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:
The race is on to build a game-changing affordable EV.

This occasion passed with much less fanfare than you might’ve expected, but Tesla (formerly Tesla Motors) turned 20 this month. Back then, Tesla’s co-founder — no, not the guy you’re thinking of — Martin Eberhard called the very few green vehicles on the market around that time “punishment cars.” Abysmal little things. Seemingly designed by and for people who didn’t think you should be driving at all, and nothing with any real appeal beyond a vague notion of saving the planet.
One of Tesla’s greatest victories was making EVs sexy and fast and desirable. Particularly with the Model S, a flashy luxury car that competed directly against the best from Mercedes-Benz and BMW. And it worked, eventually; almost every automaker has spent the last few years racing to catch up using the same playbook.
But what the rising EV industry needs now — what the world needs even more — is more EVs at the bottom of the market. And this time, they won’t even be the punishment cars that Eberhard hated so much.
There remain two major barriers to wider EV adoption. The first is making charging more widely available and less terrible, both at home and in public; that’s changing quickly thanks to huge government investments and market forces. Just this week, seven major global automakers announced they’d team up to do what Tesla did years ago by building a vast charging network across North America. It’s going to take years to fully materialize, but it’s progress nonetheless.
The other barrier — the greater one — is cost. There are reasons EVs have been so expensive, of course. Every new technology follows that trajectory. Batteries are hard to source and build, the factories to make them barely exist at the scale automakers need to drive down costs, and the capital costs involved with this electric reinvention is hard for Wall Street to swallow. (Ask Ford about that one.)
Especially in recent decades, car companies have spent considerable energy focusing on the top of the market — the most expensive cars where they can drive the biggest profit margins. But right now, the market is speaking in the other direction when it comes to EVs.
Just this week, General Motors hit reverse on a plan to kill off the Chevrolet Bolt. GM would previously say the Bolt was old, based on outdated batteries, unable to charge as quickly as modern rivals, and reportedly rather unprofitable. But tell that to the nearly 20,000 Americans who bought a Bolt or its crossover version in the first quarter of this year alone, spurred by the fact that they could get a car that used no gasoline and had great daily range for a mid-$20,000 price tag — or less, if you knew how to score a deal.
Evidently, GM has finally seen the light and decided that killing off yet another beloved electrified car with a lot of potential and a huge following was a bad decision. Now, CEO Mary Barra says, the Bolt will return using GM’s all-new battery setup for more modern performance and the “great affordability” its current customers love.
It’s a smart business decision: The automaker even says 70 percent of people trading a car in for the Bolt are new to GM. That’s not something a car company should give up. So if GM can finally get the Bolt to profitability — and maybe it can since the new Bolt will be using the built-at-scale Ultium batteries it’s using for every EV moving forward — it could win a market that barely even exists right now. A future, hopefully sub-$30,000 Chevrolet Bolt is going to be a huge deal.
So too is the new Volvo EX30, a small electric crossover with 275 miles of range, an IKEA-tastic minimalist interior built largely with recycled materials, and a compelling $34,950 starting price. I spent some time with the EX30 at its debut in New York this week, and it’s one of the more compelling and interesting EVs I’ve seen in a while. Coming from a more premium brand like Volvo, this will be no “punishment car,” and people at the Scandinavian car company say the demand for it is already far greater than they expected. “We operate from Japan to Brazil to the U.S. and Sweden. Everyone wants this car,” a Volvo rep told me.
Finally, there’s the company that’s both the EV market leader and the industry wild card: Tesla. CEO Elon Musk has long alluded to some kind of $25,000-ish car, possibly called the Model 2 or Model C. This would be absolutely crucial to Tesla’s take-over-the-world sales goals, and it would address one of the biggest criticisms of the company as of late, which is that it’s not working on new products. Now, the usual skepticism around a Musk declaration is warranted here — he has also claimed before that Tesla could build such a car and make it “fully autonomous.” But if anyone selling cars in the U.S. can pull that off at scale right now, it’s Tesla. And I would not call such a car, or a revamped Bolt, or this Volvo a “punishment car.” Just an affordable one.
Note my qualification above about selling here. China’s automakers are already pulling this off. Thanks to years of massive government investment and a laser focus on batteries and software over ICE powertrains, its EVs are incredibly advanced now — enough to spook a lot of other automakers. They’re making inroads into European countries and stealing market share there. Why? Not just because they’re good, but because they’re cheap, too.
Political tensions and stiff tariffs keep Chinese-made EVs out of our market for now, but that feels destined to change; automakers are already finding ways around that. That screaming-deal Volvo EX30? It’s made in China, and it’s part of how Volvo, which is owned by a Chinese automaker, can achieve those low prices, even with the tariff. I expect we’ll see more of that in the coming years.
How do they get the prices down from their $54,000 average sticker? Production at scale, batteries made from cheaper materials like lithium-ion phosphate, simplifying interiors and other components like Volvo has done, and rethinking production techniques like Tesla has done and Toyota’s about to try. There might even be an unexpected benefit to all of this: those cheaper EVs starting to emerge on the horizon? They’re generally going to be smaller, too. If people are enticed to try these cars by their price tags — maybe even as a second or third car, as Volvo thinks will be the case — they may realize they’ve been buying a bit too big for their needs. From a safety, infrastructure, and resource perspective, EV weight needs to go down. Maybe smaller, cheaper cars will help with that, but I’m reluctant to be too optimistic about it.
Then again, even RJ Scaringe, the CEO of $75,000 EV truck maker Rivian, gets it. His company’s next planned EV is a smaller, more affordable vehicle. “We hope that the R2 platform helps pull a lot of customers across that jump where I want to spend $45,000 or $40,000 in a vehicle,” he told Heatmap in an interview published this week.
I’d go even deeper than that and say that the next automaker who can figure out a truly great $25,000 EV, and build it at enough scale to be profitable, is going to have a game-changing hit on its hands. At this point, it’s not a question of if, but when — and from whom.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Hanson Wood of RWE
This week’s conversation is with Hanson Wood, chief development officer for solar developer RWE. Wood’s perspective felt crucial at a moment when the data center boom is leading to so much deal volume – even after the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. So I reached out to his team to see if we could talk about how he’s evaluating all things Fight-related, including the impacts of the data center backlash on solar itself. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is solar finding opportunities in the data center development space? I know there’s conversations about speed-to-power and some deal volume, but help us get a better sense of the level of capacity being sought versus fossil or other forms of energy.
Great question. To contextualize, I think it just makes sense to talk about energy demand overall. Solar is filling the base of where the majority of load growth and generation is coming from and going to be served.
Over the last decade, the cost of solar has gone down dramatically. It’s become a very modular technology being deployed in a variety of locations. It can be deployed very quickly at low cost. It can ramp to meet short-term demand needs. And within the space of just energy demand, across utilities and large industrial data center companies, the reality is no single technology is going to be able to serve overall demand. Everything from solar to onshore wind and geothermal and other forms of flexible generation are needed.
What this speaks to is how our grid is pretty finite. We have to be able to mix and match a variety of products to be able to meet an ever-growing reliability need. To make it simple, I think solar’s going to serve the largest base of growing demand because it's cheap and it's available. But it’s not going to be the only technology. We need to be able to serve this load growth reliably. And we know this is going to require a diversity of technologies.
From a social license perspective, does solar power for a data center make it more acceptable for a community? Less acceptable? More friendly?
One thing I want to be clear about: I don’t develop data centers. So I’m looking at it through the same view many people in the industry and the public see it.
I think there’s manifold reasons why people have concerns about data centers, overall. I can’t speak for all of them. But what solar does address is, we don’t want to see large price spikes in the short term and solar can really help in that regard. It can provide near-term generation immediately in a lot of instances at one of the lowest costs in the market.
Whether the broader public makes that connection, it’s probably too early to see. There’s probably a lot of anxiety that has to be addressed by that [data center] community.
When it comes to the state of solar development, have the feelings around data center infrastructure we’ve seen in various places impacted solar projects?
Solar is more often in what we consider rural areas where there’s more of a conservative viewpoint generally.
Where I think we stand in the solar industry is that in the 2010s we were looked at as a one-off, and now what we see as the challenge is that as solar scales, communities are looking at the scale and potential of what solar will be bringing. A lot of the conversations we have with [them] are, is this changing the local character? How is this impacting our way of life?
And the way we try to approach that is to highlight a lot of the public benefits. Renewables are generating significant jobs, locally as well as through funding local services. Farmers setting aside land for renewables are also funding their farms and way of life. I’ve heard testimonials from farmers who’ve said they wouldn’t be able to continue on without the revenue from solar or BESS projects.
The broader community is concerned solar is displacing rural farming, but what we hear from rural landowners is that these projects are allowing them to keep their farms.
Most people when they start looking at renewables, they don’t make that connection. They’re primed to ask, what’s the downside here? But it’s nothing in terms of physical land while the economic value it brings is long-term. It’s 30 years — at a time when the American public is seeing lots of headwinds.
I know at a broader level, you’re addressing the conflicts in solar energy. Do you think the solar industry offers any lessons for the folks now trying to get data centers built?
Anyone who is building large infrastructure projects can’t ignore early community engagement. One of the things people should be thinking about as they’re developing projects is these things are going to be here 20, 30 years, right? When we develop those projects we are trying to build relationships in a sustainable fashion.
We really take into consideration the concerns we hear. Again, people are primed to see the downside in any development, and without that early engagement – genuinely – you risk whether other people come along and hear the benefits or feel like their voice mattered in the process of development.
A new fundraise from Isometric, plus more of this week’s — and last week’s! — big money moves.
With the Juneteenth holiday last Friday we missed out on our weekly roundup of energy and climate tech funding news. That means this week brings a double dose of announcements, covering three deals from this week and two from last.
As my colleagues Alexander C. Kaufman and Robinson Meyer both reported last week, the coalition of carbon removal buyers known as Frontier announced a new $915 million funding commitment, notably now counting artificial intelligence giant Anthropic among its members. That set the stage for a related development this week: Isometric, the carbon removal market’s largest certification platform, also announced fresh funding as it looks to expand the scope of its certification methodology to cover things like low-carbon materials and renewable energy certificates.
In a sign of continued momentum across the electric and autonomous vehicle industries, this week also brought a tranche of debt financing for charging infrastructure, alongside a large European utility deal for iron-air battery startup Ore Energy. And rounding out last week’s activity, Foundation Alloy raised a Series A to scale lower-energy metals production, while yet another SpaceX alum secured funding for a new startup, this time to mass manufacture geothermal turbines, aiming to reduce deployment timelines and costs.
Eamon Jubbaway founded the UK-based certification platform Isometric in 2022 with the goal of creating a carbon credit standard to end all carbon credit standards. The voluntary carbon market was — and largely still is — a confusing patchwork of registries, protocols, and verification bodies offering myriad ways for companies to offset their emissions, with the price and quality of offsets varying dramatically. Isometric set out to make sense of it all by hiring a team of scientists to evaluate the efficacy of different carbon removal pathways, ultimately developing a rigorous set of standards that carbon crediting companies must meet to earn Isometric certification.
Now, having become the world’s largest carbon removal certification company by contracted volume, the startup is taking its model beyond this beachhead market. This week, Isometric raised a $40 million Series A led by global venture capital firm AVP to expand into the broader industrial economy. That includes verifying everything from the embodied emissions of low-carbon steel and cement to superpollutant reductions, renewable energy certificates that attest to the generation of clean power at a specific time and place, and the climate impact of low-carbon fuels used in shipping and aviation.
“Isometric was basically founded to say, look, the long-term solution here is obviously government and regulation, but in the meantime, this is too important to let the market just keep doing it like this,” Lukas May, Isometric’s chief commercial officer, told me when I interviewed him in September 2024. He was referring to the voluntary carbon removal market — and the need for federal regulators to eventually determine what does and doesn’t qualify as carbon removal — but the same argument could easily apply to the new sectors where Isometric is now applying its meticulous approach.
The startup’s team of scientists is also getting a major boost from AI. Isometric says its “agentic certification platform” can do in mere hours what used to take months, with agents ingesting millions of data points underpinning claims around things like carbon reduction or clean energy generation and cross-checking them against first-hand sources such as sensor readings, satellite imagery, and supply chain records. That allows the company’s scientists to focus on investigating meaningful discrepancies rather than manually spot-checking datasets at random.
Terawatt Infrastructure was little more than a year out of stealth in 2022 when it rocked the electric vehicle charging industry by raising a colossal $1 billion Series A to expand its full-service platform. The company offers more than just charging infrastructure — it also owns the underlying real estate, power management software, operations, and, in some cases, even the energy assets themselves.
Now the company founded by Google’s former head of energy strategy Neha Palmer has secured up to $300 million in debt financing, backed by a group of global banks led by RBC Capital Markets, to further expand its network. The deal indicates that these large financial institutions now view this type of full-stack charging infrastructure as a secure, bankable asset as EV and autonomous vehicle fleets proliferate. Goldman Sachs projects that the latter will become a $415 billion global market by 2035, representing an expansion from about 7,000 robotaxis in 2025 to 6 million in 2035.
Terawatt already counts Waymo and PepsiCo among its customers, and, according to Bloomberg, operates more than 50 properties in around a dozen states, with over 200 megawatts of power capacity in development. While this latest debt financing will help it expand its network, it’s still just a drop in the bucket in terms of what’s needed: BloombergNEF estimates that building out the global charging infrastructure for electric and autonomous fleets will require more than $635 billion in investment through 2040.
Back in February, I covered the news that Ore Energy, a European iron-air battery startup and Form Energy competitor, had completed a grid-connected pilot in France with EDF, the state-owned electric utility. The project helped validate the startup’s core technology: a 100-hour battery that can discharge continuously for four days under real-world operating conditions. This week, the startup built on that progress by announcing a deal with Dutch utility Budget Thuis for a 1-gigawatt-hour iron-air battery system, with the first phase — a 400-megawatt-hour installation — slated for delivery in 2028.
This agreement marks the first iron-air offtake deal with a European energy supplier, an impressive milestone considering Ore has raised just shy of $30 million, compared to Form’s roughly $1.2 billion. The partnership with Budget Thuis is designed to help shield customers from volatile gas prices while stabilizing the Dutch grid as it becomes increasingly reliant on wind power. Like many battery storage technologies, Ore’s system dispatches clean, low-cost electricity when power is scarce, dirty, or expensive. But unlike conventional lithium-ion technologies, Ore’s is designed for those multi-day lulls in renewables generation — a challenge that’s particularly acute when it comes to wind energy.
According to Latitude Media, Ore aims to scale to providing 50 gigawatt-hours per year by 2030, suggesting this announcement could be the first of many to come. "We’ve shown our iron-air chemistry works in a European utility setting, and this deployment is the next step in commercialisation: meaningful volume, tied to a real project, with an energy supplier that understands what multi-day storage means for its business,” Aytaç Yilmaz, co-founder and CEO of Ore Energy said in the company’s press release. “We believe iron-air will become as important for wind as lithium-ion has been for solar.”
Metals production is typically an extremely energy-intensive process, involving melting a base metal at hundreds or even thousands of degrees Celsius before mixing in additional elements to create an alloy. The metals startup Foundation Alloy thinks it has a way to simplify this process, however, while significantly lowering energy demand. Rather than melting metals — a process that traditionally relies on fossil fuels to generate enough heat — the startup mechanically bonds metal powders together in a solid state process. This takes substantially less heat and no melting, though the mechanical grinding and fusing carries an energy cost of its own. The final product is an alloy with a more granular, uniform internal structure from the outset, thus eliminating the need for many secondary processing steps.
The startup raised a $22 million Series A last week, led by the climate-focused VC Voyager Ventures, to scale beyond the lab and into commercial production in both the U.S. and Asia. It’s building a 36,000-square-foot factory in Massachusetts, as well as a smaller facility in New Hampshire, with plans to double headcount across its production, engineering, and commercial teams to meet growing demand for alloys in the defense, manufacturing and energy sectors. “Our new Massachusetts facility and modular production cell are set to grow capacity from pilot-scale today to tons per week by 2027 — a 100x increase, built on a modular equipment platform that deploys and scales 10x faster than traditional metals manufacturing,” Jake Guglin, Foundation Alloy’s CEO, said in the company’s press release.
Today, the startup primarily produces molybdenum-based alloys used in high-temperature industrial applications such as hot forging and die casting, and is expanding into iron-based alloys such as stainless steel. Exactly how much energy its production process saves remains unclear, as the company has not disclosed any quantitative energy or emissions reduction figures for the full lifecycle of its products, although it says that the processing chain for its metals is fully electrified.
As my colleagues Matthew Zeitlin and Emily Pontecorvo reported a few weeks ago, the multiverse of former Elon Musk employees who have gone on to start fascinating, often out-there sounding clean tech companies is vast and varied. Last week brought funding news on yet another: turbine manufacturing startup Critical Energy. Founded by former SpaceX rocket propulsion engineer Spencer Jackson, the company raised $19 million in seed funding alongside $3 million in venture debt to build modular turbines designed for geothermal power plants and waste heat applications.
The premise is that while geothermal drilling has become dramatically faster and more efficient in recent years, turbine manufacturing has failed to keep pace. Today’s geothermal turbines are typically bespoke and assembled almost entirely onsite. But Critical Energy’s thesis is that shifting most of the manufacturing and construction process into factories can shrink turbine deployment timelines from years to weeks while substantially reducing costs. It designs its modular turbines to fit inside shipping containers, allowing them to be shipped via truck and assembled onsite. The startup’s first two products are 2.5-megawatt and 5-megawatt turbines, which can stack together to accommodate larger projects as opposed to building one large, custom turbine.
According to TechCrunch, this new funding will go towards Critical Energy’s first 2.5-megawatt project, which is slated for a power plant in a yet-to-be-named location expected to come online in 2027. Longer term, The company aims to be manufacturing gigawatts of turbines by the early 2030s, ultimately enabling over 300 gigawatts of new power generation annually by 2045. But its bet on factory manufacturing will only prove to be a scaleable, cost effective strategy if demand for geothermal power continues to grow at a rapid clip, leveling off at a scale that can justify this type of high-volume production.
On Texas transmission trouble, Russian nuclear reprocessing, and ‘guerrilla solar’
Current conditions: France paused production at two nuclear reactors to avoid violating environmental rules against spewing warm water from the plant’s cooling systems during heatwave conditions • A pair of tropical storms named Mekkhala and Higos are barreling toward Japan’s eastern coast • The death toll from Venezuela’s twin earthquakes has reached nearly 200.

As I have written before, my father and grandfather sold automobiles in New York City, so I grew up with an eye to the other cars on the road. I still remember the first time I realized there was a whole new brand on American streets, when I came upon the Polestar dealership near Lincoln Center on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Finding out that a Chinese company was behind Polestar’s sleek sedans and growing slate of electric vehicles only piqued my interest that much more. An East Asian importer’s glow-up is one thing. East Asia’s new automotive Goliath finding a beachhead in the American market is quite another story. That story has now reached an abrupt climax as Polestar veers for the exit from the U.S. market. On Thursday, the company announced plans to quit the U.S. following a Department of Commerce decision to ban Polestar from selling new cars in the country. The move represents what The Wall Street Journal described as “the first major casualty of a U.S. rule to ban Chinese software in new vehicles that connect to the internet.”
At issue? The fact that the cameras and GPS equipment in cars could be exploited by certain foreign adversaries. The company, which is controlled by the Chinese auto giant Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, had requested the Trump administration’s permission to sell vehicles under a process that would have complied with the rule. But regulators said no. Polestar isn’t completely disappearing. The company said it would sell off its remaining stock of vehicles and keep open service centers for repairs, potentially retaining the infrastructure to redeploy if political winds shift. It bears mentioning, then, that the new rule was a product of the Biden administration. Here’s my colleague Robinson Meyer with more on the logic behind it.
If you buy a parcel of land in Texas, there’s a reasonably good chance you can do what you want with it, unlike other parts of the U.S. with more restrictive zoning rules. As a result, Texas is a top destination for data centers, and the top destination for wind and solar developers. But the same cultural deference to property rights that allows companies to build stuff in Texas also grants landowners ample opportunity to challenge the sort of project that proves difficult in any American jurisdiction because it spans so many different tracts and municipalities: Transmission lines. On Thursday, Utility Dive reported that several hundred landowners in Central Texas had filed a petition with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, asking the regulator to pause permitting on a proposed 765-kilovolt transmission line that would stretch roughly 200 miles across the middle of the state from Big Hill, near where a 200-megawatt wind farm started up a few years ago, to Bell County, just north of Austin. Transmission lines are notoriously difficult to build in the U.S., and making construction easier is a key demand of clean energy supporters for any kind of federal permitting overhaul. Whether Republican support for streamlining the federal approval process can weather the winds of American politics long enough to counter the effects of the not-in-my-backyard types remains unclear. But opposition to the Texas power line grew after state Representative Brad Buckley, a Republican, joined 42 other lawmakers in filing an amicus brief supporting the group American Stewards of Liberty, a nonprofit that supports property rights.
In New York, meanwhile, Albany’s in-house energy innovation agency is putting up money to refresh the aging statewide grid. On Thursday, the New York Research and Development Authority unveiled $24 million in funding for projects to modernize the state’s poles and wires. “As New York’s electricity system evolves, improving how electricity is managed, delivered, and utilized will be critical to maximizing the performance of our existing grid infrastructure and delivering greater value to consumers,” Doreen Harris, NYSERDA’s chief executive, said in a statement.
First came the Trump administration’s scrutiny of its offshore wind business. Then the federal deal to blow off its U.S. projects and refocus on gas drilling drew Democrat’s scrutiny. Now French energy giant TotalEnergies’ decision to take $1 billion from the Trump administration to back out of its two wind projects off U.S. coasts could draw a leery eye from authorities in its home country. On Thursday, a Paris court ruled that the company had to tighten its climate reporting by accounting for the planet-heating emissions produced when customers burn the oil and gas it sells.
The decision comes amid an unprecedented heat wave that saw France record its hottest temperature ever when, as I told you yesterday, thermometers nearly topped 111 degrees Fahrenheit on Wednesday. The case is the first to test whether France’s 2017 so-called corporate duty of vigilance law could be applied to climate change. The court ruled that the law is not intended to make companies “responsible for the risks linked to climate change, which result from all human activity on the planet since the Industrial Revolution,” the Associated Press quoted from the decision. But the statute does request that companies act “according to their own situation.” The ruling stopped short of ordering Total to reduce its output of oil and gas, but directed the company to complete an assessment of the emissions from its consumers in the next six months. It’s unclear whether the company will be able to meet that requirement, or what may come next as a result. But a growing renewables division to offset the emissions from elsewhere in its business probably wouldn’t hurt.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
In the United States, the Department of Energy is racing to create nuclear “campuses” where startups can experiment with ways to affordably reprocess spent fuel to recycle the uranium in reactors and extract rare isotopes for medical treatments. The effort to establish a whole new industry to recycle nuclear waste comes more than half a century after then-President Jimmy Carter killed the nascent private-sector effort to reprocess atomic fuel, a technological capacity that significantly reduces the stockpile of highly radioactive fission byproducts but lays the groundwork for more enrichment of weapons-grade material. All the while, Russia emerged as one of the top nuclear recyclers. Now Moscow is looking to expand its dominance. This week, World Nuclear News reported that the Kremlin’s state-owned nuclear company Rosatom is planning a new reprocessing facility that aims, for the first time in the industry’s history, to have a modular design that makes expansion easy. The first module will have a capacity to produce 400 metric tons of new reactor fuel per year. “Industrial nuclear recycling technologies and a developed infrastructure are not only a solution to a pressing environmental challenge in our country,” Andrey Nikipelov, Rosatom’s deputy director general for mechanical engineering and industrial solutions, said in a statement. The project, the largest ever built in the country, would “provide Russia with a unique opportunity to cement its leadership in the global nuclear solutions market,” he said.

Yesterday I told you that the widening gap between future supply and demand of copper, which is needed for virtually every electric thing imaginable, was prompting a growth in output from two existing mines owned by a joint venture between Anglo American and the Chilean state-owned company Codelco. Another sign of bullishness on copper: The Canadian mining company Hudbay Minerals just bought all the remaining shares it didn’t already own of the Arizona Sonoran Copper Company. The deal establishes the third-largest copper district, as regions with mining operations are known, in the U.S. In a press release, the company pitched the new combined portfolio as an asset to battery manufacturers looking for all-American mineral supplies.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military is making land on bases available to mining companies to speed up the domestic processing of more critical minerals. On Thursday night, The Wall Street Journal broke news that the U.S. Army had awarded long-term leases to mining and extraction companies Titan Mining Corporation, EnergyX, Ioneer, and REalloys for refining minerals needed for American manufacturing.
Here’s a peek inside one of my daily groupchats: While discussing New York’s Democratic primary election results this week, my friend defended the progressive left’s energy record by pointing out Assemblymember Emily Gallagher’s recent victory in passing a law to legalize balcony solar. An apartment dweller himself, he was excited at the prospect of how generating a small amount of solar power might change how he thought about electricity. (Playing the cynic, I complained that there wasn’t enough widespread support for large-scale generating projects like restarting the Indian Point nuclear plant, building new reactors upstate, or celebrating the forthcoming transmission line to connect the five boroughs to Quebec’s hydroelectric system.) But if this is to catch on, it may be helped by different terminology. Let me introduce you to: Guerilla solar. Reading this latest piece from Dan Gearino at Inside Climate News, I was struck by just how much catchier the slick two-word name is than “balcony solar.”