You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
Jason Hochman is building an archive of intellectual property from failed direct air capture companies.

The Direct Air Capture industry is contracting. Investment in the technology, which is designed to suck carbon out of the air, has dropped by more than 60% from its peak in 2022. The Trump administration has cancelled tens of millions in federal funding for the tech. Customers are prioritizing other, more affordable climate projects. Dozens of DAC startups that have made important advancements are “running out of runway,” according to Jason Hochman.
Hochman would know. For the past four years, he ran the Direct Air Capture Coalition, an industry association. Now, he’s stepping down from the role of advocate and into the role of entrepreneur, launching his own company in order to preserve DAC startups’ valuable innovations, data, and learnings before they disappear.
“A lot of the progress that they’ve made, a lot of the R&D, a lot of the innovation that has been hard-won over the past several years is at risk of being lost because of this shift in external factors,” Hochman told me.
His company, Ctrl-S — a reference to the keyboard command for saving a file — plans to acquire intellectual property, experimental data, and engineering knowledge from distressed DAC companies. It will assemble the assets into a library, making them available to “better positioned companies that can further develop, improve, and deploy the technology,” or at the very least, make use of the data, Hochman said.
Ctrl-S has at least three potential revenue streams — annual subscription sales for access to the library, licensing fees for the IP, and, in the medium-to-longer term, royalties tied to the tech developed from those licenses.
Hochman has several different customers in mind. The library could be useful to the remaining, more stable DAC companies who might find some other startup had developed a solution to a problem they are struggling with, or a more efficient way of accomplishing some part of the process. Large energy companies with more capital to actually deploy DAC, like the Occidentals of the world, could gain access to pre-vetted tech.
The library could also help catalyze innovations in entirely different industries. Direct air capture systems contain several different components, like the “air contactor,” the mechanism that draws air into the system, and the “sorbent,” the proprietary material that captures carbon molecules. Phil De Luna, the former chief scientist for the DAC development company Deep Sky and a member of Ctrl-S’ expert review committee, told me these components could have applications in other processes that involve separating gases. He gave the example of hydrogen gas that’s trapped underground. “It's often mixed with other gasses underground. These air contactors that are used in DAC, could they be repurposed to separate hydrogen from natural gas or other gas impurities underground?”
Another market Hochman thinks the library could serve is AI-driven material science development. The startups working on materials discovery need experimental data to train their models, he said, and a lot of what is available elsewhere is the data behind success stories. “What they don't have access to is the negative learnings.”
The Ctrl-S team has a process to “diligence” the IP it acquires, looking at the technoeconomics, the life-cycle analysis of the carbon removed by the process, and its commercial potential. The company will not only conduct these reviews for the systems as a whole, but for the key components like the sorbent and air contactor. The process will distinguish between companies that were victims of circumstance and those that failed because their tech didn’t work as promised. Both can be of use.
“The stuff that didn't work can be valuable in saving folks time, energy, and resources going down the same dead ends,” Hochman said.
His founding team also includes Nicole Williams, the former IP Lead for Climeworks, the largest and most successful DAC startup in the industry, and Silvan Aeschlimann, who was previously a DAC and carbon removal lead for the clean energy research nonprofit RMI.
There’s some precedent for what Hochman is doing. In the early 2000s, in the wake of the Dot Com bubble bursting, funding for startups dried up and many began to fail. A group of former Microsoft executives started a company called Intellectual Ventures which bought up a lot of those startups’ IP. “Similarly, our concept was that it would be available to larger companies,” Edward Jung, one of the co-founders who now serves as an advisor to Intellectual Ventures, told me.
Jung said the actual uptake and development of the IP by larger companies was less than what he and his partners had hoped. “I'm actually more bullish now, in this thesis that you talk about, because I think AI is going to unlock a lot of complex technologies that will be hard for larger companies to ignore,” he told me when I described Ctrl-S to him. “The ability for AI to go through a lot of different options in a way that humans have difficulty going through opens a lot of opportunities for new materials. So I do think maybe the thesis is better now than it was back when we did it.”
Intellectual Ventures’ trajectory ended up being quite controversial. It was accused of patent-trolling — buying up tens of thousands of patents and then suing companies for infringing on them. But it also used the patent revenue to fund a successful tech incubator called IV Labs that spun out promising companies, like Terrapower, the advanced nuclear startup.
Ctrl-S is still in very early stages. It’s in the process of closing its first two acquisitions, with a “handful of others in the pipeline,” Hochman told me. He’s actively fundraising for a seed round targeting $2.5 million. If all goes according to plan, he hopes to eventually diversify into other types of climate tech.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
‘Our entire company was built for this purpose.’
After decades of stagnation, the nuclear industry has drummed up all kinds of ideas meant to revive the prospects for building reactors in the United States. Make the reactors smaller. Micro, even! Cool them with helium or molten salt instead of water. Invite the Koreans or Canadians to come teach us how to construct atomic power stations again.
Yet the startup bold enough to name itself The Nuclear Company launched in 2024 on a simpler thesis: Just go with the large-scale reactors we have built before, and construct them in bulk to bring down costs.
Essentially, do what the Chinese did.
While the U.S. struggled for 15 years to complete its first two Westinghouse AP1000s, the 1.1-gigawatt units designed at the dawn of this century to be America’s flagship nuclear technology, China built four in the same time period. Beijing then reverse-engineered the technology to make its own version with an entirely domestic supply chain. China now has 10 operating Hualong One reactors and at least 37 more on the way. The U.S. ultimately completed its first two AP1000s at Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia right around the same time.
The Nuclear Company was formed by hiring former managers who oversaw the Georgia project. Despite the Trump administration’s pledge to finance construction of at least 10 more large nuclear reactors, the only projects that have broken ground are new, first-of-a-kind small modular reactors that skeptics fear will face the same billion-dollar cost overruns that the AP1000s faced at Plant Vogtle — but without the same output of electricity to balance out the expenses.
On Wednesday morning, The Nuclear Company announced its most significant attempt at a Chinese-scale buildout yet. The firm unveiled plans to build 6.6 gigawatts of new, large-scale reactors at a greenfield site in Kentucky, along the Ohio River. Dubbed Prosperity One, the project would be located in Lewis County, on property once assembled for a coal-fired station that was later abandoned. The site sits half a mile from a 765-kilovolt transmission line that connects to PJM Interconnection, the nation’s second-largest and arguably most stressed grid system.
“Our entire company was built for this purpose,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer and a former manager on the Plant Vogtle buildout, told me. “We recognize that this is different and unique in our country. We believe it’s very much needed.”
The project will begin with two reactors at a time; the Kentucky site has room for up to six. The Nuclear Company is already negotiating potential offtake agreements with electricity buyers to help finance construction, and it expects deals by next year. The company told me it has not yet decided whether it will run the Prosperity One as an independent power provider or sell the facility to a utility or another plant operator. “We are preserving all options and will make that decision as we pull the other partners onboard formally,” Klecha said.
Since its inception, The Nuclear Company has focused on the AP1000 as the most promising design in the U.S. That’s particularly true after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified the Vogtle Unit 4 design last week as the permanent, settled schematic for future AP1000s.
But Klecha left open the possibility of another technology. “The AP1000 is our basis for the site at this point, but we’ll continue to evaluate other options as we get through the site characterization,” he said. He expects that process to wrap up in “the first half of next year.”
The company’s options are limited, though. Last month, as I reported, South Korea agreed to help the U.S. build up to six new AP1000s at an as-yet-unspecified site in addition to constructing at least two APR1400s — that is, essentially the Korean version of the American technology. In theory, The Nuclear Company could build APR1400s, too. But it’s highly unlikely, since Westinghouse accused the state-owned Korea Electric Power Corporation of ripping off its technology for the APR1400 in 2022. That led to a yearslong lawsuit and settlement that gave the American company the right to demand royalties and keep Seoul out of markets where Westinghouse aims to compete.
The only other viable option is the ABWR. The world’s first so-called advanced reactor, the ABWR was built with General Electric’s boiling water reactor technology, which is used across about a third of the U.S. fleet. It serves as the second-most popular design after Westinghouse’s pressurized water reactor model. Japan successfully built four ABWRs over a decade from 1996 to 2006, and Taiwan nearly completed two before killing the project in a bid to phase out nuclear power altogether. The NRC certified the ABWR for construction in the U.S., but a project in southern Texas that aimed to build the first in the U.S. was scrapped about a decade ago.
“The ABWR has an impressive pedigree of construction success as well as experience being built to U.S. standards that is hard to find outside of the Vogtle project,” Brett Rampal, a veteran nuclear consultant who advises Deloitte and Veriten, told me. Still, he said, the AP1000 is the leading contender for the Kentucky site.
Rampal said Prosperity One represents a welcome break from how large-scale reactors have been planned in recent years. While most of the industry remains focused on small modular reactors, research I covered last month indicates the technologies could face worse cost problems than large-scale units, and the emerging consensus on building AP1000s focuses on expanding existing nuclear plants.
Indeed, The Nuclear Company’s first major deal was to help Brookfield Asset Management, which owns 51% of Westinghouse, complete a thwarted AP1000 project at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. But other potential sites considered for new AP1000s included expansions of Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bellefonte nuclear station in Alabama, or even adding another two units to Plant Vogtle.
“A lot of the thoughts around AP1000s and large reactors have always been around existing or already-licensed sites,” Rampal said. “It’s very interesting to see TNC’s first project buck the trend of what folks have been talking about around the large reactor story in this country."
At least one thing is certain about The Nuclear Company’s approach: It will settle on one design. The company is animated by the need to avoid one of the U.S. nuclear industry’s biggest financial mistakes, known simply and derisively as “Whoops.” In 1983, the Washington Public Power Supply System — WPPSS — triggered what was then the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history after its buildout of several different reactor designs at once fell apart in a major boondoggle.
Building different reactors at Prosperity One “really goes against our mission, our vision, and our thesis as a company,” Klecha confirmed.
The key is repeating the same design over and over again so the project managers sort out the fastest, most efficient ways to build and workers hone skills in actually constructing the design. “Six AP1000 units on one site creates the scale and repetition needed to drive down costs and sends a strong signal to the supply chain,” Lin Yuan, the senior advisor at the Nuclear Scaling Initiative, a non-profit collaboration working to create the enabling commercial and policy conditions for safe and secure nuclear energy scaling, told me in an email. “Manufacturers and craft labor need to see a sustained order pipeline to invest in capacity, factory expansion, and training.”
Vogtle Unit 4 came online in 2024 roughly 30% cheaper and faster than Vogtle Unit 3, completed a year earlier. Klecha said that’s the minimum cost reduction The Nuclear Company expects for the first two reactors built at Prosperity One.
“The 30%, I would say, is the floor on the savings from the first unit to the second unit,” he said. “How do we capture those lessons? Obviously, our team’s experience. We have a pretty rigorous ‘lessons learned’ document.”
Soon, he hopes, there will be even more lessons learned — in concrete, rather than on paper.