You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
There’s a lot more big talk than reactor-building going on.

America’s technology companies need power, and lots of it.
Artificial intelligence combined with still-growing internet and smartphone use will likely require a game-changing investment in data centers — one that its already showing up in huge projected increases for electricity demand across the country. At the same time, many technology companies want to procure and invest in clean power, while many states have clean energy goals that may make it difficult to add new load to the grid without a corresponding investment in clean generation. All told, the Department of Energy estimates that some 700 to 900 gigawatts of new clean firm capacity — energy generation that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases and can run 24 hours a day — will be necessary to build a fully decarbonized grid. Even in the real world, technology companies are interested in acquiring whatever clean power they can.
This is where the nuclear industry would love to step in, specifically the segment of the industry making small modular reactors, otherwise known as SMRs. These reactors, which promise to be cheaper, smaller, and faster to build than the existing nuclear fleet, seem like an ideal match for what technology companies need. What could be better for data centers than on-site power (meaning no transmission costs) that runs all day (meaning no intermittency issues) with no carbon emissions (meaning no climate worries)? And if those nuclear power plants could be built quickly and cheaply out of pre-fabricated parts, all the better, right?
Whether SMRs actually can step in, well ... “If I had every agreement in principle SMRs have signed, I could walk from here to Europe without getting my feet wet,” Dan Yurman, the publisher of Neutron Bytes and a former project manager at the Idaho National Laboratory, told me.
The issue is that the most optimistic timeline for commercial deployment of SMRs starts in the late 2020s, with most observers putting actual deployment into sometimes in the 2030s. All the while, demand for data centers is growing now and is projected to accelerate sharply in the next few years.
As of today only a handful of small modular reactors are currently operational anywhere in the world, and none in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which governs all civilian nuclear construction in the country, has so far approved just one SMR design; NuScale, the company behind said design, recently laid off almost a third of its employees after its deal to build a power plant in Utah for a collection of local utilities fell through due to rising costs.
That approval process cost $500 million and took around five years, according to the Wall Street Journal — and, of course, NuScale has yet to get a functioning reactor out of it. The company is currently in the process of getting the go-ahead on a more powerful version of its existing design, which the company’s chief executive said could be approved “within 24 months.”
On paper, however, enthusiasm for co-locating SMRs with data centers and industrial sites abounds. Despite the collapse of the Utah project, during an earnings call this month, NuScale eagerly talked up a partnership with Standard Power to provide 2 gigawatts of electricity to data centers in Ohio and Pennsylvania. While its shares are down around 50% for the past 12 months, they are up about 35% (albeit to around $4.20) since the end of last year. In its presentation to investors, NuScale cited estimates that data center electricity consumption would triple by the beginning of the next decade.
“Management is quite enthusiastic around its opportunity with data center operators, noting that it's in discussions with large players as electricity demand accelerates via the AI buildout,” Ryan Pfingst and Chris Souther, two analysts for B. Riley Securities, wrote in a note to clients following the release of NuScale’s earnings report.
That enthusiasm notwithstanding, it’s not clear how far along the Standard Power project is. “A project of this size has a significant amount of detail that’s confirmed and structured before a project begins construction and those discussions are ongoing,” NuScale CEO John Hopkins told analysts on the company’s most recent earnings call. Standard Power did not return a request for comment asking for more details on the financing or construction timeline for its project. When asked for an update from NuScale, a spokesperson referred me to the earnings call.
Meanwhile, in Surry County, Virginia, work is advancing on a project adjacent to the existing Surry nuclear plant. The project would combine data centers, small modular reactors, and hydrogen fuel production; the data centers would come first, with SMRs following once costs come down, according to Michael Hewitt, the co-founder and chief executive officer of IP3, the project’s developer.
For Hewitt, the model for SMR deployment is to build them in factories and scale them directly for end users. “That’s the future of energy: If I want a gigawatt of data center, I build SMRs for the data center on day one,” he told me.
Which company will get there first? “If I had to guess right now, in terms of what will be factory-built first and available to consumers like us, it will more than likely be a light water reactor design — GE, NuScale, or perhaps Rolls-Royce,” Hewitt said. GE’s SMR design, the BWRX-300, is in the pre-application process with the NRC, and was picked by Ontario Power Generation for a nuclear development on its existing Darlington site. The Rolls-Royce SMR has been advancing through the British regulatory and procurement process, while the company currently designs light-water reactors for the Royal Navy.
“The first guy to get the factory built is the winner,” Hewitt said. But none will likely be ready for the Virginia project, at least not within the next eight to 10 years, though, he added. Nevertheless, urgent interest persists.
On Tuesday, Google, Microsoft, and the steel company Nucor announced that they were forming a group that would commit to purchasing clean firm technologies and included in its laundry list of potential power sources advanced nuclear. Another advanced nuclear developer, TerraPower, which is backed by Microsoft’s founder Bill Gates, announced Tuesday that it was applying for a construction permit for a plant in Wyoming and plans to start building non-nuclear portions of it in June. The company expects the full plant to come online in 2030.
There are dozens of other SMR designs at various stage of realization, but the absolute fastest a new design could get online, according to Adam Stein of the Breakthrough Institute, is around four years. “If a developer has not already submitted an application to the NRC to build a power plant — which none of them have for a specific site — then they mostly likely would not be able to operate a power plant before 2028,” Stein told me. “That is the soonest it could happen.”
That said, “If there’s more urgency from the market, a clearer and larger demand signal, then developers will move faster than they are right now,” Stein added.
What’s far more likely, according to Yurman, is that tech companies will sign power purchase agreements for existing nuclear power plants, as Amazon has with Talen Energy. “That’s immediate access to reliable power,” Yurman said.
And even if SMRs are actually built, they may not end up adjacent to data centers, but instead on the sites of existing nuclear and even coal plants (this is the plan for the TerraPower site) which have preexisting grid connections. “If I’m putting together this kind of deal,” Yurman told me, “I’m looking at an old coal power plant I can demolish and keep the grid connection.”
While American tech companies are eager to buy up new power, the real opportunity, should it ever come, may be overseas, where smaller countries without indigenous energy supplies could be especially interested in nuclear power.
“What we need to do is get to full rate production and start stamping out SMRs with low risk,” Hewitt said. “If we do that, we can take these things everywhere.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
After years of planning, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility has so far failed to take root.
In selecting a location for this year’s United Nations climate conference, host country Brazil chose symbolism over sense. Belém, the site of this year’s summit, is perched on the edge of the Amazon rainforest. The setting is meant to foreground the importance of nature in fighting climate change — despite the city’s desperately inadequate infrastructure for housing the tens of thousands of attendees the conference draws.
That mismatch of intention and resources has also played out in the meeting rooms of the gathering, known as COP30. The centerpiece of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s agenda was meant to be the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, an international finance scheme to raise at least $2 billion per year to fund forest conservation and restoration. After an inauspicious launch in which presumed supporters of the facility failed to put up any actual financing, however, it’s unclear whether the TFFF will have a chance to prove it can work.
Deforestation rates have hardly budged globally since 2021, despite more than 100 countries signing a pledge that year to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation within the decade. The world lost more than 8 million hectares of forest to deforestation last year, causing the release of more than 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — nearly as much as the entire U.S. energy sector.
First proposed by the Brazilian government in Dubai at COP28, the TFFF was devised to deliver a more consistent source of funding to countries in the global south for forest conservation that would not depend on foreign aid budgets or be vulnerable to the ups and downs of the carbon market.
The plan involves setting up a fund with money borrowed from wealthier countries and private investors at low interest rates and invested in publicly traded bonds from emerging markets and developing economies that command higher interest rates. After paying back investors, the revenue generated by the spread — roughly a 3% return, if all goes to plan — would be paid out in annual lump sums to developing countries that have managed to keep deforestation at bay. Participating countries would have the right to spend the proceeds as they choose, so long as the money goes to support forests. At least 20% of the funds would also have to be set aside for indigenous peoples.
Brazil lined up substantial support for the idea ahead of this year’s launch. Six potential investor countries — France, Germany, Norway, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States — as well as five potential beneficiaries — Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Indonesia, and Malaysia — joined a steering committee to help shape the development of the fund. The Brazilian government ultimately proposed a fundraising target of $25 billion from the sponsor countries, with the idea to attract about $100 billion from private investors, for a total of $125 billion to get the fund off the ground.
Once the fund started generating revenue, private investors would be paid out first, sponsor countries second, and forested countries last, with the $25 billion serving as insurance to the private investors should the emerging market bond issuers default on their payments. The fund itself would be managed by the World Bank, while a separate entity would govern payments made to forested countries.
While many in the international environmental community were enthusiastic about the plan — especially as a shift away from controversial carbon markets — some raised alarms.
Max Alexander Matthey, a German economics PhD student studying international finance, first saw a presentation on TFFF at COP29 and was baffled by its simplicity. “If it was that easy to make this 3% on borrowed money, why wouldn’t everyone else be doing it?” he recalled thinking at the time. After digging into the Brazilian government’s financial analysis and doing some of his own, Matthey came to believe that the fund’s proponents had underestimated the risk inherent to the investment strategy, as well as the cost of managing the $125 billion fund, he told me.
The whole reason these emerging market bonds command a higher interest rate, Matthey explained, is because they are riskier. If and when countries default on their debts, whether due to global financial shocks like pandemics or wars, or simple mismanagement, the “free money” available for forests will dry up. “These 3% are not up for grabs,” he told me. “They compensate for actual risk and defaults that will happen over time.”
The TFFF was designed to create an incentive for countries with tropical forests to invest in policies and programs to protect forests — to hire rangers to prevent illegal deforestation, to pay farmers not to raze their forests, to implement fire prevention strategies. “They have to heavily invest,” Matthey told me. “If we as the Global North say, Well, thanks for investing large shares of your budget into rainforest protection, but you won’t get any money from our side because financial markets turned the wrong way, that’s just not how you build trust.”
Matthey outlined his analysis in a Substack post in September with University of Calgary economist Aidan Hollis. They found that the JP Morgan EMBI index, which tracks emerging market sovereign bonds, has seen regular downturns of between 18 and 32 percentage points over the past two decades. In the case of the TFFF, a single 20-point loss would wipe out the $25 billion in sponsor debt “and halt rainforest flows, possibly before they even begin,” they wrote.
The energy research firm BloombergNEF seems to agree. In a report published last week outlining the state of international biodiversity finance ahead of COP30, BNEF forecast there would be “little progress” on the TFFF. “The 3% spread is not a money faucet, but a risk premium; studies on the TFFF appear not to have properly conducted risk analyses,” the report said, warning that in effect, the scheme would eat up development finance just to absorb private investor losses.
Just prior to that report’s release, confidence in the TFFF appeared to dip. Brazil’s finance minister lowered his fundraising ambition for the facility to $10 billion by 2026. A few days later, on the eve of the launch, Bloomberg News reported that the United Kingdom would not be contributing to the fund after the country’s treasury department warned it could not afford the investment, despite its significant involvement in the fund’s design.
Following the launch, Indonesia and Portugal each committed $1 billion, while Norway pledged $3 billion, although only if the fund successfully secures at least $10 billion. France also promised €500 million, or just over half a billion dollars, while Germany said it would contribute “significantly,” although it hasn’t said how much yet. All in all, countries committed just $5.5 billion above Brazil’s own initial $1 billion commitment — with at least $3 billion of that contingent on further fundraising.
Andrew Deutz, the managing director for global policy and partnerships at the World Wildlife Fund, which has also been heavily involved in developing the TFFF, assured me this was not the disappointment it appeared to be.
"I look at what just happened last week as validation that the model can work and that countries have confidence in it,” Deutz said. He pointed to the fact that 53 countries, including 19 potential investors, have endorsed the scheme. “A bunch of sponsor countries who haven’t been that engaged said, We like this idea, and I think that creates the opportunity and the momentum that we can get one or two more rounds of capitalization at least.” Deutz was bullish that Germany would come to the table with a pledge between $1 billion and $3 billion, and that the UK would “get guilted in” shortly. He expects to see additional pledges at the World Bank’s Spring Meetings next April, and a few more at the UN General Assembly next September.
As for criticisms of the fund’s investment strategy, he brushed them off, arguing that the risk was "quantifiable and manageable.” He has faith in the TFFF’s modeling showing that the fund’s managers will be able to earn high enough returns to pay back investors and still generate enough funds to pay tropical forest countries.
Charles Barber, the director of natural resources governance and policy at the World Resources Institute was more cautious on both fronts. “We’re glad it’s got as far as it has, but there’s a whole lot of questions that will need to be answered to really get it up,” he told me. Barber saw arguments both for and against the risky investment strategy, but he was skeptical that a starting point of $10 billion would be enough to attract sufficient private investment or give tropical forest countries enough of an incentive to participate.
Matthey has called the idea of a scaled-down TFFF a “worst-case scenario for everyone involved,” due to the high fixed costs of managing the fund, monitoring deforestation, administering the proceeds, etc. The potential payouts to forested countries would be so diminished as to amount to a “rounding error” rather than a true incentive, he wrote.
Deutz told me the TFFF’s architects always expected there to be a three- to four-year ramp-up period. If the fund gets one or two more rounds of capitalization, “we’ll see if it works — and then, assuming it works, you can keep adding to it,” he said. “This is something new and different, so it might take us a little while to prove it out and for people to get comfortable.”
Leading Light can’t move forward, a legal counsel wrote to state regulators.
Another offshore wind project on the East Coast is being quietly killed.
Legal counsel for the Leading Light Wind offshore project filed a letter on Nov. 7 to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities informing the regulator it no longer sees any way to complete construction and wants to pull the plug.
“The Board is well aware that the offshore wind industry has experienced economic and regulatory conditions that have made the development of new offshore wind projects extremely difficult,” counsel Colleen Foley wrote in the letter, which was reviewed by Heatmap News. “Like many other industry participants, the Company has faced a series of obstacles in the development of the LLW Project including supply chain, equipment and vendor challenges as well as changing regulatory requirements, to name but a few of the issues the Company has confronted.”
Leading Light was going to be built about 35 miles off the coast of New Jersey. It was awarded a renewable energy certificate from the state in January 2024 and was expected to provide roughly 2.4 gigawatts of electricity to the grid, which would have made it one of the largest renewable energy projects in the country and enough, the developers said, to power a million homes.
That certificate, known as an OREC, came with state financial assistance but also required developers Invenergy and energyRe to meet specific project milestones. Yet in addition to facing supply chain issues both companies had been unable to pursue federal permitting because of the Trump administration’s policy on offshore wind. And for months, they had submitted extension after extension to filing a motion binding it legally to complete construction of the project.
But now Leading Light is dead for the foreseeable future. “The company regrets this decision but does not see a pathway forward for the LLW Project on this OREC award and looks forward to the future for possible solicitations,” Foley stated.
This means New Jersey’s offshore wind horizons are incredibly bleak, especially after Shell dumped its stake in the defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind project last month. Almost all of New Jersey’s offshore wind contracts have now fallen apart, including those for the Ocean Wind, and there is little chance of Attentive Energy receiving federal permits under the current administration.
Only one project is now set to be operational off the New Jersey coast: Empire Wind. But it’s unclear if Empire will ever provide electrons to New Jersey itself since its only contract is with New York regulators. (It remains to be seen whether Empire’s developer, Equinor, will bid into New Jersey’s markets for the project’s second phase.)
It’s also important to consider the timing. On Nov. 4, New Jersey voters were swept up in a blue wave – but one that didn’t really hit many coastal areas, where a large majority of voters remained in the GOP camp. Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli focused enormously on fighting offshore wind during his campaign, going so far as to sell anti-wind merch. So one can imagine a world where the coastline was part of a blue wave and an offshore wind developer wouldn’t immediately pull out of the state, but that’s not a world we live in.
When reached for comment on whether the project might still be built, Invenergy simply said, “Please refer to the filing.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect comment from Invenergy and clarify Attentive Energy’s current status.
Emily Pontecorvo contributed to this article.
On partisan cuts, an atomic LPO, and the left’s data center fight
Current conditions: New York City is set for its first snow of the season • More than a million Filipinos are under evacuation orders after Super Typhoon Fung-wong slammed into the archipelago as the equivalent of a Category 4 hurricane • Mexico just recorded its hottest November day, with temperatures of nearly 83 degrees Fahrenheit in the southern Pacific Coast town of Arriaga.

China’s carbon dioxide emissions stayed steady in the third quarter from a year earlier, extending a flat or falling trend that started in March 2024, according to an analysis published Tuesday by Carbon Brief. The report found that the rapid adoption of electric vehicles dropped emissions from transport fuel by 5% year over year. Vast arrays of solar panels and wind turbines and some of the world’s only new nuclear reactors left CO2 emissions in the power sector unchanged, even as demand for electricity grew in the last quarter by 6.1%, up from 3.7% in the first half of the year. Renewables did most of the work. Solar generation grew by 46%, while electricity from wind production increased 11% year over year. “If this pattern repeats, then China’s CO2 emissions will record a fall for the full year of 2025,” wrote Lauri Myllyvirta, the author and lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Finland-based but China-focused research nonprofit. “While an emission increase or decrease of 1% or less might not make a huge difference in an objective sense, it has heightened symbolic meaning, as China’s policymakers have left room for emissions to increase for several more years, leaving the timing of the peak open.”
The finding comes shortly after the Rhodium Group released its latest global warming trajectory and found that planetary heating would stay relatively steady worldwide, despite the Trump administration’s rollbacks. But the consultancy still forecast a range of potential temperature averages from 2 degrees Celsius to 3.9 degrees above pre-industrial normals. Avoiding the higher-end scenario, as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote, we need breakthroughs. “What are those breakthroughs? At this point, they aren’t a mystery. Cheaper clean firm power — like advanced nuclear, fusion, or geothermal — would be a huge help. Solutions for decarbonizing flying and shipping are also on the list. We also need to make it affordable to produce iron, steel, cement, and petrochemicals with far fewer emissions.”

An alliance of clean energy groups, along with the Minnesota city of St. Paul, filed a lawsuit Monday accusing the Trump administration of taking what The New York Times called “nakedly partisan funding cuts” during the government shutdown that “wiped out around $7.5 billion for projects in Democratic-led states.” The lawsuit, which named White House budget director Russell Vought as a main defendant, alleged that the administration targeted states the president lost in the last election with “intentional discrimination” and “bare animus.” When Vought announced plans to slash nearly $8 billion in climate-related projects he slammed as the “Green New Scam” in a post on X, the Office of Management and Budget chief listed 16 states, all represented by senators who vote with the Democrats. “Under bedrock equal protection principles, the government must have some legitimate state interest when it treats one group differently from a similarly situated group,” the coalition said in the suit
Qcells has spent more than $2.5 billion to establish a solar panel supply chain in the United States. But the Seoul-based company still manufactures many of the cells that get assembled into panels in the U.S. in Malaysia or South Korea.
With new trade restrictions “routinely stalling” shipments of key components, as Reuters put it, the company has furloughed 1,000 workers at its Georgia factories as production slowed. In response, Qcells said it’s ramping up U.S. cell manufacturing at its new plant. “Qcells expects to resume full production in the coming weeks and months. Our commitment to building the entire solar supply chain in the United States remains,” Qcells spokesperson Marta Stoepker said in a statement. “We will soon be back on track with the full force of our Georgia team delivering American-made energy to communities around the country.” (If reading this made you want to review what actually goes into making a solar panel, my colleague Matthew Zeitlin had a great explainer in Heatmap’s Climate 101 series).
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office formed the speartip of the Biden administration’s clean energy funding efforts, pumping billions to everything from building much-needed solar megafarms in Puerto Rico to restarting a shuttered nuclear reactor for the first time in U.S. history in Michigan. The Trump administration prefers the latter. Speaking at the American Nuclear Society’s winter conference Monday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said he would focus the agency’s in-house lender almost entirely on atomic energy. “By far the biggest use of those dollars will be for nuclear power plants to get those first plants built,” Wright told the audience in Washington, D.C., according to Reuters. The Loan Programs Office would match “three to one, maybe even up to four to one” on equity deals with “low-cost debt dollars” from the agency.
Back in the spring, the Trump administration was widely expected to zero out the so-called LPO altogether as part of steep cuts led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. But groups including the right-leaning Foundation for American Innovation campaigned to preserve the LPO, pitching the entity to the new administration on its potential to fund nuclear projects in particular.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is leading a group of Democratic senators calling on the White House to answer for how soaring electric bills are helping to pay for the artificial intelligence boom driving what The Wall Street Journal called “one of the most expensive infrastructure build-outs in U.S. history.” The letter, directed to the White House and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, said the president’s order to fast-track data centers forced Americans into “bidding wars with trillion-dollar companies to keep the lights on at home,” suggesting the tech giants behind such services as Facebook, ChatGPT, and Google were winning.
It’s a clear political lane. Silicon Valley’s captains of industry lurched rightward in the last election, embracing Trump in ways that alienated many Americans at a moment when social media is increasingly viewed as addictive and harmful. In what was supposed to be a close race, Democrat Mikie Sherrill trounced her Republican opponent in last week’s New Jersey gubernatorial election by campaigning on taking the state’s grid operator to task for recent rate spikes in what Matthew called the “electricity election.” And a Heatmap Pro poll in September found just 44% of Americans would welcome a data center nearby.
It’s been a big year for green methanol — the chemical better known as wood alcohol — in China. In July, a Chinese cargo ship refueled with the stuff for the first time. In October, the Communist Party’s top agency in charge of macroeconomic planning listed green methanol among the new sectors eligible for subsidies from the central government. At the end of October, an offshore Chinese project successfully produced its first batch of the fuel. Where’s China looking next for green methanol fuel? Cow dung. Last week, a company in Inner Mongolia applied for green certification to start up what would be China’s first green methanol plant using cattle manure, according to analyst Jian Wu’s China Hydrogen Bulletin.