App Climate change and energy The Spark

Jan 18 2025

Interest in nuclear power is surging. Is it enough to build new reactors?

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

Lately, the vibes have been good for nuclear power. Public support is building, and public and private funding have made the technology more economical in key markets. There’s also a swell of interest from major companies looking to power their data centers.

These shifts have been great for existing nuclear plants. We’re seeing efforts to boost their power output, extend the lifetime of old reactors, and even reopen facilities that have shut down. That’s good news for climate action, because nuclear power plants produce consistent electricity with very low greenhouse-gas emissions.

I covered all these trends in my latest story, which digs into what’s next for nuclear power in 2025 and beyond. But as I spoke with experts, one central question kept coming up for me: Will all of this be enough to actually get new reactors built?

To zoom in on some of these trends, let’s take a look at the US, which has the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in the world (and the oldest, with an average age of over 42 years).

In recent years we’ve seen a steady improvement in public support for nuclear power in the US. Today, around 56% of Americans support more nuclear power, up from 43% in 2020, according to a Pew R esearch poll.

The economic landscape has also shifted in favor of the technology. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 includes tax credits specifically for operating nuclear plants, aimed at keeping them online. Qualifying plants can receive up to $15 per megawatt-hour, provided they meet certain labor requirements. (For context, in 2021, its last full year of operation, Palisades in Michigan generated over 7 million megawatt-hours.)

Big Tech has also provided an economic boost for the industry—tech giants like Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Amazon are all making deals to get in on nuclear.

These developments have made existing (or recently closed) nuclear power plants a hot commodity. Plants that might have been candidates for decommissioning just a few years ago are now candidates for license extension. Plants that have already shut down are seeing a potential second chance at life.

There’s also the potential to milk more power out of existing facilities through changes called uprates, which basically allow existing facilities to produce more energy by tweaking existing instruments and power generation systems. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved uprates totaling six gigawatts over the past two decades. That’s a small but certainly significant fraction of the roughly 97 gigawatts of nuclear on the grid today.

Any reactors kept online, reopened, or ramped up spell good news for emissions. But expanding the nuclear fleet in the US will require not just making the most of existing assets, but building new reactors.

We’ll probably also need new reactors just to maintain the current fleet, since so many reactors are scheduled to be retired in the next couple of decades. Will the enthusiasm for keeping old plants running also translate into building new ones?

In much of the world (China being a notable exception), building new nuclear capacity has historically been expensive and slow. It’s easy to point at Plant Vogtle in the US: The third and fourth reactors at that facility began construction in 2009. They were originally scheduled to start up in 2016 and 2017, at a cost of around $14 billion. They actually came online in 2023 and 2024, and the total cost of the project was north of $30 billion.

Some advanced technology has promised to fix the problems in nuclear power. Small modular reactors could help cut cost and construction times, and next-generation reactors promise safety and efficiency improvements that could translate to cheaper, quicker construction. Realistically, though, getting these first-of-their-kind projects off the ground will still require a lot of money and a sustained commitment to making them happen. “The next four years are make or break for advanced nuclear,” says Jessica Lovering, cofounder at the Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization that advocates for the use of nuclear energy.

There are a few factors that could help the progress we’ve seen recently in nuclear extend to new builds. For one, public support from the US Department of Energy includes not only tax credits but public loans and grants for demonstration projects, which can be a key stepping stone to commercial plants that generate electricity for the grid.

Changes to the regulatory process could also help. The Advance Act, passed in 2024, aims at sprucing up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the hopes of making the approval process more efficient (currently, it can take up to five years to complete).

“If you can see the NRC really start to modernize toward a more efficient, effective, and predictable regulator, it really helps the case for a lot of these commercial projects, because the NRC will no longer be seen as this barrier to innovation,” says Patrick White, research director at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit think tank. We should start to see changes from that legislation this year, though what happens could depend on the Trump administration.

The next few years are crucial for next-generation nuclear technology, and how the industry fares between now and the end of the decade could be very telling when it comes to how big a role this technology plays in our longer-term efforts to decarbonize energy.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Devastating wildfires have been ravaging Southern California. Here’s a roundup of some key stories about the blazes.

→ Strong winds have continued this week, bringing with them the threat of new fires. Here’s a page with live updates on the latest. (Washington Post)

→ Officials are scouring the spot where the deadly Palisades fire started to better understand how it was sparked. (New York Times)

→ Climate change didn’t directly start the fires, but global warming did contribute to how intensely they burned and how quickly they spread. (Axios)

→The LA fires show that controlled burns aren’t a cure-all when it comes to preventing wildfires. (Heatmap News)

→ Seawater is a last resort when it comes to fighting fires, since it’s corrosive and can harm the environment when dumped on a blaze. (Wall Street Journal)

Keeping up with climate

US emissions cuts stalled last year, despite strong growth in renewables. The cause: After staying flat or falling for two decades, electricity demand is rising. (New York Times)

With Donald Trump set to take office in the US next week, many are looking to state governments as a potential seat of climate action. Here’s what to look for in states including Texas, California, and Massachusetts. (Inside Climate News)

The US could see as many as 80 new gas-fired power plants built by 2030. The surge comes as demand for power from data centers, including those powering AI, is ballooning. (Financial Times)

Global sales of EVs and plug-in hybrids were up 25% in 2024 from the year before. China, the world’s largest EV market, is a major engine behind the growth. (Reuters)

A massive plant to produce low-emissions steel could be in trouble. Steelmaker SSAB has pulled out of talks on federal funding for a plant in Mississippi. (Canary Media)

Some solar panel companies have turned to door-to-door sales. Things aren’t always so sunny for those involved. (Wired)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Jan 12 2025

2025 is a critical year for 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.

I love the fresh start that comes with a new year. And one thing adding a boost to my January is our newest list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.

In case you haven’t browsed this year’s list or a previous version, it features tech that’s either breaking into prominence or changing society. We typically recognize a range of items running from early-stage research to consumer technologies that folks are getting their hands on now.

As I was looking over the finished list this week, I was struck by something: While there are some entries from other fields that are three or even five years away, all the climate items are either newly commercially available or just about to be. It’s certainly apt, because this year in particular seems to be bringing a new urgency to the fight against climate change. We’re facing global political shifts and entering the second half of the decade. It’s time for these climate technologies to grow up and get out there.

Green steel

Steel is a crucial material for buildings and vehicles, and making it accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. New manufacturing methods could be a huge part of cleaning up heavy industry, and they’re just on the cusp of breaking into the commercial market.

One company, called Stegra, is close to starting up the world’s first commercial green steel plant, which will make the metal using hydrogen from renewable sources. (You might know this company by its former name, H2 Green Steel, as we included it on our 2023 list of Climate Tech Companies to Watch.)

When I first started following Stegra a few years ago, its plans for a massive green steel plant felt incredibly far away. Now the company says it’s on track to produce steel at the factory by next year.

The biggest challenge in this space is money. Building new steel plants is expensive—Stegra has raised almost $7 billion. And the company’s product will be more expensive than conventional material, so it’ll need to find customers willing to pay up (so far, it has).

There are other efforts to clean up steel that will all face similar challenges around money, including another play in Sweden called Hybrit and startups like Boston Metal and Electra, which use different processes. Read more about green steel, and the potential obstacles it faces as we enter a new phase of commercialization, in this short blurb and in this longer feature about Stegra.

Cow burp remedies

Humans love burgers and steaks and milk and cheese, so we raise a whole bunch of cows. The problem is, these animals are among a group with a funky digestion process that produces a whole lot of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas). A growing number of companies are trying to develop remedies that help cut down on their methane emissions.

This is one of my favorite items on the list this year (and definitely my favorite illustration—at the very least, check out this blurb to enjoy the art).

There’s already a commercially available option right now: a feed additive called Bovaer from DSM-Firmenich that the company says can cut methane emissions by 30% in dairy cattle, and more in beef cattle. Startups are right behind with their own products, some of which could prove even better.

A key challenge all these companies face moving forward is acceptance: from regulatory agencies, farmers, and consumers. Some companies still need to go through lengthy and often expensive tests to show that their products are safe and effective. They’ll also need to persuade farmers to get on board. Some might also face misinformation that’s causing some consumers to protest these new additives.

Cleaner jet fuel

While planes crisscrossing the world are largely powered by fossil fuels, some alternatives are starting to make their appearance in aircraft.

New fuels, today mostly made from waste products like used cooking oil, can cut down emissions from air travel. In 2024, they made up about 0.5% of the fuel supply. But new policies could help these fuels break into new prominence, and new options are helping to widen their supply.

The key challenge here is scale. Global demand for jet fuel was about 100 billion gallons last year, so we’ll need a whole lot of volume from new producers to make a dent in aviation’s emissions.

To illustrate the scope, take LanzaJet’s new plant, opened in 2024. It’s the first commercial-scale facility that can make jet fuel with ethanol, and it has a capacity of about 9 million gallons annually. So we would need about 10,000 of those plants to meet global demand—a somewhat intimidating prospect. Read more in my write-up here.

From cow burps to jet fuel to green steel, there’s a huge range of tech that’s entering a new stage of deployment and will need to face new challenges in the next few years. We’ll be watching it all—thanks for coming along.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

EVs are (mostly) set for solid growth in 2025, as my colleague James Temple covers in his newest story. Check it out for more about what’s next for electric vehicles, including what we might expect from a new administration in the US and how China is blowing everyone else out of the water.

Keeping up with climate

Winter used to be the one time of year that California didn’t have to worry about wildfires. A rapidly spreading fire in the southern part of the state is showing that’s not the case anymore. (Bloomberg)

Tesla’s annual sales decline for the first time in over a decade. Deliveries were lower than expected for the final quarter of the year. (Associated Press)

Meanwhile, in China, EVs are set to overtake traditional cars in sales years ahead of schedule. Forecasts suggest that EVs could account for 50% of car sales this year. (Financial Times)

KoBold metals raised $537 million in funding to use AI to mine copper. The funding pushes the startup’s valuation to $2.96 billion. (TechCrunch)
→ Read this profile of the company from 2021 for more. (MIT Technology Review)

We finally have the final rules for a tax credit designed to boost hydrogen in the US. The details matter here. (Heatmap)

China just approved the world’s most expensive infrastructure project. The hydroelectric dam could produce enough power for 300 million people, triple the capacity of the current biggest dam. (Economist)

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter installed 32 solar panels on the White House’s roof. Although they came down just a few years later, the panels lived multiple lives afterward. I really enjoyed reading about this small piece of Carter’s legacy in the wake of his passing. (New York Times)

An open pit mine in California is the only one in the US mining and extracting rare earth metals including neodymium and praseodymium. This is a fascinating look at the site. (IEEE Spectrum)
→ I wrote about efforts to recycle rare earth metals, and what it means for the long-term future of metal supply, in a feature story last year. (MIT Technology Review)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Dec 13 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

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

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

Keeping up with climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Dec 8 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now read the rest of The Spark

Keeping up with climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Dec 1 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

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

Keeping up with climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

App Climate change and energy The Spark

Nov 22 2024

China’s complicated role in climate change

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

“Well, what about China?”

This is a comment I get all the time on the topic of climate change, both in conversations and on whatever social media site is currently en vogue. Usually, it comes in response to some statement about how the US and Europe are addressing the issue (or how they need to be).

Sometimes I think people ask this in bad faith. It’s a rhetorical way to throw up your hands, imply that the US and Europe aren’t the real problem, and essentially say: “if they aren’t taking responsibility, why should we?” However, amid the playground-esque finger-pointing there are some undeniable facts: China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, by far. It’s one of the world’s most populous countries and a climate-tech powerhouse, and its economy is still developing.

With many complicated factors at play, how should we think about the country’s role in addressing climate change?

China’s emissions are the highest in the world, topping 12 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency.

There’s context missing if we just look at that one number, as I wrote in my latest story that digs into recent global climate data. Since carbon dioxide hangs around in the atmosphere for centuries, we should arguably consider not just a country’s current emissions, but everything it’s produced over time. If we do that, the US still takes the crown for the world’s biggest climate polluter.

However, China is now in second place, according to a new analysis from Carbon Brief released this week. In 2023, the country exceeded the EU’s 27 member states in historical emissions for the first time.

This reflects a wider trend that we’re seeing around the world: Developing nations are starting to account for a larger fraction of emissions than they used to. In 1992, when countries agreed to the UN climate convention, industrialized countries (a category called Annex I) made up about one-fifth of the world’s population but were responsible for a whopping 61% of historical emissions. By the end of 2024, though, those countries’ share of global historical emissions will fall to 52%, and it is expected to keep ticking down.

China, like all nations, will need to slash its emissions for the world to meet global climate goals. One crucial point here is that while its emissions are still huge, there are signs that the nation is making some progress.

China’s carbon dioxide’s emissions are set to fall in 2024 because of record growth in low-carbon energy sources. That decline is projected to continue under the country’s current policy settings, according to an October report from the IEA. China’s oil demand could soon peak and start to fall, largely because it’s seeing such a huge uptake of electric vehicles.

One growing question: With all this progress and a quickly growing economy, should we be expecting China to do more than just make progress on its own emissions?

As I wrote in the newsletter last week, the current talks at COP29 (the UN climate conference) are focused on setting a new, more aggressive global climate finance goal to help developing nations address climate change. China isn’t part of the group of countries that are required to pay into this pot of money, but some are calling for that to change given that it is the world’s biggest polluter.

One interesting point here—China already contributes billions of dollars in climate financing each year to developing countries, according to research published earlier this month by the World Resources Institute. The country’s leadership has said it will only make voluntary contributions, and that developed nations should still be the ones responsible for mandatory payments under the new finance goals.

Talks at COP29 aren’t going very well. The COP29 president called for faster action, but progress toward a finance deal has stalled amid infighting over how much money should be on the table and who should pay up.

China’s complex role in emissions and climate action is far from the only holdup at the talks. Leaders from major nations including Germany and France canceled plans to attend, and the looming threat that the US could pull out of the Paris climate agreement is coloring the negotiations.

But disagreement over how to think about China’s role in all this is a good example of how difficult it is to assign responsibility when it comes to climate change, and how much is at play in global climate negotiations. One thing I do know for sure is that pointing fingers doesn’t cut emissions.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Keeping up with climate

Fusion energy has been a dream for decades, and a handful of startups say we’re closer than ever to making it a reality. This deep dive looks at a few of the companies looking to be the first to deploy fusion power. (New York Times)
→ I recently visited one of the startups, Commonwealth Fusion Systems. (MIT Technology Review)

President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy. Wright is head of the fracking company Liberty Energy. (Washington Post)

In the wake of Trump’s election, it might be time for climate tech to get a rebrand. Companies and investors might increasingly avoid using the term, opting instead for phrases like “energy independence” or “frontier tech,” to name a few. (Heatmap)

Rooftop solar has saved customers in California about $2.3 billion on utility bills this year, according to a new analysis. This result is counter to a report from a state agency, which found that rooftop panels impose over $8 billion in extra costs on consumers of the state’s three major utilities. (Canary Media)

Low-carbon energy needs much less material than it used to. Rising efficiency in making technology like solar panels bodes well for hopes of cutting mining needs. (Sustainability by Numbers)

New York governor Kathy Hochul has revived a plan to implement congestion pricing, which would charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan. It would be the first such program in the US. (The City)

Enhanced geothermal technology could be close to breaking through into commercial success. Companies that aim to harness Earth’s heat for power are making progress toward deploying facilities. (Nature)
→ Fervo Energy found that its wells can be used like a giant underground battery. (MIT Technology Review)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Nov 16 2024

What’s on the table at this year’s UN climate conference

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 for a party—the Conference of the Parties, that is. Talks kicked off this week at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Running for a couple of weeks each year, the global summit is the largest annual meeting on climate change.

The issue on the table this time around: Countries need to agree to set a new goal on how much money should go to developing countries to help them finance the fight against climate change. Complicating things? A US president-elect whose approach to climate is very different from that of the current administration (understatement of the century).

This is a big moment that could set the tone for what the next few years of the international climate world looks like. Here’s what you need to know about COP29 and how Donald Trump’s election is coloring things.

The UN COP meetings are an annual chance for nearly 200 nations to get together to discuss (and hopefully act on) climate change. Greatest hits from the talks include the Paris Agreement, a 2015 global accord that set a goal to limit global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above preindustrial levels.

This year, the talks are in Azerbaijan, a petrostate if there ever was one. Oil and gas production makes up over 90% of the country’s export revenue and nearly half its GDP as of 2022. A perfectly ironic spot for a global climate summit!

The biggest discussion this year centers on global climate finance—specifically, how much of it is needed to help developing countries address climate change and adapt to changing conditions. The current goal, set in 2009, is for industrialized countries to provide $100 billion each year to developing nations. The deadline was 2020, and that target was actually met for the first time in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which keeps track of total finance via reports from contributing countries. Currently, most of that funding is in the form of public loans and grants.

The thing is, that $100 billion number was somewhat arbitrary—in Paris in 2015, countries agreed that a new, larger target should be set in 2025 to take into account how much countries actually need.

It’s looking as if the magic number is somewhere around $1 trillion each year. However, it remains to be seen how this goal will end up shaking out, because there are disagreements about basically every part of this. What should the final number be? What kind of money should count—just public funds, or private investments as well? Which nations should pay? How long will this target stand? What, exactly, would this money be going toward?

Working out all those details is why nations are gathering right now. But one shadow looming over these negotiations is the impending return of Donald Trump.

As I covered last week, Trump’s election will almost certainly result in less progress on cutting emissions than we might have seen under a more climate-focused administration. But arguably an even bigger deal than domestic progress (or lack thereof) will be how Trump shifts the country’s climate position on the international stage.

The US has emitted more carbon pollution into the atmosphere than any other country, it currently leads the world in per capita emissions, and it’s the world’s richest economy. If anybody should be a leader at the table in talks about climate finance, it’s the US. And yet, Trump is coming into power soon, and we’ve all seen this film before.

Last time Trump was in office, he pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement. He’s made promises to do it again—and could go one step further by backing out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) altogether. If leaving the Paris Agreement is walking away from the table, withdrawing from the UNFCCC is like hopping on a rocket and blasting in a different direction. It’s a more drastic action and could be tougher to reverse in the future, though experts also aren’t sure if Trump could technically do this on his own.

The uncertainty of what happens next in the US is a cloud hanging over these negotiations. “This is going to be harder because we don’t have a dynamic and pushy and confident US helping us on climate action,” said Camilla Born, an independent climate advisor and former UK senior official at COP26, during an online event last week hosted by Carbon Brief.

Some experts are confident that others will step up to fill the gap. “There are many drivers of climate action beyond the White House,” said Mohamed Adow, founding director of Power Shift Africa, at the CarbonBrief event.

If I could characterize the current vibe in the climate world, it’s uncertainty. But the negotiations over the next couple of weeks could provide clues to what we can expect for the next few years. Just how much will a Trump presidency slow global climate action? Will the European Union step up? Could this cement the rise of China as a climate leader? We’ll be watching it all.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Trump’s election will have significant ripple effects across the economy and our lives. His victory is a tragic loss for climate progress, as my colleague James Temple wrote in an op-ed last week. Give it a read, if you haven’t already, to dig into some of the potential impacts we might see over the next four years and beyond.

Keeping up with climate

The US Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule to fine oil and gas companies for methane emissions. The fee was part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. (Associated Press)
→ This rule faces a cloudy future under the Trump administration; industry groups are already talking about repealing it. (NPR)

Speaking of the EPA, Donald Trump chose Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, to lead the agency. Zeldin isn’t particularly known for climate or economic policy. (New York Times)

Oil giant BP is scaling back its early-stage hydrogen projects. The company revealed in an earnings report that it’s canceling 18 such projects and currently plans to greenlight between five and 10. (TechCrunch)

Investors betting against renewable energy scored big last week, earning nearly $1.2 billion as stocks in that sector tumbled. (Financial Times)

Lithium iron phosphate batteries are taking over the world, or at least electric vehicles. These lithium-ion batteries are cheaper and longer-lasting than their nickel-containing cousins, though they also tend to be heavier. (Canary Media)
→ I wrote about this trend last year in a newsletter about batteries and their ingredients. (MIT Technology Review)

The US unveiled plans to triple its nuclear energy capacity by 2050. That’s an additional 200 gigawatts’ worth of consistently available power. (Bloomberg)

Five subsea cables that can help power millions of homes just got the green light in Great Britain. The projects will help connect the island to other power grids, as well as to offshore wind farms in Dutch and Belgian waters. (The Guardian)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Nov 7 2024

The US is about to make a sharp turn on climate policy

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

Voters have elected Donald Trump to a second term in the White House.

In the days leading up to the election, I kept thinking about what four years means for climate change right now. We’re at a critical moment that requires decisive action to rapidly slash greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, transportation, industry, and the rest of the economy if we’re going to achieve our climate goals.

The past four years have seen the US take climate action seriously, working with the international community and pumping money into solutions. Now, we’re facing a period where things are going to be very different. A Trump presidency will have impacts far beyond climate, but for the sake of this newsletter, we’ll stay focused on what four years means in the climate fight as we start to make sense of this next chapter.

Joe Biden arguably did more to combat climate change than any other American president. One of his first actions in office was rejoining the Paris climate accord—Trump pulled out of the international agreement to fight climate change during his first term in office. Biden then quickly set a new national goal to cut US carbon emissions in half, relative to their peak, by 2030.

The Environmental Protection Agency rolled out rules for power plants to slash pollution that harms both human health and the climate. The agency also announced new regulations for vehicle emissions to push the country toward EVs.

And the cornerstone of the Biden years has been unprecedented climate investment. A trio of laws—the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act—pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into infrastructure and research, much of it on climate.

Now, this ship is about to make a quick turn. Donald Trump has regularly dismissed the threat of climate change and promised throughout the campaign to counter some of Biden’s key moves.

We can expect to see a dramatic shift in how the US talks about climate on the international stage. Trump has vowed to once again withdraw from the Paris agreement. Things are going to be weird at the annual global climate talks that kick off next week.

We can also expect to see efforts to undo some of Biden’s key climate actions, most centrally the Inflation Reduction Act, as my colleague James Temple covered earlier this year.

What, exactly, Trump can do will depend on whether Republicans take control of both houses of Congress. A clean sweep would open up more lanes for targeting legislation passed under Biden. (As of sending this email, Republicans have secured enough seats to control the Senate, but the House is uncertain and could be for days or even weeks.)

I don’t think the rug will be entirely pulled out from under the IRA—portions of the investment from the law are beginning to pay off, and the majority of the money has gone to Republican districts. But there will certainly be challenges to pieces, especially the EV tax credits, which Trump has been laser-focused on during the campaign.

This all adds up to a very different course on climate than what many had hoped we might see for the rest of this decade.

A Trump presidency could add 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere by 2030 over what was expected from a second Biden term, according to an analysis published in April by the website Carbon Brief (this was before Biden dropped out of the race). That projection sees emissions under Trump dropping by 28% below the peak by the end of the decade—nowhere near the 50% target set by Biden at the beginning of his term.

The US, which is currently the world’s second-largest greenhouse-gas emitter and has added more climate pollution to the atmosphere than any other nation, is now very unlikely to hit Biden’s 2030 goal. That’s basically the final nail in the coffin for efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) over preindustrial levels.

In the days, weeks, and years ahead we’ll be covering what this change will mean for efforts to combat climate change and to protect the most vulnerable from the dangerous world we’re marching toward—indeed, already living in. Stay tuned for more from us.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Jennifer Doudna, one of the inventors of the gene-editing tool CRISPR, says the tech could be a major tool to help address climate change and deal with the growing risks of our changing world.

The hope is that CRISPR’s ability to chop out specific pieces of DNA will make it faster and easier to produce climate-resilient crops and livestock, while avoiding the pitfalls of previous attempts to tweak the genomes of plants and animals. Read the full story from my colleague James Temple.

Keeping up with climate

Startup Redoxblox is building a technology that’s not exactly a thermal battery, but it’s not not a thermal battery either. The company raised just over $30 million to build its systems, which store energy in both heat and chemical bonds. (Heatmap)

It’s been a weird fall in the US Northeast—a rare drought has brought a string of wildfires, and New York City is seeing calls to conserve water. (New York Times)

It’s been bumpy skies this week for electric-plane startups. Beta Technologies raised over $300 million in funding, while Lilium may be filing for insolvency soon. (Canary Media)

→ The runway for futuristic electric planes is still a long one. (MIT Technology Review)

Meta’s plan to build a nuclear-powered AI data center has been derailed by a rare species of bee living on land earmarked for the project. (Financial Times)

The atmospheric concentration of methane—a powerful greenhouse gas—has been mysteriously climbing since 2007, and that growth nearly doubled in 2020. Now scientists may have finally figured out the culprits: microbes in wetlands that are getting warmer and wetter. (Washington Post)

Greenhouse-gas emissions from the European Union fell by 8% in 2023. The drop is thanks to efforts to shut down coal-fired power plants and generate more electricity from renewables like solar and wind. (The Guardian)

Four electric school buses could help officials figure out how to charge future bus fleets. A project in Brooklyn will aim to use onsite renewables and smart charging to control the costs and grid stress of EV charging depots. (Canary Media)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Nov 1 2024

Inside a fusion energy facility

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

On an overcast day in early October, I picked up a rental car and drove to Devens, Massachusetts, to visit a hole in the ground.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems has raised over $2 billion in funding since it spun out of MIT in 2018, all in service of building the first commercial fusion reactor. The company has ambitions to build power plants, but currently the goal is to finish putting together its first demonstration system, the SPARC reactor. The plan is to have it operating by 2026.

I visited the company’s site recently to check in on progress. Things are starting to come together around the hole in the floor where SPARC will eventually be installed. Looking around the site, I found it becoming easier to imagine a future that could actually include fusion energy. But there’s still a lot of work left to do.

Fusion power has been a dream for decades. The idea is simple: Slam atoms together and use the energy that’s released to power the world. The systems would require small amounts of abundant fuel and wouldn’t produce dangerous waste. The problem is, executing this vision has been much slower than many had hoped.

Commonwealth is one of the leaders in commercial fusion. My colleague James Temple wrote a feature story, published in early 2022, about the company’s attempts to bring the technology to reality. At the time, the Devens location was still a muddy construction site, with the steel and concrete just starting to go into the ground.

Things are much more polished now—when I visited earlier this month, I pulled into one of the designated visitor parking spots and checked in at a reception desk in a bustling office building before beginning my tour. There were two main things to see: the working magnet factory and the cluster of buildings that will house and support the SPARC reactor.

We started in the magnet factory. SPARC is a tokamak, a device relying on powerful magnets to contain the plasma where fusion reactions take place. There will be three different types of magnets in SPARC, all arranged to keep the plasma in position and moving around in the right way.

The company is making its own magnets powered with tape made from a high-temperature superconductor, which generates a magnetic field when an electric current runs through it. SPARC will contain thousands of miles’ worth of this tape in its magnets. In the factory, specialized equipment winds up the tape and tucks it into metal cases, which are then stacked together and welded into protective shells.

After our quick loop around the magnet factory, I donned a helmet, neon vest, and safety glasses and got a short safety talk that included a stern warning to not stare directly at any welding. Then we walked across a patio and down a gravel driveway to the main complex of buildings that will house the SPARC reactor.

Except for some remaining plywood stairs and dust, the complex appeared to be nearly completed. There’s a huge wall of glass on the front of the building—a feature intended to show that the company is open with the community about the goings-on inside, as my tour guide, chief marketing officer Joe Paluska, put it.

Four main buildings surround the central tokamak hall. These house support equipment needed to cool down the magnets, heat up the plasma, and measure conditions in the reactor. Most of these big, industrial systems that support SPARC are close to being ready to turn on or are actively being installed, explained Alex Creely, director of tokamak operations, in a call after my tour.

When it was finally time to see the tokamak hall that will house SPARC, we had to take a winding route to get there. A maze of concrete walls funneled us to the entrance, and I lost track of my left and right turns. Called the labyrinth, this is a safety feature, designed to keep stray neutrons from escaping the hall once the reactor is operating. (Neutrons are a form of radiation, and enough exposure can be dangerous to humans.)

Finally, we stepped into a cavernous space. From our elevated vantage point on a metal walkway, we peered down into a room with gleaming white floors and equipment scattered around the perimeter. At the center was a hole, covered with a tarp and surrounded by bright-yellow railings. That empty slot is where the star of the show, SPARC, will eventually be installed.

The tokamak hall at Commonwealth Fusion Systems will house the company’s SPARC reactor.

While there’s still very little tokamak in the tokamak hall right now, Commonwealth has an ambitious timeline planned: The goal is to have SPARC running and the first plasma in the reactor by 2026. The company plans to demonstrate that it can produce more energy in the reactor than is needed to power it (a milestone known as Q>1 in the fusion world) by 2027.

When we published our 2022 story on Commonwealth, the plan was to flip on the reactor and reach the Q>1 milestone by 2025, so the timeline has slipped. It’s not uncommon for big projects in virtually every industry to take longer than expected. But there’s an especially long and fraught history of promises and missed milestones in fusion.

Commonwealth has certainly made progress over the past few years, and it’s getting easier to imagine the company actually turning on a reactor and meeting the milestones the field has been working toward for decades. But there’s still a tokamak-shaped hole in suburban Massachusetts waiting to be filled.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

Generative AI will add to our growing e-waste problem. A new study estimates that AI could add up to 5 million tons of e-waste by 2030.

It’s a small fraction of the total, but there’s still good reason to think carefully about how we handle discarded servers and high-performance computing equipment, according to experts. Read more in my latest story.

Keeping up with climate

New York City will buy 10,000 induction stoves from a startup called Copper. The stoves will be installed in public housing in the city. (Heatmap)

Demand is growing for electric cabs in India, but experts say there’s not nearly enough supply to meet it. (Rest of World)

Pivot Bio aims to tweak the DNA of bacteria so they can help deliver nutrients to plants. The company is trying to break into an industry dominated by massive agriculture and chemical companies. (New York Times)

→ Check out our profile of Pivot Bio, which was one of our 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch this year. (MIT Technology Review)

At least 62 people are dead and many more are missing in dangerous flooding across Spain. (Washington Post)

A massive offshore wind lease sale this week offered up eight patches of ocean off the coast of Maine in the US. Four sold, opening the door for up to 6.8 gigawatts of additional offshore wind power. (Canary Media)

Climate change contributed to the deaths of 38,000 people across Europe in the summer of 2022, according to a new study. (The Guardian)

→ The legacy of Europe’s heat waves will be more air-conditioning, and that could be its own problem. (MIT Technology Review)

There are nearly 9,000 public fast-charging sites in the US, and a surprising wave of installations in the Midwest and Southeast. (Bloomberg)

Some proposed legislation aims to ban factory farming, but determining what that category includes is way more complicated than you might think. (Ambrook Research)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Oct 25 2024

Why agriculture is a tough climate problem to solve

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

As a climate reporter, I’m all too aware of the greenhouse-gas emissions that come from food production. And yet, I’m not a vegan, and I do enjoy a good cheeseburger (at least on occasion).

It’s a real problem, from a climate perspective at least, that burgers taste good, and so do chicken sandwiches and cheese and just about anything that has butter in it. It can be hard to persuade people to change their eating habits, especially since food is tied up in our social lives and our cultures.

We could all stand to make some choices that could reduce the emissions associated with the food on our plates. But the longer I write about agriculture and climate, the more I think we’re also going to need to innovate around people’s love for burgers—and fix our food system not just in the kitchen, but on the farm.

If we lump in everything it takes to get food grown, processed, and transported to us, agriculture accounts for between 20% and 35% of annual global greenhouse-gas emissions. (The range is huge because estimates can vary in what they include and how they account for things like land use, the impact of which is tricky to measure.)

So when it came time to put together our list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch, which we released earlier this month, we knew we wanted to represent the massive challenge that is our food system.

We ended up choosing two companies in agriculture for this year’s list, Pivot Bio and Rumin8. My colleague James Temple and I spoke with leaders from both these businesses at our recent Roundtables online event, and it was fascinating to hear from them about the problems they’re trying to solve and how they’re doing it.

Pivot Bio is using microbes to help disrupt the fertilizer industry. Today, applying nitrogen-based fertilizers to fields is basically like putting gas into a leaky gas tank, as Pivot cofounder Karsten Temme put it at the event.

Plants rely on nitrogen to grow, but they fail to take up a lot of the nitrogen in fertilizers applied in the field. Since fertilizer requires a ton of energy to produce and can wind up emitting powerful greenhouse gases if plants don’t use it, that’s a real problem.

Pivot Bio uses microbes to help get nitrogen from the air into plants, and the company’s current generation of products can help farmers cut fertilizer use by 25%.

Rumin8 has its sights set on cattle, making supplements that help them emit less methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Cows have a complicated digestive system that involves multiple stomachs and a whole lot of microbes that help them digest food. Those microbes produce methane that the cows then burp up. “It’s really rude of them,” quipped Matt Callahan, Rumin8’s cofounder and counsel, at the event.

In part because of the powerful warming effects of methane, beef is among the worst foods for the climate. Beef can account for up to 10 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than poultry, for example.

Rumin8 makes an additive that can go into the food or water supply of dairy and beef cattle that can help reduce the methane they burp up. The chemical basically helps the cows use that gas as energy instead, so it can boost their growth—a big benefit to farmers. The company has seen methane reductions as high as 90%, depending on how the cow is getting the supplement (effects aren’t as strong for beef cattle, which often don’t have as close contact with farmers and may not get as strong a dose of the supplement over time as dairy cattle do).

My big takeaway from our discussion, and from researching and picking the companies on our list this year, is that there’s a huge range of work being done to cut emissions from agriculture on the product side. That’s crucial, because I’m personally skeptical that a significant chunk of the world is going to quickly and voluntarily give up all the tasty but emissions-intensive foods that they’re used to.

That’s not to say individual choices can’t make a difference. I love beans and lentils as much as the next girl, and we could all stand to make choices that cut down our individual climate impact. And it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Anyone can choose to eat a little bit less beef specifically, and fewer meat and animal products in general (which tend to be more emissions-intensive than plant-based options). Another great strategy is to focus on cutting down your food waste, which not only reduces emissions but also saves you money.

But with appetites and budgets for beef and other emissions-intensive foods continuing to grow worldwide, I think we’re also going to need to see a whole lot of innovation that helps lower the emissions of existing food products that we all know and love, including beef.

There’s no one magic solution that’s going to solve our climate problem in agriculture. The key is going to be both shifting diets through individual and community action and adopting new, lower-emissions options that companies bring to the table.

Now read the rest of The Spark

Another thing

As more EVs hit the roads, there’s a growing concern about battery fires, which are a relatively rare but dangerous occurrence.

Aspen Aerogels is making super-light materials that can help suppress battery fires, and the company just got a huge boost from the US Department of Energy. Read more about the $670.6 million loan and the details of the technology in my latest story.

Keeping up with climate

Hurricane Milton disrupted the supply of fresh drinking water, so a Florida hospital deployed a machine to harvest it out of the air. (Wired)

There may be a huge supply of lithium in an underground brine reservoir in Arkansas. Using this source of the crucial battery metal will require companies to scale up new ways of extracting it. (New York Times)

There’s been a flurry of new deals between Big Tech and the nuclear industry, but Amazon is going one step further with its latest announcement. The company is supporting development of a new project rather than just agreeing to step in once electricity is ready. (Heatmap)
→ Here’s why Microsoft is getting involved in a plan to revive a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island. (MIT Technology Review)

Japan’s most popular rice is in danger because of rising temperatures. Koshihikari rice has a low tolerance for heat, and scientists are racing to breed new varieties that can handle a changing climate. (New York Times)

There are some pretty straightforward solutions that could slash methane emissions from landfills, including requiring more sites to install gas-capture systems. Landfills are the third-largest source of the powerful greenhouse gas. (Canary Media)

Heat pump sales have slowed in the US and stalled in Europe. The technology is struggling in part because of high interest rates, increasing costs, and misinformation about the appliances. (Washington Post)
→ Here’s everything you need to know about how heat pumps work. (MIT Technology Review)

Ecommerce MGMT 0 Comments

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Green steel

Cow burp remedies

Cleaner jet fuel

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Another thing

Keeping up with climate