Climate tech companies are pivoting to critical minerals

We’re over a year into the second Trump administration here in the US, and support for climate causes is weak. But climate tech companies are finding ways to survive and even thrive in this new environment, including by focusing on potential benefits outside decarbonization.

Suddenly, it feels like every climate tech company has a story to tell about topics that are politically in vogue: data centers, energy abundance, or critical minerals. In my newest story, I covered Boston Metal’s latest funding round. Largely known for its efforts to produce steel with lower greenhouse gas emissions, the company raised $75 million from new and existing investors to help support its critical metals business.

Focusing on metals like niobium and tantalum won’t have the massive climate benefit that cleaner steel would, but it could generate the cash the company needs to keep going. It’s a strategy I’m noticing more as these tough industries like steel look ever tougher to succeed in with limited federal support in the US.  

Boston Metal’s molten oxide electrolysis technology uses electricity to produce metals.

I covered the startup last year, when it announced a major milestone for its steel business, running its pilot reactor in Massachusetts and producing a literal ton of material.

Now the company’s focus has shifted, and it is going all-in on making other metals, from niobium and tantalum (used in aircraft engines and high-end steel alloys) to chromium and vanadium.

The steel industry is a difficult one: It operates at a massive scale, and the product doesn’t command too high a price. Focusing on other metals, especially ones the US government deems critical, could be a way to stay afloat, maybe even long enough to meaningfully cut emissions from the steel industry. 

“By deploying in the critical metals industry where we can go very fast, we generate the resources to continue with the development of steel,” says Tadeu Carneiro, CEO of Boston Metal.

Other companies are also hoping critical materials could help their business models.

California-based Brimstone has a new process to make cement—another heavily polluting industry that’s proving difficult to decarbonize. The company uses a new starting material to help cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to cement, it makes supplementary cementitious materials that can be added into concrete as well as smelter-grade alumina.

Last year, the US Department of Energy canceled $1.3 billion in funding that had been set aside for cement-related projects. Brimstone saw one of its awards canceled, as did Sublime Systems, another cement startup I’ve covered a lot over the years.

At the time, a Brimstone representative told me that the company saw the cancellation as a “misunderstanding” and said the facility the funding had been designated for would make not only cement, but also alumina, which would support US aluminum production.

Today, the company’s website prominently highlights that it produces critical minerals in addition to cement.

Some carbon dioxide removal companies are hoping to hop on the critical minerals train, too, aiming to work with the mining industry. Others are pitching that they can help mining operations operate more efficiently or serve as cleanup for active or abandoned mine sites.

All of this is part of a much broader messaging shift. Everyone from politicians to heads of energy companies is talking less about climate.

It’s a trend that makes me nervous, even if I understand the impulse. I worry that if we keep too quiet on climate, companies might lose the plot and make choices that won’t help cut emissions. But for some, leaning into a different priority or pushing a different message could help them stay in business long enough to make a difference. We’ll all have to wait to see how it all pans out.

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 Tesla Semi could be a big deal for electric trucking

The Tesla Semi has officially arrived. The company recently released a photo of the first vehicle rolling off its new full-scale production line.

This moment has been nearly a decade in the making: The company first announced the truck in late 2017. And now we’ve got final battery specs, official prices, and big news about big orders.

The Semi is a relatively affordable electric semitruck with pretty impressive performance. It also comes at a moment when Tesla has lost its grip on the global electric-vehicle market. Let’s talk about what’s new with the Tesla Semi and why this could be a breakout moment for electric trucking.

Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, like buses and semitrucks, make up a small fraction of vehicles on the road but contribute an outsize fraction of pollution, including both carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and small particles. Globally, trucks and buses represent about 8% of total vehicles on the road, but they create 35% of carbon dioxide emissions from road transport.

Tesla’s latest addition to its vehicle lineup, the Class 8 Semi, could be part of the solution to cleaning up this polluting sector. (I’ll note here that I briefly interned at Tesla in 2016. I don’t have any ties to or financial interest in the company today.) 

In November 2017, Elon Musk took to the stage at a lavish event in LA to announce the Semi. At that event, Musk promised a truck that could go from zero to 60 miles per hour in five seconds, could achieve a range of 500 miles, and would come with thermonuclear-explosion-proof glass. (Remember the era before the Twitter takeover and DOGE, when this was what Musk was known for? A simpler time.)

Soon after the unveiling, major corporations including Walmart put in early orders for Tesla Semis. Deliveries were expected in 2019.

That deadline obviously didn’t work out. The date was pushed back several times, and Tesla did start delivering a small number of pilot trucks, beginning in 2022. But this year, things got more serious, with the company releasing its final production specifications in February and rolling its first Semi off its high-volume production line in late April. 

And last week, WattEV announced an order of 370 Tesla Semis. WattEV offers electric freight operations, essentially providing trucks as a service to companies so they don’t have to purchase their own or supply their own charging infrastructure. The company will pay over $100 million for the new trucks, and the first 50 should be delivered this year, with the full fleet expected by the end of 2027. Those trucks will be supported by megawatt-charging systems located in Oakland, Fresno, Stockton, and Sacramento.

With the factory up and running and a huge order on the books, it feels as if the Tesla Semi has truly arrived. And some of Musk’s claims from 2017 ring true: The base model has a range of about 320 miles, and the long-range version about 480 miles (quite close to his 500-mile claim).

Delivering this much range for this big truck means a whopping battery. The base model Tesla Semi battery pack has a usable capacity of 548 kilowatt-hours, according to a document filed with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). But the battery is even more massive in the long-range version, which boasts a whopping 822 kilowatt-hour battery. Compare these to the Tesla Model 3, which typically comes with a 64 kilowatt-hour pack.

I reached out to Tesla to confirm the battery size and ask other questions for this article; the company didn’t respond.

These trucks cost quite a bit more than they were expected to in 2017. At that time, the expected price was $150,000 for the base model and $180,000 for the long-range. Today, Tesla is pricing the trucks at $260,000 and $300,000, respectively, according to documentation filed with CARB.

That’s considerably more expensive than the median diesel truck being sold today, which rang in at $172,500 for the 2025 model year, according to research from the International Council on Clean Transportation. But it’s much cheaper than similar battery-electric trucks available today, where the median is about $411,000.

And in California, where companies can get vouchers that cover $120,000 towards the purchase price of an electric truck, the Tesla Semi is competitive right away, especially since electric trucks tend to be much cheaper to run and maintain than diesel ones.

Over the years, it wasn’t always clear that the Tesla Semi would ever actually hit the roads. (At that same 2017 event, Musk announced a new Roadster sports car, and that’s nowhere to be seen.) So it’s encouraging to see the factory starting up, and a large order that looks like it could lend this project some commercial momentum.

Tesla had a massive impact on the electric vehicle market, and if it can scale production and support charging infrastructure, it could help do the same for trucking.

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 balcony solar boom is coming to the US

Dozens of US states are considering legislation to allow people to install plug-in solar systems, often called balcony solar. These small arrays require little to no setup and could help cut emissions and power bills.

Balcony solar is already popular in Europe, and proponents say that the systems could make solar power more accessible for more people in the US, including renters. As popularity rises, though, some experts caution that there are safety concerns with how balcony solar would work with existing electrical equipment in homes.

Let’s talk about what balcony solar is, why it’s unique, and how new testing requirements could affect our progress toward deploying the technology in the US.

Plug-in solar systems are designed to be simple to install, often requiring no electrician or specialized worker at all. They’re small, and many can be plugged into existing outlets.

People across Germany have installed over a million balcony solar systems. They generally measure up to roughly two square meters or about 20 square feet, and can generate up to 800 watts—enough to power a standard microwave.

Now the plug-in solar wave is coming to the US. Many Americans have already installed DIY balcony solar without the permission of their utilities—it’s something of a regulatory gray area. In late 2025, Utah became the first state to explicitly allow people to install and use balcony solar systems. Over two dozen other states are now considering similar legislation.

Generally, utilities require users to sign an interconnection agreement before they can plug in large arrays of solar panels that generate power for the grid. There can be fees and permits, and it all amounts to an expensive and lengthy process.

Utah’s law ditched the interconnection requirement for panels that have a low power cap and that are certified by a national testing facility. (Legislation under consideration in other states, including New York, includes the same requirements.) The thinking is that since the panels produce very little power, which would be used to meet a home’s own energy demand and probably not get sent back to the grid, the same requirements shouldn’t apply. 

As for that certification piece, in January the national testing and certification lab UL Solutions released UL 3700, a testing protocol to certify balcony solar systems and ensure that they’re safe. 

There are three main safety considerations to address for these plug-in solar systems, says Joseph Bablo, manager of principal engineering, energy, and industrial automation at UL Solutions. First, there’s the possibility of overloading a circuit. Generally, electrical circuits have circuit breakers, which can trip and interrupt current if necessary. But if there’s a solar panel adding extra power to a circuit, a traditional breaker might not be able to respond to overload. Over time, overloaded circuits can damage equipment or even start a fire. 

Second, these small systems are typically installed on the outside of homes, and outdoor power outlets generally have ground fault circuit interruption (GFCI). Basically, if an outlet or its surroundings are wet, it can shut down to prevent electric shock. Many GFCI systems may not work if there’s power going back into an outlet from a solar panel.

Finally, there’s touch safety: If a plug gets disconnected from the wall, the blades of the plug may still have power running through them for a short time. If a panel is getting sunlight, those blades could be energized for longer than is typical.

The new UL Solutions testing framework aims to address these concerns. One of the key recommendations is that plug-in solar panels should use a special outlet that’s designed specifically for them. The safety measures included in that connection, and within a panel, would ensure that the panels are safe.

The need for a special outlet means that currently, people who want to plug in a solar panel array would probably need to have an electrician come and update their wiring in order to comply with the protocol, Bablo says. “I know they want to say ‘No electrician, no permits’—we’re not there.”

Today, anyone can buy products like solar panels and inverters, some of which carry their own component UL certifications, and string them together. (Inverters are covered under UL 1741, for example.)

But the gold standard is to have an entire system that meets the safety requirements, and that means adhering to the new standard, Bablo says. As of early May, there aren’t any plug-in solar systems that have been fully certified by UL Solutions. And Bablo said he couldn’t share information about what, if any, are in the pipeline.  

Even with the new certification requirements, Bablo still thinks plug-in solar still has the potential to help more people access the technology. “There’s a way for it to work, but we want it to work safely,” he says.

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

It’s time to make a plan for nuclear waste

Today, nuclear energy enjoys a rare moment of support across the political spectrum in the US. Interest from tech companies that are scrambling to meet demand for massive data centers has sparked a resurgence of money and attention in the industry. That newfound interest is exactly why it’s time to talk about an old problem: nuclear waste. 

In the US alone, nuclear reactors produce about 2,000 metric tons of high-level waste each year. And there’s nowhere to put it.

Though newly popular, the nuclear program in the US is nothing new. The US hosts more reactors and production capacity than any other country in the world. And yet nearly seven decades after the first permanent nuclear facility in the US went online, there’s still not a long-term solution for nuclear waste. 

Used fuel is largely stored onsite at operating and shut-down reactors, in pools and casks made of steel and concrete. Experts generally agree that these methods are safe, but they’re not designed to be permanent.

The leading strategy around the world for long-term storage of this high-level radioactive waste is to house it in a deep geological repository—dig a hole, put radioactive material down there, and fill it up with concrete. These holes, hundreds of meters underground, are designed to be a permanent home.

There aren’t any operating geological repositories for spent fuel yet, but some countries are well on their way. Finland is the furthest along; as of 2026, the country is testing its facility. Final approvals are expected soon, and operations could start later this year. Some other countries aren’t far behind.

France is home to over 50 nuclear reactors, and its grid gets more of its power from nuclear than any other. The country also has the world’s most established program for reprocessing spent fuel. The process separates out the plutonium and uranium to create a type of fuel known as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. But reprocessing isn’t a perfect recycling loop, so the leftovers from this process still need somewhere to go. The country currently stores waste onsite at the La Hague reprocessing plant, but it plans to build a repository. Initial approvals could come later this decade, and pilot operations could start up by 2035.

Technically, the US also has a destination for its spent fuel: Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The site, which is on federal land, was designated by Congress in 1987. However, progress has entirely stalled out because of political opposition. In 2011, the federal government stopped providing funding for the site, and for roughly a decade, there’s been no activity to speak of.

In the meantime, waste continues to pile up.

The nuclear industry is kicking into a new gear around the world. China is home to the world’s fastest–growing nuclear energy program, and countries including Bangladesh and Turkey are building their first reactors.

Even the long-established US program is seeing growth: Interest in and approval for nuclear energy have spiked, and Big Tech is throwing money around to meet rising electricity demand. Companies are proposing (and beginning to receive regulatory approval for) next-generation reactors, which employ different coolants, fuels, and designs.

Given all this new interest, and the impending arrival of new types of nuclear waste, it’s time for nuclear companies, as well as their powerful customers, to push for progress on building geological storage facilities. As the richest country on the planet and home to a large chunk of the activity in next-generation reactors, the US should aim to join the leaders rather than continue to lag behind. 

Directing even a small fraction of the recent surge in funding and attention to progress on waste could make a difference. Some experts are calling for a new organization in the US to manage nuclear waste rather than leaving it to the Department of Energy. This organization would mirror programs in Finland, Canada, and France.

The process of planning, building, and commissioning a permanent solution for nuclear waste is a long one. Finland started planning in the 1980s and selected its site in the early 2000s, and it’s nearly ready to start accepting waste. For countries that don’t have a permanent storage solution sorted, the best time to start was decades ago. But the second-best time is now. 

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

Will fusion power get cheap? Don’t count on it.

Fusion power could provide a steady, zero-emissions source of electricity in the future—if companies can get plants built and running. But a new study suggests that even if that future arrives, it might not come cheap.

Technologies tend to get less expensive over time. Lithium-ion batteries are now about 90% cheaper than they were in 2013. But historically, different technologies tend to go through this curve at different rates. And the cost of fusion might not sink as quickly as the prices of batteries or solar.

It’s tricky to make any predictions about the cost of a technology that doesn’t exist yet. But when there’s billions of dollars of public and private funding on the line, it’s worth considering what assumptions we’re making about our future energy mix and its cost.

One crucial measure is a metric called experience rate—the percentage by which an energy technology’s cost declines every time capacity doubles. A higher figure means a quicker price drop and better economic gains with scaling.

Historically, the experience rate is 12% for onshore wind power, 20% for lithium-ion batteries, and 23% for solar modules. Other energy technologies haven’t gotten cheap quite as quickly—fission is at just 2%.

In the new study, published in Nature Energy, researchers aimed to improve predictions of fusion’s future price by estimating the technology’s experience rate. The team looked at three key characteristics that can correlate with experience rate: unit size, design complexity, and the need for customization. The larger and more complex a technology is, and/or the more it needs to be customized for different use cases, the lower the experience rate.

The researchers interviewed fusion experts, including public-sector researchers and those working at companies in the private sector. They had the experts evaluate fusion power plants on those characteristics and used that info to predict the experience rate. (One note here: The study focused only on magnetic confinement and laser inertial confinement, two of the leading fusion approaches, which together receive the vast majority of funding today. Other approaches could come with different cost benefits.)

Fusion plants will likely be relatively large, similar to other types of facilities (like coal and fission power plants) that rely on generating heat. They will probably need less customization than fission plants—largely because regulations and safety considerations should be simpler—but more than technologies like solar panels. And as for complexity, “there was almost unanimous agreement that fusion is incredibly complex,” says Lingxi Tang, a PhD candidate in the energy and technology policy group at ETH Zurich in Switzerland and one of the authors of the study. (Some experts said it was literally off the scale the researchers gave them.)

The final figure the researchers suggest for fusion’s experience rate is between 2% and 8%, meaning it will see a faster price reduction than nuclear power but not as dramatic an improvement as many common energy technologies being deployed today.

That means that it would take a lot of deployment—and likely quite a long time—for the price of building a fusion reactor to drop significantly, so electricity produced by fusion plants could be expensive for a while. And it’s a much slower rate than the 8% to 20% that many modeling studies assume today.

“On the whole, I think questions should be raised about current investment levels in fusion,” Tang says. (The US allocated over $1 billion to fusion in the 2024 fiscal year, and private-sector funding totaled $2.2 billion between July 2024 and July 2025.) “If you’re talking about decarbonization of the energy system, is this really the best use of public money?”

But some experts say that looking to the past to understand the future of energy prices might be misleading.“It’s a good exercise, but we have to be humble about how much we don’t know,” says Egemen Kolemen, a professor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

In 2000, many analysts predicted that solar power would remain expensive—but then production exploded and prices came crashing down, largely because China went all in, he says. “People weren’t exactly wrong then,” he adds. “They were just extrapolating what they saw into the future.”

How fast prices drop depends on regulations, geopolitical dynamics, and labor cost, he says: “We haven’t built the thing yet, so we don’t know.”

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

Is carbon removal in trouble?

Last week, news outlets reported that Microsoft was pausing carbon removal purchases. It was something of a bombshell.

The thing is, Microsoft is the carbon removal market. The company has single-handedly purchased something like 80% of all contracted carbon removal. If you’re looking for someone to pay you to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, Microsoft is probably who you’re after.

The company has said that it is not permanently ending its carbon removal purchases (though it didn’t directly answer further questions about this apparent pause). But with this flurry of news, there’s a lot of fear in the industry—so, it’s worth talking about the state of carbon removal, and where Big Tech companies fit in.

Carbon removal aims to reliably pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and permanently store it. There’s a wide range of technologies in this space, including direct air capture (DAC) plants, which usually use some kind of sorbent or solvent to pull carbon dioxide from the air. Another important method is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), in which biomass like trees or waste-derived biofuels are burned for energy, and scrubbing equipment captures the greenhouse gases.

There was a huge boom of interest in carbon removal technologies in the first half of this decade. One UN climate report in 2022 found that nations may need to remove up to 11 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide every year by 2050 to keep warming to 2 °C above preindustrial levels.

One nagging problem is that the economics here have always been tricky. There’s a major potential public good to pulling carbon pollution out of the atmosphere. The question is, Who will pay for it?

So far, the answer has been Microsoft. The company is by far the largest buyer of carbon removal contracts, and it’s the only purchaser that has made megatonne-scale purchases, says Robert Höglund, cofounder of CDR.fyi, ​​a public-benefit corporation that analyzes the carbon removal sector. “Microsoft has had a huge importance, especially for getting large-scale projects off the ground and showing there is demand for large deals,” Höglund said via email.

Microsoft has pledged to become carbon-negative by 2030 and to remove the equivalent of its historic emissions by 2050. Progress on actually cutting emissions has been tough to achieve though—in the company’s latest Environmental Sustainability Report, published in June 2025, it announced emissions had risen by 23.4% since 2020.

On April 10, Heatmap News reported that Microsoft staff had told suppliers and partners that it was pausing future purchases of carbon removal, though it wasn’t clear whether the company would increase support for existing projects, or when purchases might resume. Bloomberg reported a similar story the next day. In one instance, Microsoft employees said that the decision was related to financial considerations, one source told Bloomberg. 

In a statement in response to written questions, Microsoft said that it was not permanently closing its carbon removal program. “At times we may adjust the pace or volume of our carbon removal procurement as we continue to refine our approach toward sustainability goals. Any adjustments we make are part of our disciplined approach—not a change in ambition,” Microsoft Chief Sustainability Officer Melanie Nakagawa said in the statement.

Whatever, exactly, is happening behind the scenes, many in the industry are nervous, says Wil Burns, Co-Director of the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University. People viewed the company as the foundational supporter of carbon removal, he adds.

“This pause—whether it’s short term or whatever it is—the way it’s been rolled out is extremely irresponsible,” Burns says. The vast majority of firms looking to get carbon removal contracts are probably seeking Microsoft deals. So, while Microsoft has every right to change its plans, the company needs to be open with the industry now, he adds.

“I don’t think you can hold yourself out as the paragon of fostering carbon removal and then treat a nascent industry that disrespectfully,” Burns says.

Carbon removal companies were already in turmoil in the US, particularly because of recent policy shifts: Funding has been cut back, and recent changes at the Environmental Protection Agency were aimed at the government’s ability to target carbon pollution.

Now, if the largest corporate backer is shifting plans or taking a significant pause, things could get rocky.

Depending on the extent of this pause, the industry may need to survive on smaller purchases and hope for support from governments and philanthropy, Höglund says. But for carbon removal to truly scale, we need policymakers to create mandates so that emitters are responsible for either storing the carbon dioxide they produce or paying for it, Burns says.

“Maybe the upside of this is Microsoft has sent a wake-up call, that you just can’t rely on the kindness of strangers to make carbon removal scale.”

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

Desalination technology, by the numbers

When I started digging into desalination technology for a new story, I couldn’t help but obsess over the numbers.

I’d known on some level that desalination—pulling salt out of seawater to produce fresh water—was an increasingly important technology, especially in water-stressed regions including the Middle East. But just how much some countries rely on desalination, and how big a business it is, still surprised me.

For more on how this crucial water infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable during the war in Iran, check out my latest story. Here, though, let’s look at the state of desalination technology, by the numbers.

Desalination produces 77% of all fresh water and 99% of drinking water in Qatar.

Globally, we rely on desalination for just 1% of fresh-water withdrawals. But for some countries in the Middle East, and particularly for the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman), it’s crucial.

Qatar, home to over 3 million people, is one of the most staggering examples, with nearly all its drinking water supplies coming from desalination. But many major cities in the region couldn’t exist without the technology. There are no permanent rivers on the Arabian Peninsula, and supplies of fresh water are incredibly limited, so countries rely on facilities that can take in seawater and pull out the salt and other impurities.

The Middle East is home to just 6% of the world’s population and over 27% of its desalination facilities.

The region has historically been water-scarce, and that trend is only continuing as climate change pushes temperatures higher and changes rainfall patterns.

Of the 17,910 desalination facilities that are operational globally, 4,897 are located in the Middle East, according to a 2026 study in npj Clean Water. The technology supplies not only municipal water used by homes and businesses, but also industries including agriculture, manufacturing, and increasingly data centers.

One massive desalination plant in Saudi Arabia produces over 1 million cubic meters of fresh water per day.

The Ras Al-Khair water and power plant in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia, is one of a growing number of gigantic plants that output upwards of a million cubic meters of water each day. That amount of water can meet the needs of millions of people in Riyadh City. Producing it takes a lot of power—the attached power plant has a capacity of 2.4 gigawatts.

While this plant is just one of thousands across the region, it’s an example of a growing trend: The average size of a desalination plant is about 10 times what it was 15 years ago, according to data from the International Energy Agency. Communities are increasingly turning to larger plants, which can produce water more efficiently than smaller ones.

Between 2024 and 2028, the Middle East’s desalination capacity could grow by over 40%.

Desalination is only going to be more crucial for life in the Middle East. The region is expected to spend over $25 billion on capital expenses for desalination facilities between 2024 and 2028, according to the 2026 npj Clean Water study. More massive plants are expected to come online in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt during that time.

All this growth could consume a lot of electricity. Between growth of the technology generally and the move toward plants that use electricity rather than fossil fuels, desalination could add 190 terawatt-hours of electricity demand globally by 2035, according to IEA data. That’s the equivalent of about 60 million households.

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

Fuel prices are soaring. Plastic could be next.

As the war in Iran continues to engulf the Middle East and the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, one of the most visible global economic ripple effects has been fossil-fuel prices. In particular, you can’t get away from news about the price of gasoline, which just topped an average of $4 a gallon in the US, its highest level since 2022.

But looking ahead, further consequences for the global economy could be looming in plastics. Plastics are made using petrochemicals, and the supply chain impacts of the oil bottleneck near Iran are starting to build up. 

Plastic production accounts for roughly 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions today. And our current moment shows just how embedded oil and gas products are in our lives. It goes far beyond their use for energy. 

As I write this, I’m wearing clothes that contain plastic fibers, typing on a plastic keyboard, and looking through the plastic lenses of my glasses. It’s hard to imagine what our world looks like without plastic. And in some ways, moving away from fossil-derived plastic could prove even more complicated than decarbonizing our energy system. 

Crude oil prices have been on a roller-coaster in recent weeks, and prices have recently topped $100 a barrel.

Crude oil contains a huge range of hydrocarbons, and it’s typically refined by putting it through a distillation unit that separates the raw material into different fractions according to their boiling point. Those fractions then go on to be further processed into everything from jet fuel to asphalt binder. We’ve already seen the price spikes for some materials pulled out of crude oil, like gasoline and jet fuel.

Let’s zoom in on another component, naphtha. It can be added to gasoline and jet fuel to improve performance. It can also be used as a solvent or as a raw material to make plastics.

The Middle East currently accounts for about 20% of global naphtha production­ and supplies about 40% of the market in Asia, where prices are already up by 50% over the last month.

We’re starting to see these effects trickle down already. The price of polypropylene (which is made from naphtha and used for food containers, bottle caps, and even automotive parts) is climbing, especially in Asia.  

Typically, manufacturers have a bit of stock built up, but that’ll be exhausted soon, likely in the coming weeks. The largest supplier of water bottles in India recently announced that it would raise prices by 11% after its packaging costs went up by over 70%, according to reporting from Reuters. Toys could be more expensive this holiday season as manufacturers grapple with supply chain concerns.

Americans will likely feel these ripples especially hard if disruptions continue. The average US resident used over 250 kilograms of new plastics in 2019, according to a 2022 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That’s an absolutely massive number—the global average is just 60 kilograms.

The effects of higher prices for both fuels and feedstocks could compound and multiply, and alternatives aren’t widely available. Bio-based plastics made with materials like plant sugars exist, but they still make up a vanishingly tiny portion of the market. As of 2025, global plastics production totaled over 431 million metric tons per year. Bio-based and bio-degradable plastics made up about 0.5% of that, a share that could reach 1% by 2030.

Bio-based plastics are much more expensive than their fossil-derived counterparts. And many are made using agricultural raw materials, so scaling them up too much could be harmful for the environment and might compete with other industries like food production.

Recycling isn’t the easy answer either. Mechanical recycling is the current standard method used for materials like the plastics that make up water bottles and disposable coffee cups. But that degrades the materials over time, so they can’t be used infinitely. Chemical recycling has its own host of issues—the facilities that do it can be highly polluting, and today plastics that go into advanced recycling plants largely don’t actually go into new plastics.

There’s been a lot of talk in recent weeks about how this energy crisis is going to push the world more toward renewable energy. Solar panels, electric vehicles, and batteries could suddenly become more attractive as we face the drastic consequences of a disruption in the global fossil-fuel supply.

But when it comes to plastic, the future looks far more complicated. Even though the plastics industry is facing much the same disruptions as the energy sector, there aren’t the same obvious alternatives available for a transition. Our lives are tied up in plastic, with uses ranging from the essential (like medical equipment) to the mundane (my to-go coffee cup). Soon, our economy could feel the effects of just how much we rely on fossil-derived plastics, and how hard it’s going to be to replace them. 

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

Are high gas prices good news for EVs? It’s complicated.

I live in a dense city with plentiful public transportation options and limited parking, so I don’t own a car. I’m often utterly clueless about the current price of gasoline.

But as the conflict in Iran has escalated, fossil-fuel prices have been on a roller-coaster, and I’ve started paying attention. In the US, average gas prices are $3.98 a gallon as of March 25, up from under $3 before the war started.

Online there’s been what almost looks like cheerleading about this volatility from some folks, including EV owners—some of the social media posts and op-eds have read as nearly gleeful. The subtext (or even the text) is “I told you so.” 

Don’t get me wrong—this could be an opportunity for EVs to make headway around the world. But there are plenty of reasons that even the carless among us should be concerned about a sustained rise in fossil-fuel prices.

Historically, this is exactly the sort of moment that’s pushed people to reevaluate how they get around. During the oil crisis of the 1970s, Americans switched to smaller, more efficient cars in droves. It was a major opportunity for Japanese automakers, whose vehicles tended to fit this mold better than those produced by their US counterparts.

We’re already seeing early signs that people are interested in going electric. One US-based online car marketplace said that search traffic for EVs was up 20% following the initial attack on Iran. For more popular models like the Tesla Model Y, traffic nearly doubled.

And the interest is global. One car dealership outside London said it’s struggling to keep up with demand and is sending staff to buy more EVs at auction, according to Reuters. Another in Manila told Bloomberg that it got a month’s worth of orders in two weeks.

The timing here is really interesting in the US in particular, because we’re about to see a wave of more affordable used EVs hit the market. Three years ago, a leasing boom started with the Inflation Reduction Act, which included incentives for EVs, including leases. About 300,000 such leases are set to expire this year, and many of those vehicles could come up for sale, increasing the available supply of affordable used EVs.

The interest is there, but what would it really take for more drivers to make the switch?

Nice, round numbers do tend to get people’s attention. Some point to $4 per gallon (which the national average is quite close to right now). At that price, the total cost of ownership for an EV is comfortably lower than the cost for a gas-powered car, even with higher electricity prices, according to data from the energy consultancy BloombergNEF.

Then again, maybe that won’t quite do the trick: One survey from Cox Automotive found that most US consumers would consider switching to an EV or hybrid if gas prices hit $6 per gallon.

But this is also the second big incident of fossil-fuel volatility in the last five years, which could make consumers more ready to make the switch, as Elaine Buckberg, a senior fellow at Harvard, told Bloomberg. (The first was in the summer of 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine.)

I’m a climate and energy reporter, and I care about addressing climate change. So I’m always happy to hear about people shifting to EVs or any other option that helps cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions.

But one aspect that I think is getting lost here is that sustained high fossil-fuel prices will be bad for even those of us who are untethered from the burdens of vehicle ownership. Fuel cost makes up between 50% and 60% of the cost of shipping goods overseas. Fertilizer production today requires natural gas, which has gotten significantly more expensive since the war began, particularly in Europe.

Jet fuel prices have basically doubled in the last month, according to the International Air Transport Association. Since those prices account for something like a quarter of an airline’s operating cost, that could soon make air travel—and anything that’s shipped by plane—more expensive.

And if all this adds up to an economic downturn, it’s bad for big projects that need financing (even wind and solar farms) and for people who want to borrow money to buy a home or a car (including an EV).

If you’re in the market for a car, maybe this uncertainty is what you needed to consider electric. But until we’re able to truly decarbonize not only our transportation but the rest of our economy, even this carless reporter is going to be worried about high gas prices.

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

Why the world doesn’t recycle more nuclear waste

The prospect of making trash useful is always fascinating to me. Whether it’s used batteries, solar panels, or spent nuclear fuel, getting use out of something destined for disposal sounds like a win all around.

In nuclear energy, figuring out what to do with waste has always been a challenge, since the material needs to be dealt with carefully. In a new story, I dug into the question of what advanced nuclear reactors will mean for spent fuel waste. New coolants, fuels, and logistics popping up in companies’ designs could require some adjustments.

My reporting also helped answer another question that was lingering in my brain: Why doesn’t the world recycle more nuclear waste?

There’s still a lot of usable uranium in spent nuclear fuel when it’s pulled out of reactors. Getting more use out of the spent fuel could cut down on both waste and the need to mine new material, but the process is costly, complicated, and not 100% effective.

France has the largest and most established reprocessing program in the world today. The La Hague plant in northern France has the capacity to reprocess about 1,700 tons of spent fuel each year.

The plant uses a process called PUREX—spent fuel is dissolved in acid and goes through chemical processing to pull out the uranium and plutonium, which are then separated. The plutonium is used to make mixed oxide (or MOX) fuel, which can be used in a mixture to fuel conventional nuclear reactors or alone as fuel in some specialized designs. And the uranium can go on to be re-enriched and used in standard low-enriched uranium fuel.

Reprocessing can cut down on the total volume of high-level nuclear waste that needs special handling, says Allison Macfarlane, director of the school of public policy and global affairs at the University of British Columbia and a former chair of the NRC.

But there’s a bit of a catch. Today, the gold standard for permanent nuclear waste storage is a geological repository, a deep underground storage facility. Heat, not volume, is often the key limiting factor for how much material can be socked away in those facilities, depending on the specific repository. And spent MOX fuel gives off much more heat than conventional spent fuel, Macfarlane says. So even if there’s a smaller volume, the material might take up as much, or even more, space in a repository. 

It’s also tricky to make this a true loop: The uranium that’s produced from reprocessing is contaminated with isotopes that can be difficult to separate, Macfarlane says. Today, France essentially saves the uranium for possible future enrichment as a sort of strategic stockpile. (Historically, it’s also exported some to Russia for enrichment.) And while MOX fuel can be used in some reactors, once it is spent, it is technically challenging to reprocess. So today, the best case is that fuel could be used twice, not infinitely.

“Every responsible analyst understands that no matter what, no matter how good your recycling process is, you’re still going to need a geological repository in the end,” says Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Reprocessing also has its downsides, Lyman adds. One risk comes from the plutonium made in the process, which can be used in nuclear weapons. France handles that risk with high security, and by quickly turning that plutonium into the MOX fuel product.

Reprocessing is also quite expensive, and uranium supply isn’t meaningfully limited. “There’s no economic benefit to reprocessing at this time,” says Paul Dickman, a former Department of Energy and NRC official.

France bears the higher cost that comes with reprocessing largely for political reasons, he says. The country doesn’t have uranium resources, importing its supply today. Reprocessing helps ensure its energy independence: “They’re willing to pay a national security premium.”

Japan is currently constructing a spent-fuel reprocessing facility, though delays have plagued the project, which started construction in 1993 and was originally supposed to start up by 1997. Now the facility is expected to open by 2027.

It’s possible that new technologies could make reprocessing more appealing, and agencies like the Department of Energy should do longer-term research on advanced separation technologies, Dickman says. Some companies working on advanced reactors say they plan to use alternative reprocessing methods in their fuel cycle.

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