controls from China could wind up affecting battery markets, too. Graphite is crucial for lithium-ion batteries, which use the material in their anodes. It’s still not clear whether the new bans will affect battery materials or just higher-purity material that’s used in military applications, according to reporting from Carbon Brief.

To this point, China hasn’t specifically banned exports of key battery materials, and it’s not clear exactly how far the country would go. Global trade politics are delicate and complicated, and any move that China makes in battery supply chains could wind up coming back to hurt the country’s economy. 

But we could be entering into a new era of material politics. Further restrictions on graphite, or moves that affect lithium, nickel, or copper, could have major ripple effects around the world for climate technology, because batteries are key not only for electric vehicles, but increasingly for our power grids. 

While it’s clear that tensions are escalating, it’s still unclear what’s going to happen next. The vibes, at best, are uncertain, and this sort of uncertainty is exactly why so many folks in technology are so focused on how to diversify global supply chains. Otherwise, we may find out just how tangled those supply chains really are, and what happens when you yank on threads that run through the center of them. 


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Check out James Temple’s breakdown of what China’s ban on some rare minerals could mean for the US.

Last July, China placed restrictions on some of these materials—read this story from Zeyi Yang, who explains what the moves and future ones might mean for semiconductor technology.

As technology shifts, so too do the materials we need to build it. The result: a never-ending effort to build out mining, processing, and recycling infrastructure, as I covered in a feature story earlier this year.

STEPHANIE ARNETT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | GETTY, ENVATO

Another thing 

Each year we release a list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies, and it’s nearly time for the 2025 edition. But before we announce the picks, here are a few things that didn’t make the cut

A couple of interesting ones on the cutting-room floor here, including eVTOLs, electric aircraft that can take off and land like helicopters. For more on why the runway is looking pretty long for electric planes (especially ones with funky ways to move through the skies), check out this story from last year

Keeping up with climate  

Denmark received no bids in its latest offshore wind auction. It’s a disappointing result for the birthplace of offshore wind power. (Reuters)

Surging methane emissions could be the sign of a concerning shift for the climate. A feedback loop of emissions from the Arctic and a slowdown in how the powerful greenhouse gas breaks down could spell trouble. (Inside Climate News)

Battery prices are dropping faster than expected. Costs for  lithium-ion packs just saw their steepest drop since 2017. (Electrek)

This fusion startup is rethinking how to configure its reactors by floating powerful magnets in the middle of the chamber. This sounds even more like science fiction than most other approaches to fusion. (IEEE Spectrum)

The US plans to put monarch butterflies on a list of threatened species. Temperature shifts brought on by climate change could wreak havoc with the insects’ migration. (Associated Press)

Sources close to Elon Musk say he’s undergone quite a shift on climate change, morphing from “environmental crusader to critic of dire climate predictions.” (Washington Post)

Google has a $20 billion plan to build data centers and clean power together. “Bring your own power” is an interesting idea, but not a tested prospect just yet. (Canary Media)

The Franklin Fire in Los Angeles County sparked Monday evening and quickly grew into a major blaze. At the heart of the fire’s rapid spread: dry weather and Santa Ana winds. (Scientific American)

Places in the US that are most at risk for climate disasters are also most at risk for insurance hikes. Check out these great data visualizations on insurance and climate change. (The Guardian)

Alternative meat could help the climate. Will anyone eat it?

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

Last week, we celebrated Thanksgiving here in the US, and I had hearty helpings of ham and turkey alongside my mashed potatoes and green bean casserole.

Meat is often the star on our plates, but our love of animal-based foods is a problem for the climate. Depending on how you count it up, livestock accounts for somewhere between 10% and 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

A growing number of alternative foods seek to mimic or replace options that require raising and slaughtering animals. These include plant-based products and newly approved cultivated (or lab-grown) meats. An increasing number of companies are even raising microbes in the lab in the hopes that we’ll add them to the menu, as I covered in a story this week.

But as one of my colleagues always puts it when I tell him about some alternative food product, the key question is, will anyone eat it?

Food might just be one of the trickiest climate problems to solve. Technically, none of us has to be eating any of the highest-emissions foods—like beef—that are worst for the climate. But what we eat is deeply personal, and it’s often tied up with our culture and our social lives. Many people want hamburgers at a barbecue and nice steak dinners. 

The challenge of our food system’s climate impact is only getting more tricky: richer countries tend to eat more meat, and so as populations grow and the standard of living rises around the world, we’re going to see emissions from livestock production rise, too.

In an effort to combat that trend, alternative food products aim to deliver foods similar to the ones we know and love with less harmful effects on the climate. Plant-based options like those from Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have exploded in recent years, finding their way into supermarkets and even onto the menus of major fast-food brands like Burger King.

The problem is, a lot of alternative products have been struggling lately. Unit sales of meat alternatives in the US were down by 26% between 2021 and 2023, and fewer households are buying plant-based alternative meat options, according to a report from the Good Food Institute. Consumers say that alternatives still aren’t up to par on taste and price, two key factors that determine what people decide to eat.

So companies are racing to invent better products. I’ve spent a lot of time covering cultivated (or lab-grown) meats. To make these products, animal cells are grown in the lab and processed into things like chicken nuggets. Two companies got approval to sell cultivated chicken in the US in 2023, and we’ve seen both offer their products in limited runs at high-end restaurants.

But these products are still not quite the same thing as the meat we’re used to. When I tried a burger that contained cells grown in a lab, it was similar to plant-based ones that have a softer texture than I’m used to. Chicken from Upside Foods, served at a Michelin-starred restaurant, had similar textural differences. And these products are still only available at very small scales, if at all, and they’re expensive. 

microbial protein powder on a tabletop

LANZATECH

One key issue that comes up again and again as I report on these new products is what to call them. The industry strongly prefers cultivated, not “lab-grown.” Probably better to not remind people that they’re eating something grown in vats in a laboratory. As the companies that make these products often point out, we don’t typically use this sort of language for the animal-based products we’re used to. You’d never find the phrase “slaughtered baby cow” on a menu, just “veal.”

I was thinking about this issue of language and marketing again recently as I reported a story about a company looking to grow bacteria, dry it, and sell it to feed animals or people. I found myself a little weirded out by the prospect of dried microbe powder finding its way into my diet. But I don’t have a problem drinking wine or eating cheese, two products that rely on microbes and a fermentation process to exist.

Maybe LanzaTech will come up with a marketing plan that makes their microbe powder  an easy addition to my Thanksgiving table. Ultimately though, no matter how well they’re marketed, I’m not sure how much we can rely on alternative products to solve the climate challenge that is our food system. 

As is often the case when it comes to addressing climate change, we’re going to need not only some behavioral changes, but also technical solutions like cattle burp pills and new fertilizer options, as well as policy to help nudge our food system in the right direction. 


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

A new crop of biotech startups is looking to grow food out of thin air. Read more about a few of the leading businesses in this story from earlier this fall.

Cultivated meat products are made with animal cells grown in the lab. Last year, I covered what we know about what those products mean for climate change.  

We’re expecting too much from our fake meat products. Here’s how my colleague James Temple stopped worrying and learned to love alternatives

Rumin8 and Pivot Bio, two of our Climate Tech Companies to Watch this year, are both working to address emissions from agriculture. 

Keeping up with climate  

China announced it would ban the export to the US of several rare minerals that are crucial in technology like semiconductors. The move follows efforts by the US to shift supply chains away from China. (New York Times)

Donald Trump has pledged to ramp up tariffs on Chinese goods, while other nations around the world have already put such policies in place. (Rest of World)

Australia is on track to meet its 2030 emissions target. The country’s climate pollution is projected to fall more than 42% below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. (Bloomberg)

Talks to form an international plastic treaty fell apart this week. Some countries favored cutting down plastic production, while others, including oil-rich nations, pushed back. (Washington Post)

The US Department of Energy announced a nearly $7 billion loan to Stellantis and Samsung for two battery factories that will supply batteries for EVs. (New York Times)
→ That follows a $6.6 billion loan to Rivian to help the company build a stalled factory in Georgia. (Associated Press)
→ The Biden administration is racing to lock in loans and safeguard them against rollbacks before Donald Trump takes office in January. (E&E News)

California could increase use of ethanol, a move the state says could lower gas prices. But experts warn that expanded use of ethanol made from corn can have negative consequences for climate progress and the environment. (Inside Climate News)

Norway’s government is blocking plans to mine the sea bed. There were plans to begin offering permits in the first half of 2025, and preparations will continue during the suspension. (Reuters)
→ These deep-sea “potatoes” could be the future of mining for battery materials. (MIT Technology Review)

A decade ago, sea surface temperatures in the Pacific shot up in a dramatic marine heat wave. Now, scientists are looking for clues in that event to understand what rising temperatures will mean for the ocean. (New York Times)

What China’s critical mineral ban means for the US

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here.

This week, China banned exports of several critical minerals to the US, marking the latest move in an escalating series of tit-for-tat trade restrictions between the world’s two largest economies.

In explicitly cutting off, rather than merely restricting, materials of strategic importance to the semiconductor, defense, and electric vehicle sectors, China has clearly crossed a new line in the long-simmering trade war. 

At the same time, it selected minerals that won’t cripple any industries—which leaves China plenty of ammunition to inflict greater economic pain in response to any further trade restrictions that the incoming Trump administration may impose. 

The president-elect recently pledged to impose an additional 10% tariff on all Chinese goods, and he floated tariff rates as high as 60% to 100% during his campaign. But China, which dominates the supply chains for numerous critical minerals essential to high-tech sectors, seems to be telegraphing that it’s prepared to hit back hard.

“It’s a sign of what China is capable of,” says Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan research nonprofit in Washington, DC. “Shots have been fired.”

What drove the decision?

China’s announcement directly followed the Biden administration’s decision to further restrict exports of chips and other technologies that could help China develop advanced semiconductors used in cutting-edge weapon systems, artificial intelligence, and other applications.

Throughout his presidency, Biden has enacted a series of increasingly aggressive export controls aimed at curbing China’s military strength, technological development, and growing economic power. But the latest clampdown crossed a “clear line in the sand for China,” by threatening its ability to protect national security or shift toward production of more advanced technologies, says Cory Combs, associate director at Trivium China, a research firm.

“It is very much indicative of where Beijing feels its interests lie,” he says.

What exactly did China ban?

In response to the US’s new chip export restrictions, China immediately banned exports of gallium, germanium, antimony, and so called “superhard materials” used heavily in manufacturing, arguing that they have both military and civilian applications, according to the New York Times. China had already placed limits on the sale of most of these goods to the US.

The nation said it may also further restrict sales of graphite, which makes up most of the material in the lithium-ion battery anodes used in electric vehicles, grid storage plants, and consumer electronics. 

What will the bans do?

Experts say, for the most part, the bans won’t have major economic impacts. This is in part because China already restricted exports of these minerals months ago, and also because they are mostly used for niche categories within the semiconductor industry. US imports of these materials from China have already fallen as US companies figured out new sources or substitutes for the materials. 

But a recent US Geological Survey study found that outright bans on gallium and germanium by China could cut US gross domestic product by $3.4 billion. In addition, these are materials that US politicians will certainly take note of, because they “touch on many forms of security: economic, energy, and defense,” Baskaran says. 

Antimony, for example, is used in “armor-piercing ammunition, night-vision goggles, infrared sensors, bullets, and precision optics,” Baskaran and a colleague noted in a recent essay.

Companies rely on gallium to produce a variety of military and electronics components, including satellite systems, power converters, LEDs, and the high-powered chips used in electric vehicles. Germanium is used in fiber optics, infrared optics, and solar cells

Before it restricted the flow of these materials, China accounted for more than half of US imports of gallium and germanium, according to the US Geological Survey. Together, China and Russia control 50% of the worldwide reserves of antimony.

How does it affect climate tech?

Any tightened restrictions on graphite could have a pronounced economic impact on US battery and EV makers, in part because there are so few other sources for it. China controls about 80% of graphite output from mines and processes around 70% of the material, according to the International Energy Agency

“It would be very significant for batteries,” says Seaver Wang, co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, where his research is focused on minerals and manufacturing supply chains. “By weight, you need way more graphite per terawatt hour than nickel, cobalt, or lithium. And the US has essentially no operating production.”

Anything that pushes up the costs of EVs threatens to slow the shift away from gas-guzzlers in the US, as their lofty price tags remain one of the biggest hurdles for many consumers.

How does this impact China’s economy? 

There are real economic risks in China’s decision to cut off the sale of materials it dominates, as it creates incentives for US companies to seek out new sources around the world, switch to substitute materials, and work to develop more domestic supplies where geology allows.

“The challenge China faces is that most of its techniques to increase pain by disrupting supply chains would also impact China, which itself is connected to these supply chains,” says Chris Miller, a professor at Tufts University and author of Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology.

Notably, the latest announcement could compel US companies to develop their own sources of gallium and germanium, which can be extracted as by-products of zinc and aluminum mining. There are a number of zinc mines in Alaska and Tennessee, and limited extraction of bauxite, which produces aluminum, in Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia.

Gallium can also be recycled from numerous electronics, providing another potential domestic path for US companies, Combs notes.

The US has already taken steps to counter China’s dominance over the raw ingredients of essential industries, including by issuing a $150 million loan to an Australian company, Syrah Resources, to accelerate the development of graphite mining in Mozambique.

In addition, the mining company Perpetua Resources has proposed reopening a gold mine near Yellow Pine, Idaho, in part to extract antimony trisulfide for use in military applications. The US Department of Defense has provided tens of millions of dollars to help the company conduct environmental studies, though it will still take years for the mine to come online, noted Baskaran and her colleague. 

Wang says that China’s ban might prove “shortsighted,” as any success in diversifying these global supply chains will weaken the nation’s grip in the areas it now dominates. 

What happens next?

The US is also likely to pay very high economic costs in an escalating trade war with China. 

Should the nation decide to enact even stricter trade restrictions, Combs says China could opt to inflict greater economic pain on the US through a variety of means. These could include further restricting or fully banning graphite, as well other crucial battery materials like lithium; cutting off supplies of tungsten, which is used heavily in the aerospace, military, and nuclear power sectors; and halting the sale of copper, which is used in power transmission lines, solar panels, wind turbines, EVs, and many other products. 

China may also decide to take further steps to prevent US firms from selling their goods into the massive market of Chinese consumers and industries, Miller adds. Or it might respond to stricter export restrictions by turning to the US’s economic rivals for advanced technologies.

In the end, it’s not clear either nation wins in a protracted and increasingly combative trade war. But it’s also not apparent that mutually assured economic damage will prove to be an effective deterrent. Indeed, China may well feel the need to impose stricter measures in the coming months or years, as there are few signs that President-elect Trump intends to tone down his hawkish stance toward China.

“It’s hard to see a Trump 2.0 de-escalating with China,” Baskaran says. “We’re on a one-way trajectory toward continued escalation; the question is the pace and the form. It’s not really an ‘if” question.”

Would you eat dried microbes? This company hopes so.

A company best known for sucking up industrial waste gases is turning its attention to food. LanzaTech, a rising star in the fuel and chemical industries, is joining a growing group of businesses producing microbe-based food as an alternative to plant and animal products.

Using microbes to make food is hardly new—beer, yogurt, cheese, and tempeh all rely on microbes to transform raw ingredients into beloved dishes. But some companies are hoping to create a new category of food, one that relies on microbes themselves as a primary ingredient in our meals.

The global food system is responsible for roughly 25% to 35% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions today (depending on how you tally them up), and much of that comes from animal agriculture. Alternative food sources could help feed the world while cutting climate pollution.

As climate change pushes weather conditions to new extremes, it’s going to be harder to grow food, says LanzaTech CEO Jennifer Holmgren. The company’s current specialty, sucking up waste gases and transforming them into ethanol, is mostly used today in places like steel mills and landfills.

The process the company uses to make ethanol relies on a bacterium that can be found in the guts of rabbits. LanzaTech grows the microbes in reactors, on a diet consisting of gases including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen. As they grow, they produce ethanol, which can then be funneled into processes that transform the ethanol into chemicals like ethylene or fuels.

A by-product of that process is tons of excess microbes. In LanzaTech’s existing plants where ethanol is the primary product, operators generally need to harvest bacteria from the reactors, since they multiply over time. When the excess bacteria are harvested and dried, the resulting powder is high in protein. Some plants using LanzaTech’s technology in China are already selling the protein product to feed fish, poultry, and pigs.

Now, LanzaTech is expanding its efforts. The company has identified a new microbe, one they hope to make the star of future plants. Cupriavidus necator can be found in soil and water, and it’s something of a protein machine. The company says that after growing, harvesting, and drying the microbes, the resulting powder is more than 85% protein and could be added to all sorts of food products, for either humans or animals.

Roughly 80 companies around the world are making food products using biomass fermentation (meaning the microbes themselves make up the bulk of the product, rather than being used to transform ingredients, as they do in beer or cheesemaking), according to a report from the Good Food Institute, a think tank that focuses on alternative proteins.

The most established efforts in this space have been around since the 1980s. They use mycelial fungi, says Adam Leman, principal scientist for fermentation at the Good Food Institute. 

Other startups are starting to grow other options for food products, including Air Protein and Calysta in the US and Solar Foods in Europe, Leman says. LanzaTech, which has significant experience raising microbes and running reactors, hopping into this space is a “really good sign for the industry,” he adds.  

Many alternative protein companies have struggled in recent years—sales of plant-based meat products have dropped, especially in the US. Prices have gone up, and consumers say that alternatives aren’t up to par on taste and texture yet

Making food with microbes would use less land and water and produce fewer emissions than many protein sources we rely on today, particularly high-impact ones like beef, Holmgren says. While it’s still early days for bacteria-based foods, one recent review found that mycoprotein-based foods (products like Quorn, made from mycelial fungi) generally have emissions lower than or similar to those of  planet-friendly plant-based protein products, like those produced from corn and soy.

LanzaTech is currently developing prototype products with Mattson, a company that specializes in food development. In one such trial, Mattson made bread using the protein product as a sort of flour, Holmgren says. As for whether the bread tastes good, she says she hasn’t tried it yet, as the company is still working on getting the necessary certification from the US Food and Drug Administration. 

So far, LanzaTech’s efforts have been relatively small-scale—the company is operating a pilot facility in Illinois that can produce around one kilogram of protein product each day. The company is working to start up a pre-commercial plant by 2026 that could produce half a metric ton of product per day, enough to supply the protein requirements of roughly 10,000 people, Holmgren says. A full-scale commercial plant would produce about 45,000 metric tons of protein product each year. 

“I just want to make sure that there’s enough protein for the world,” Holmgren says. 

This startup is getting closer to bringing next-generation nuclear to the grid

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 is a busy time of year for all of us, and that’s certainly true in the advanced nuclear industry.

MIT Technology Review released our list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch less than two months ago. Since then, awardee Kairos Power has had three big announcements about its progress toward building next-generation nuclear reactors. 

Each of these bits of news represents an interesting aspect of the process. So let’s dig into the announcements and what they mean for where nuclear technology is going.

First, a quick refresher on Kairos Power: While nuclear plants today overwhelmingly use pressurized water to keep reactors cool, Kairos is using molten salt. The idea is that these reactors (which are also smaller than those typically built today) will help generate electricity in a way that’s safer and more efficient than conventional nuclear power.

When it comes to strategy, Kairos is taking small steps toward the ultimate goal of full-size power plants. Construction began earlier this year on Hermes, the company’s first nuclear test reactor. That facility will generate a small amount of heat—about 35 megawatts’ worth—to demonstrate the technology.

Last week, the company announced it received a construction permit for the next iteration of its system, Hermes 2. This plant will share a location with Hermes, and it will include the infrastructure to transform heat to electricity. That makes it the first electricity-producing next-generation nuclear plant to get this approval in the US.

While this news wasn’t a huge surprise (the company has been working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for years), “any day that you’re getting a permit or a license from the NRC is an unusual and special day,” Kairos CEO Mike Laufer told me in an interview.  

The company is developing a plan to work on construction for both Hermes and Hermes 2 at the same time, he added. When I asked if Hermes is still on track to start up in 2027 (as we reported in our profile of the company in October), Laufer said that’s an “aggressive timeline.”

While construction on test reactors is rolling, Kairos is forging ahead with commercial deals—in October, it announced an agreement with Google to build up to 500 megawatts’ worth of power plants by 2035. Under this agreement, Kairos will develop, construct, and operate plants and sell electricity to the tech giant.

Kairos will need to build multiple reactors to deliver 500 MW. The first deployment should happen by 2030, with additional units to follow. One of the benefits of building smaller reactors is learning as you go along and making improvements that can lower costs and make construction more efficient, Laufer says. 

While the construction permit and Google deal are arguably the biggest recent announcements from Kairos, I’m also fascinated by a more niche milestone: In early October, the company broke ground on a salt production facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that will make the molten salt used to cool its reactors.

“Salt is one of the key areas where we do have some unique and specialized needs,” Laufer says. And having control over the areas of the supply chain that are specialized will be key to helping the company deliver electricity reliably and at lower cost, he adds. 

The company’s molten salt is called Flibe, and it’s a specific mix of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride. One fun detail I learned from Laufer is that the mixture needs to be enriched in lithium-7 because that isotope absorbs fewer neutrons than lithium-6, allowing the reactor to run more efficiently. The new facility in Albuquerque will produce large quantities of high-purity Flibe enriched in lithium-7.

Progress in the nuclear industry can sometimes feel slow, with milestones few and far between, so it’s really interesting to see Kairos taking so many small steps in quick succession toward delivering on its promise of safe, cheap nuclear power. 

“We’ve had a lot of huge accomplishments. We have a long way to go,” Laufer says. “This is not an easy thing to pull off. We believe we have the right approach and we’re doing it the right way, but it requires a lot of hard work and diligence.”


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

For more details on Kairos and its technology, check out our profile of the company in the 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch package from October. 

If you’re dying for more details on molten salt, check out this story I wrote in January about a test system Kairos built to demonstrate the technology. 

STEPHANIE ARNETT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | GETTY, ADOBE STOCK

Another thing

Donald Trump pledged to enact tariffs on a wide range of products imported into the US. The plans could drive up the cost of batteries, EVs, and more, threatening to slow progress on climate and potentially stall the economy. Read more about the potential impacts for technology in the latest story from my colleague James Temple

Keeping up with climate  

The UN climate talks wrapped up over the weekend. In the resulting agreement, rich nations will provide at least $300 billion in climate finance per year by 2035 to developing nations to help them deal with climate change. (Carbon Brief)
→ This falls well short of the $1 trillion mark that many had hoped to reach. (MIT Technology Review)

Utilities might be spending a lot of money on the wrong transmission equipment on the grid. Dollars are flowing to smaller, local projects, not the interstate projects that are crucial for getting more clean energy online. (Inside Climate News)

Sustainable aviation fuel is one of the only viable options to help clean up the aviation industry in the near term. But what are these fuels, exactly? And how do they help with climate change? It’s surprisingly complicated, and the details matter. (Canary Media)

Automakers want Trump to keep rules in place that will push the US toward adoption of electric vehicles. Companies have already invested billions of dollars into an EV transition. (New York Times)

There’s a growing chasm in American meat consumption: The number of households that avoid meat has increased slightly, but all other households have increased their meat purchases. (Vox)

Trump has vowed to halt offshore wind energy, but for some projects, things take so long that a four-year term may not even touch them. (Grist)