Why recycling alone can’t power climate tech

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 potential to use old, discarded products to make something new sounds a little bit like magic. I absolutely understand the draw, and in some cases, recycling is going to be a crucial tool for climate technology. I’ve written about recycling for basically any climate technology you can think of, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. (I’ve also covered efforts to recycle plastic waste.)

For my most recent story, I was researching the materials used for the magnets that power EVs and wind turbines. (Read the result here!) And once again, I was struck by a stark reality: there are massive challenges ahead in material demand for climate technologies, and unfortunately, recycling alone won’t be enough to address them. Let’s take a look at why recycling isn’t always the answer, and what else might help. 

Mind the gap

We’re building a whole lot more climate technologies than we used to, which means there aren’t enough old, discarded technologies sitting around, waiting to be mined for materials. Obviously the growth in clean-energy technologies is a great thing for climate action. But it presents a problem for recycling. 

Take solar panels, for instance. They tend to last at least 25, maybe 30 years before they start to lose the ability to efficiently harness energy from the sun and transform it into electricity. So the panels available for recycling today are those that were installed over two decades ago (a relatively small fraction are ones that have been broken or need to be taken down early). 

In 2000, there was a little over one gigawatt of solar power installed globally. (Yes, 2000 was nearly 25 years ago—sorry!) So today’s recycling companies are competing with each other for that relatively small amount of material. If they can hang in there, there will eventually be plenty of solar panels to go around. Over 300 gigawatts of solar power were added in 2023.  

This gap is a common challenge in recycling for other technologies, too. In fact, one of the problems facing the growing number of battery recycling companies is a looming shortage of materials to recycle.

It’s important to start building infrastructure now, so we’re ready for the inevitable wave of solar panels and batteries that will eventually be ready for recycling. In the meantime, recyclers can get creative in where they’re sourcing materials. Battery recyclers today will rely on a lot of manufacturing scrap. Looking to other products can help as well—rare earth metals for EV motors and wind turbines could be partially sourced from old iPhones and laptops.

Closing the loop

Even if we weren’t seeing explosive growth for new technologies, there would be another problem: no recycling process is perfect. 

The issues start at the stage of collecting old materials (think of the iPods and flip phones in your junk drawer, gathering dust), but even once material makes it to a recycling center, some will wind up in the waste because it breaks down in the process or just can’t be economically recovered. 

Exactly how much material can be recovered depends on the material, the recycling process, and the economics at play. Some metals, like the silver in solar cells, might be able to reach 99% recovery or higher. Others can pose harder challenges, including the lithium in batteries—one recycler, Redwood Materials, told me last year its process can recover around 80% of the lithium from used batteries and manufacturing scrap. The rest will be lost.

I don’t mean to be a Debbie Downer. Even with imperfect recovery, recycling could help meet demand for materials in many energy technologies in the future. Recycling rare earth metals could cut mining for metals like neodymium in half, or more, by 2050.

But a robust supply of recycled materials for many climate technologies is still decades away. In the meantime, many companies are working to build options that use more widely available, cheaper alternatives. Check out my story on one startup, Niron Magnetics, which is working to build permanent magnets without rare earth metals, to see how new materials can help accelerate climate action and close the gap that recycling leaves. 

Related reading

See how old batteries could help power tomorrow’s EVs in my feature story on Redwood Materials.

For more on where battery recycling might be going, check out this accompanying interview with former Tesla exec and Redwood founder JB Straubel. 

Some companies are working out ways to recycle the valuable materials in solar panels.

Scientists are still trying to determine how we can best recycle wind turbine blades.

Thousands of cars are shown on a car carrier on a seaport, with a BYD freight boat in the background.

COSTFOTO/NURPHOTO VIA AP

Two more things

The world’s largest EV maker is getting into the shipping business. BYD is amassing a fleet of ships to export its vehicles from China to the rest of the world. Read more about why the automaker is getting creative and what comes next in this fascinating story from my colleague Zeyi Yang

Also, be sure to read the second part of James Temple’s blockbuster series on critical minerals. This one is a fascinating analysis that digs into how one Minnesota mine could unlock billions of dollars for EVs and batteries in the US. If you missed part one detailing what’s going on with the mine and the local community, that’s here, and you can check out my interview with James about his reporting in last week’s newsletter here.

Keeping up with climate  

The world’s largest cruise ship departed on its maiden voyage last week. The whole thing is a bit of a climate fiasco. Taking a cruise can be about twice as emissions intensive as flying and staying in a hotel. (Bloomberg)

A new refinery in Georgia will churn out millions of tons of jet fuel made from plants instead of petroleum. The new facility marks a milestone for alternative jet fuels. (Canary Media)

→ While alternatives are often called “sustainable aviation fuels” or SAFs, some varieties are anything but sustainable. Here’s what you need to know about all these newfangled jet fuels. (MIT Technology Review)

China nearly quadrupled its new energy storage capacity last year. It’s a massive jump for the growing industry, which is key to balancing the growing fraction of renewables on the grid. (Bloomberg)

Huge charging depots for electric trucks are coming to California. Big batteries in big vehicles require big chargers, and new funding from the US government could be crucial in building them. (Canary Media)

→ The three biggest truck makers are calling for better charging infrastructure for heavy-duty vehicles (New York Times)

EV charging can get a bit tricky for those of us who don’t live in single-family homes with a garage to charge in. Here are some solutions. (Washington Post)

The US is the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, but new exports are on pause. The Department of Energy says it’s trying to work out how to regulate them, and what the climate impact of cutting gas exports might be. (Grist)

The contentious path to a cleaner future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related reading

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

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

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

Keeping up with climate  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next generation of nuclear reactors is getting more advanced. Here’s how.

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

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

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

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

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

The basics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coolant

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

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

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

Fuel

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

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

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

Size

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

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

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

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

Related reading

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

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

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

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

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

SWIFT SOLAR

Another thing

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

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

Keeping up with climate  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How hot salt could transform nuclear power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next for offshore wind

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

It’s a turbulent time for offshore wind power.

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

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

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

Speed bumps and setbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Growing pains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technological transformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was some good climate news in 2023. Really.

Bad climate news was everywhere in 2023. 

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

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

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

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

The brakes are off for electric vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Casey Crownhart

Countries and companies are cracking down on methane 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—James Temple

A crucial fund to pay for climate damages launched

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—June Kim