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 country’s largest source of renewable energy has a long history.

Was Don Quixote a NIMBY?
Miguel de Cervantes’ hero admittedly wasn’t tilting at turbines in 1605, but for some of his contemporary readers in 17th-century Spain, windmills for grinding wheat into flour were viewed as a “dangerous new technology,” author Simon Winchester writes in his forthcoming book, The Breath of the Gods: The History and Future of the Wind. One interpretation of Cervantes’ novel might be that Quixote was “actually doing battle with progress.”
Nearly four and a half centuries later, harnessing the energy of the wind remains controversial, even if the breeze is one of humankind’s longest-utilized resources. While wind is the largest source of renewable electricity generation in the United States today, high construction costs and local opposition have more recently stymied the industry’s continued expansion. The new presidential administration — suspicious of wind’s reliability and place in the American energy mix — has also been doing its very best to stunt any future growth in the sector.
Whether you’re catching up on Trump’s latest regulatory moves, you have your own concerns about the safety of the technology, or this is your first time even thinking about this energy resource, here is the blow-by-blow — sorry! — on wind power in the U.S.
At their most basic conceptual level, wind turbines work by converting kinetic energy — the energy of an object in motion; in this case, air particles — into electrical energy that can be used to power homes, buildings, factories, and data centers.
Like hydroelectric dams, turbines do this by first converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy. The wind turns the turbine blades, which spin a rotor that is connected to a generator. Inside the generator are magnets that rotate around coils of copper wire, creating a magnetic field that pushes and pulls the electrons within the copper. Voilà — and with gratitude to Michael Faraday — now you have an electrical current that can be distributed to the grid.
Turbines typically require an average wind speed of about 9 miles per hour to generate electricity, which is why they are constructed in deserts, mountain passes, on top of hills, or in shallow coastal waters offshore, where there is less in the way to obstruct the flow of wind. Higher elevations are also windier, so utility-scale wind turbines are frequently around 330 feet tall (though the largest turbines tower 600 feet or higher).
It depends on the size of the turbine and also the wind speed. The average capacity of a new land-based wind turbine in the U.S. was 3.4 megawatts in 2023 — but that’s the “nameplate capacity,” or what the turbine would generate if it ran at optimal capacity around the clock.

In the U.S., the average capacity factor (i.e. the actual energy output) for a turbine is more like 42%, or close to two-fifths of its theoretical maximum output. The general rule of thumb is that one commercial turbine in the U.S. can power nearly 1,000 homes per month. In 2023, the latest year of data available, land-based and offshore wind turbines in the U.S. generated 425,235 gigawatt-hours of electricity, or enough to power 39 million American homes per year.
A common criticism of wind power is that it “stops working” if the wind isn’t blowing. While it’s true that wind is an intermittent resource, grid operators are used to coping with this. A renewables-heavy grid should combine different energy sources and utilize offline backup generators to prevent service interruptions during doldrums. Battery storage can also help handle fluctuations in demand and increase reliability.
At the same time, wind power is indeed dependent on, well, the wind. In 2023, for example, U.S. wind power generation dropped below 2022 levels due to lower-than-average wind speeds in parts of the Midwest. When you see a turbine that isn’t spinning, though, it isn’t necessarily because there isn’t enough wind. Turbines also have a “cut out” point at which they stop turning if it gets too windy, which protects the structural integrity of the blades and prevents Twisters-like mishaps, as well as keeps the rotor from over-spinning, which could strain or break the turbine’s internal rotating components used to generate electricity.
Though Americans have used wind power in various forms since the late 1800s, the oil crisis of the 1970s brought new interest, development, and investment in wind energy. “The American industry really got going after the suggestion from the Finns, the Swedes, the Danes,” who’d already been making advances in the technology, albeit on single-turbine scales, Winchester, the author of the forthcoming history of wind power, The Breath of the Gods, told me.
In the early 1970s, the Department of Energy issued a grant to William Heronemus, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, to explore the potential of wind energy. Heronemus became “really enthusiastic and built wind generators on the campus,” helping to modernize turbines into the more familiar construction we see widely today, Winchester said.
Some of Heronemus’ former students helped build the world’s first multi-turbine wind farm in New Hampshire in 1981. Though the blades of that farm interfered with nearby television reception — they had to be paused during prime time — the technology “seemed to everyone to make sense,” Winchester said. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, which introduced production tax credits for renewables, spurred further development through the end of the millennium.
Heronemus, a former Naval architect, had dreamed in the 1970s of building a flotilla of floating turbines mounted on “wind ships” that were powered by converting seawater into hydrogen fuel. Early experiments in offshore wind by the Energy Research and Development Administration, the progenitor of the Department of Energy, weren’t promising due to the technological limitations of the era — even commercial onshore wind was still in its infancy, and Heronemus’ plans looked like science-fiction.
In 1991, though, the Danes — ever the leaders in wind energy — successfully constructed the Vindeby Offshore Wind Farm, complete with 11 turbines and a total installed capacity of 5 megawatts. The Blyth offshore wind farm in northern Wales soon followed, with the United States finally constructing its first grid-connected offshore wind turbines off of Maine in 2013. The Block Island wind farm, with a capacity of 30 megawatts, is frequently cited as the first true offshore wind farm in the U.S., and began operating off the coast of Rhode Island in 2016.
Though offshore wind taps into higher and more consistent wind speeds off the ocean — and, as a result, is generally considered more efficient than onshore wind — building turbines at sea comes with its own set of challenges. Due to increased installation costs and the greater wear-and-tear of enduring saltwater and storms at sea, offshore wind is generally calculated to be about twice as expensive as onshore wind. “It’s unclear if offshore wind will ever be as cheap as onshore — even the most optimistic projections documented by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have offshore wind more expensive than the current price of onshore in 2035,” according to Brian Potter in his newsletter, Construction Physics, though he notes that “past projections have underestimated the future cost reductions of wind turbines.”

In the decade from 2014 to 2023, total wind capacity in the U.S. doubled. Onshore and offshore wind power is now responsible for over 10% of utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S., and has been the highest-producing renewable energy source in the nation since 2019. (Hydropower, the next highest-producing renewable energy source, is responsible for about 5.7% of the energy mix, by comparison.) In six states — Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, and North Dakota — onshore wind makes up more than a third of the current electricity mix, Climate Central reports.
Offshore wind has been slower to grow in the U.S. Even during the Biden administration, when the government targeted developing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, the industry faced financing challenges, transmission and integration obstacles, and limits in access to a skilled workforce, per a 2024 paper in Energy Research & Social Science. That same year, the Department of Energy reported that the nation had a total of 80,523 megawatts for offshore wind in operation and in the pipeline, which, under ideal conditions, could power 26 million homes. Many of those offshore projects and plans now face an uncertain future under the Trump administration.
Though we’re far removed from the 1880s, when suspicious Scots dismissed wind energy pioneer James Blyth’s home turbine as “the devil’s work,” there are still plenty of persistent concerns about the safety of wind power to people and animals.
Some worry about onshore wind turbines’ effects on people, including the perceived dangers of electromagnetic fields, shadow flicker from the turning blades, and sleep disturbance or stress. Per a 2014 systematic review of 60 peer-reviewed studies on wind turbines and human health by the National Institutes of Health, while there was “evidence to suggest that wind turbines can be a source of annoyance to some people, there was no evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between living in proximity to wind turbines and more serious physiological health effects.” The topic has since been extensively studied, with no reputable research concluding that turbines have poor health impacts on those who live near them.
Last year, the blade of a turbine at Vineyard Wind 1 broke and fell into the water, causing the temporary closure of beaches in Nantucket to protect people from the fiberglass debris. While no one was ultimately injured, GE Vernova, which owns Vineyard Wind, agreed earlier this year to settle with the town for $10.5 million to compensate for the tourism and business losses that resulted from the failure. Thankfully, as my colleague Jael Holzman has written, “major errors like blade failures are incredibly rare.”
There are also concerns about the dangers of wind turbines to some wildlife. Turbines do kill birds, including endangered golden eagles, which has led to opposition from environmental and local activist groups. But context is also important: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found that wind farms “represent just 0.03% of all human-related bird deaths in the U.S.” (Illegal shootings, for example, are the greatest cause of golden eagle deaths.) The continued use of fossil fuels and the ecological impacts of climate change also pose a far graver threat to birds than wind farms do. Still, there is room for discussion and improvement: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a call earlier this year for proposals to help protect golden eagles from turbine collisions in its major wind resource areas.
Perhaps the strongest objection to offshore wind has come from concern for whales. Though there has been an ongoing “unusual mortality event” for whales off the East Coast dating back to 2016 — about the same time the burgeoning offshore wind industry took off in the United States — the two have been falsely correlated (especially by groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry). A recent government impact report ordered by Republicans even found that “NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any death or serious injury to whales from offshore wind-related actions and has not recorded marine mammal deaths from offshore wind activities.” Still, that hasn’t stopped Republican leaders — including the president — from claiming offshore wind is making whales “a little batty.”
Polling by Heatmap has found that potential harm to wildlife is a top concern of both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the deployment of renewable energy. Although there has been “no evidence to date that the offshore wind build-out off the Atlantic coast has harmed a single whale … studies have shown that activities related to offshore wind could harm a whale, which appears to be enough to override the benefits for some people,” my colleague Jael has explained. A number of environmental groups are attempting to prevent offshore and land-based wind development on conservationist grounds, to varying degrees of success. Despite these reservations, though, our polling has found that Americans on the coast largely support offshore wind development.
Aesthetic concerns are another reason wind faces opposition. The proposed Lava Ridge wind farm in Idaho, which was Heatmap’s most imperiled renewable energy project last year, faced intense opposition, ostensibly due to the visibility of the turbines from the Minidoka National Historic Site, the site of a Japanese internment camp. Coastal homeowners have raised the same complaint about offshore wind that would be visible from the beach, like the Skipjack offshore wind project, which would be situated off the coast of Maryland.
Not good. As one of President Trump’s first acts in office, he issued an executive order that the government “shall not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” until the completion of a “comprehensive assessment” of the industry’s impacts on the economy and the environment. Eight months later, federal agencies were still not processing applications for onshore wind projects.
Offshore wind is in even more trouble because such projects are sited entirely in federal waters. As of late July, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had rescinded all designated wind energy areas — a decision that applies to some 3.5 million acres of federal waters, including the Central Atlantic, California, and Oregon. The Department of the Interior has also made moves to end what it calls the “special treatment for unreliable energy sources, such as wind,” including by “evaluating whether to stop onshore wind development on some federal lands and halting future offshore wind lease sales.” The Interior Department will also look into how “constructing and operating wind turbines might affect migratory bird populations.”
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, meanwhile, put strict restrictions on tax credits available to wind developers. Per Cleanview, the bill jeopardizes some 114 gigawatts of wind energy projects, while the Center for American Progress writes that “more than 17,000 jobs are connected to offshore wind power projects that are already canceled, on hold, or at risk from the Trump administration’s attacks on wind power.”
The year 2024 marked a record for new wind power capacity, with 117 gigawatts of wind energy installed globally. China in particular has taken a keen interest in constructing new wind farms, installing 26 gigawatts worth, or about 5,300 turbines, between January and May of last year alone.
Still, there are significant obstacles to the buildout of wind energy even outside of the United States, including competition from solar, which is now the cheapest and most widely deployed renewable energy resource in the world. High initial construction costs, deepened by inflation and supply-chain issues, have also stymied wind development.
There are an estimated 424 terawatts worth of wind energy available on the planet, and current wind turbines tap into just half a percent of that. According to Columbia Business School’s accounting, if maximized, wind has the potential to “abate 10% to 20% of CO2 emissions by 2050, through the clean electrification of power, heat, and road transport.”
Wind is also a heavy player in the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, which aims for
7,100 terawatt hours of wind electricity generation worldwide by the end of the decade, per the International Energy Agency. But current annual growth would need to increase annual capacity additions from about 115 gigawatts in 2023 to 340 gigawatts in 2030. “Far greater policy and private-sector efforts are needed to achieve this level of capacity growth,” IEA notes, “with the most important areas for improvement being facilitating permitting for onshore wind and cost reductions for offshore wind.”
Wind turbines continue to become more efficient and more economical. Many of the advances have come in the form of bigger turbines, with the average height of a hub for a land-based turbine increasing 83% since the late 1990s. The world’s most powerful offshore turbine, Vestas’ V236-15.0 megawatt prototype, is, not coincidentally, also the world’s tallest, at 919 feet.
Advanced manufacturing techniques, such as the use of carbon fiber composites in rotor blades and 3D printed materials, could also lead to increases in efficiency. In a 2024 report, NREL anticipated that such innovations could potentially “unlock 80% more economically viable wind energy capacity within the contiguous United States.”
Floating offshore wind farms are another area of active innovation. Unlike the fixed-foundation turbines mainly used offshore today, floating turbines could be installed in deep waters and allow for development on trickier coastlines like off of Oregon and Washington state. Though there are no floating offshore wind farms in the United States yet, there are an estimated 266 gigawatts of floating turbine capacity in the pipeline globally.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The seed-stage startup is eyeing a Series A after successfully enriching lithium and hydrogen isotopes.
While most coverage of the buzzy fusion energy industry — including my own — tends to focus on the startups promising to build commercial reactors within the next decade, a whole host of supporting industries will also need to mature in order to make that long-held scientific dream a reality. Isotope production is one of the biggest. No matter a company’s technical approach to fusion, it likely demands hydrogen and lithium isotopes — the former to fuel reactors, and the latter to breed more of that fuel.
That’s where Marathon Fusion comes in. The San Francisco-based seed-stage startup is developing isotope separation technology for two key purposes: recycling tritium — an extremely rare hydrogen isotope — from reactor exhaust so it can be reused as fusion fuel, and enriching lithium-6, which is needed to breed new tritium. On Thursday, the company announced that it succeeded in using its plasma centrifuge technology to enrich lithium-6 and hydrogen isotopes in the lab. (It can’t yet test the tech on actual tritium, which is expensive, radioactive, and tightly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so Marathon is validating its separation physics using the non-radioactive proxies deuterium and protium.) Marathon now plans to raise a Series A based on the results.
“People have wondered for a very long time when fusion is going to come, and everyone’s waiting on the big scientific announcements,” Marathon’s CEO Kyle Schiller told me. But while the industry waits for those breakthroughs, he argued, it’s high time to start commercializing the infrastructure fusion will need to become an actual commercial industry. “Ultimately, what we’re doing is reactor agnostic. Everyone’s going to need it.”
In the near term at least, most fusion companies plan to use deuterium-tritium plasmas to power the fusion reaction. But the process is inherently inefficient — only a small fraction of the fuel actually fuses in the reaction, while the rest gets expelled, even though it still contains valuable, unburned tritium that can be captured and reused.
Today, neither tritium nor the lithium-6 needed to make more of it are produced at anything close to the scale even a single commercial fusion reactor would require to get up and running. And existing isotope separation technologies — largely designed for small-volume defense programs and experimental reactors — aren’t sufficient to bridge the gap.
“When you have a single fusion power plant, that’s going to need about 1,000 times more lithium than anyone is producing today in any country,” Schiller told me, referring to lithium-6. “It would be totally prohibitive to build a fusion power plant at those economics.”
And while it’s at least possible to produce enough of this isotope to supply a future fusion industry by enriching lithium mined from rock, tritium presents a more fundamental problem. Because it’s radioactive and decays relatively quickly, it doesn’t occur naturally in meaningful quantities. Today it’s produced commercially as a byproduct of some fission reactors, but that supply amounts to just a few kilograms per year. A single 1-gigawatt commercial fusion reactor, by contrast, would need an estimated 56 kilograms annually. Meeting that demand will require fusion companies to breed their own tritium inside the reactor, a process that involves fusion-generated neutrons hitting lithium-6 nuclei, splitting them into tritium and helium.
It will also necessitate recycling the substantial amount of tritium that passes through the reactor without burning up. That’s where Marathon’s plasma centrifuge comes in. Centrifuges themselves are nothing new — engineers have used them for decades to separate uranium isotopes for nuclear fuel, spinning the gas at such high speeds that isotopes with different masses separate. Plasma centrifuges work on the same principle and have been studied since the Manhattan Project, but no one has yet successfully commercialized the approach for lithium and hydrogen.
Part of the reason is that, until recently, there simply wasn’t much demand for these isotopes. But the raw materials also present a physics challenge: Lithium and hydrogen isotopes have very similar masses. Separating them thus requires spinning the plasma so rapidly that, historically, the resulting heat has undermined the separation process itself. To address this, Marathon’s proprietary centrifuge tech uses a “partially ionized” plasma, in which some atoms have been stripped of their electrons while others remain neutral. The company says this configuration allows the centrifuge to operate at lower temperatures.
The materials testing lab Covalent has certified Marathon’s lithium-6 enrichment. The company hasn’t had its hydrogen separation results independently verified, though an MIT nuclear engineering professor has reviewed the device’s design. As a participant in ARPA-E’s Vision OPEN program, which solicits and supports ambitious energy projects, Marathon has also presented its hydrogen separation methodology and results at the ARPA-E fusion programs meeting in June.
Now, Schiller told me, the challenge is scaling up the technology’s core systems. “We need bigger magnets, better cooling, bigger power systems, and so that’s a buildout that’s going to take time and more capital,” he said. “But as far as the science is concerned, we feel like it’s at the point where we’re ready to make those kinds of commitments.”
Marathon is now looking to raise capital to build its first commercial pilot facility, with the goal of reaching full-scale production by 2029. Schiller told me the company expects its first full-scale facility to produce tens of tons of lithium-6 per year — enough, he says, to fuel a new gigawatt-scale fusion plant roughly every two years. Marathon also plans to recover and repurpose about 560 kilograms of tritium annually — roughly the amount that cycles through a 1-gigawatt reactor’s fuel system each year, most of which exits in the reactor’s exhaust without ever fusing.
Once fusion reactors are operating at scale, Marathon has a few other tricks up its sleeve. The startup also plans to build an “isotope production” business, using the copious volume of high-energy neutrons generated by fusion to manufacture valuable isotopes. The company made headlines last year with its claim that fusion-generated neutrons could transmute mercury into an unstable isotope that eventually decays into gold — potentially doubling a fusion reactor’s economic output (and proving the old alchemists right). But that work is still theoretical, based on computer simulations rather than peer-reviewed or experimentally validated work.
Marathon certainly has plenty to keep it busy in the near term, though. “There is a really amazing opportunity right now to say, look, the fusion supply chain is ready to go. We can start scaling up,” Schiller told me. “The science will progress in parallel, and we really want to land this together — not wait another 10 years after scientific results come in.”
Current conditions: Temperatures in Sicily and southern Italy are approaching 100 degrees Fahrenheit as a heat dome settles over the north-central Mediterranean • After pounding Okinawa and injuring two people on Japan’s remote southern islands, Typhoon Saudel is barreling west toward China • A geomagnetic storm known as a coronal hole could create a visible aurora from New York to Idaho, causing minor disruptions to technological devices such as GPS.

It’s like something out of an apocalyptic disaster film. From a camera situated on a cliffside overlooking the Rasuwagadhi border checkpoint in a valley between Nepal and Tibet, you watch as several — then dozens — of people start running away from the building. Birds fly across the screen in the same direction. Finally, after a few seconds, you see what they’re trying to escape: A giant wall of gray, muddy water crashing into the roughly six-story building like an ocean wave against a sand castle. In other videos, cars, trees, and homes disappear under the roar of a river of mud and rocks. Goliath boulders roll like basketballs. Men run for their lives. An avalanche on the Chinese side of the border “triggered a wall of water with no warning,” wrote The Kathmandu Post, an English-language daily in the Nepali capital, declaring this “one of Nepal’s deadliest disasters in decades.” By Thursday morning, the death toll counted at least 332, with hundreds more people still missing. Nepal’s disaster authority told the Indian broadcaster NDTV that a “chunk of snow and rock broke off near a glacier zone” on the border and either “fell into a glacial lake or blocked the river channel” resulting in a surge that swelled into a wave of glacial ice, meltwater, and debris. While initial reports suggested the avalanche started with an earthquake, a U.S. Geological Survey analysis found that the avalanche itself set off a magnitude 5.2 landslide.
Last month the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of new types of foreign-made inverters, the equipment needed to patch solar panels and batteries onto the grid, citing the need to protect the U.S. artificial intelligence buildout from Chinese sabotage. Now the White House is stepping in to block foreign imports of yet more types of grid equipment. In an executive order Wednesday, President Donald Trump said that “continued United States reliance on foreign sources of bulk-power system electric equipment with these potential national security vulnerabilities also creates a supply chain vulnerability that could eliminate the supply of these products in the United States as a result of disruptions in international trade.” In particular, the order will affect transformers, which are facing a years-long backlog as manufacturers struggle to keep up with demand from both the data center buildout and repairs to the grid after extreme weather mangles power equipment. The Biden administration had sought to increase the energy efficiency standards for transformers, paralyzing manufacturers who opposed the regulation and could not make investments into new assembly lines to meet surging demand until the fate of the rule was resolved. The Biden-era Department of Energy ultimately withdrew its proposal. While the Trump administration policy now will further protect those domestic factories, the import restrictions could, in the meantime, make obtaining the equipment primarily made overseas more difficult.
The Trump administration is set to speed up permitting reviews for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. On Wednesday, Public Domain broke news that the Department of the Interior is planning to publish a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act “that would make it easier for the oil and gas industry to conduct seismic surveys, obtain rights of way, and drill new exploration wells” in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, a nearly 36,000-square-mile area on the continent’s northern Arctic Ocean coast.
The proposal, which the Interior Department confirmed, comes as a particularly devastating blow to the Native Village of Nuiqsut, which had brokered a deal with the Biden administration to create a nearly million-acre caribou reserve to foster a herd on which the indigenous residents have long depended. But former Nuiqsut Mayor Rosemary Ahtuangaruak told the public-lands-focused investigative site that new drilling activity around the village has already changed the herd’s migration patterns. “All of the contractual agreements that were supposed to guide how development is going to occur have been ripped out of the books,” she said. “We feel that it doesn’t matter that we have a unique DNA, a small community of 500 people, that are just being totally disregarded and sacrificed for the greed of development.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Back in May, I told you about Otovo, the new startup from the former chief executive of defunct rooftop solar giant Sunnova. Instead of installing solar panels, the new company repairs rooftop photovoltaic units, in addition to batteries and generators — a sort of AAA for home energy equipment. Otovo started in Norway, targeting millions of homeowners across Europe with solar panels from installers that went out of business and left customers without maintenance service. The company has mounted a global expansion into the United States by buying smaller solar companies and maintenance providers. On Thursday, Otovo plans to announce two deals to make its latest acquisitions: Oahu-based PV Hawaii and Mr. Elektro in Norway and Sweden. The combined value of the deals — which are being reported first in this newsletter — is about $4.6 million. “PV Hawaii and Mr. Elektro bring licensed, experienced local teams that strengthen how we serve customers, and they extend our platform into Hawaii for the first time while deepening our reach across Norway and Sweden,” Otovo CEO John Berger told me in a statement.

You read that right. Unless you (like, uh, some people…) are familiar with late 20th century Melanesian geopolitics, you may not know the story of Bougainville. The island province off Papua New Guinea long had a troubled history. Ethnically, its people are related to those of the Solomon Islands, but German colonial borders hemmed the mineral-rich isle into the territory controlled by Port Moresby. In the 1970s, Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto built the Panguna mine in the center of the island. Pollution and labor violations plagued the open-pit copper and gold mine, ultimately fueling a separatist rebellion. A conflict, known as the Bougainvillean Civil War, erupted in 1988 and lasted for 10 years, only ending with a peace accord that allowed for a referendum on independence. In 2019, the autonomous province voted nearly unanimously in favor of breaking away from Papua New Guinea. The non-binding vote has yet to be ratified by the parliament in Port Moresby. But the leaders of Bougainville expect to become the world’s newest country by 2030.
To fund its sovereignty, the island wants to reopen Panguna. Last November, Ishmael Toroama, the president of Bougainville, signed a memorandum of understanding with Lloyds Metals and Energy. The Indian iron-ore miner won the deal “despite warnings from Bougainville’s majority state-owned mining company, Bougainville Copper, that Lloyds lacked the technical and financial capacity of rival bidders,” the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project reported in a major new investigation. Just a month earlier, Toroama confirmed to OCCRP, “he accepted an offer from Lloyds’ managing director Balasubramanian Prabhakaran to arrange for his wife to travel to India and have a life-saving kidney operation at no cost to the president.” Toroama told OCCRP that the gift did not weigh on his decision to select the Mumbai-based Lloyds for the project.
The first step in the Department of Energy’s effort to propel new reactor technologies to market was a pair of pilot programs to speed up development of projects from both power and fuel producers. The next step is the “nuclear launch pad” initiative at the Idaho National Laboratory’s National Reactor Innovation Center. This week, the agency announced the first 12 companies to participate in the new program, which bills itself as providing “flexible technical and regulatory frameworks designed to fast-track paths from concept to deployment.” The list includes microreactor developers Antares Nuclear, Atlas Atomics, Oklo, Valar Atomics, Scaled Atomics, and two projects from Deployable Energy; fuel makers Forge Atomics, Hexium, Lightbridge Corporation, Raven-Flint Nuclear, and Sublime Nuclear; and medical isotope startup Nusano. “These selections show a strong and growing interest from developers ready to move their technologies forward,” Brad Tomer, the director of the National Reactor Innovation Center, said in a statement. Meanwhile, another startup spinning out from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced a big initial funding round. Apollo Atomics — which aims to build next-generation pressurized water reactors, the type of reactor that makes up the bulk of the global fleet — announced a $31 million seed financing round, NucNet reported.
Rob talks with Amanda Levin, head of climate science and policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, about why we shouldn’t give up on renewable subsidies just yet.
Two years ago, Donald Trump made an outlandish campaign promise: He would cut Americans’ power bills in half.
It was a ridiculous, impossible pledge — but even so, the affordability problem didn’t need to get this bad. A new report, out this week from the Natural Resources Defense Council, looks at the economic, environmental, and public health costs of Trump’s regulatory and legislative clean energy policies, including his rollback of the wind and solar tax credits.
The report’s author, Amanda Levin, joins Rob on this episode of Shift Key. Levin is a Director of Policy Analysis at the NRDC’s Science Office. They discuss why Trump’s repeal will have long-term effects, the underrated public health impacts of the rollback, and why Levin believes the credits should be restored.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: So you’ve said that we should have tax credits that buy down the cost of technologies while we’re installing them. We had Lily Bermel on Shift Key a few weeks ago with her report, and she looked at a different set of questions here, and I think it’s worth kind of talking about them in a second. But her view of the data — which I would say I’ve also heard now from some solar developers, who obviously represent the interests of their industry — but her view of the data was like, look, there’s a lot of solar and batteries that are about to get built as developers rush to hit a deadline, rush to hit the deadline in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Her view is, if you look at this from an emissions perspective, you don’t need wind and solar tax credits. So really ,money would be better spent elsewhere. It would be better spent buying down the cost of clean firm technologies like advanced geothermal, like fusion, perhaps, that can run 24/7 and start to push gas out of the system.
You’ve written an op-ed for Heatmap kind of taking issue with some of those claims, and I want to actually lean into that disagreement. Why should the U.S. restore wind and solar tax credits? Because I would say we’ve learned one thing, actually, in the past month since Lily was on the show. It is that deficit concerns are going to be even more pressing for lawmakers, it seems like, in 2029, even in 2027, than they were in 2024 or 2022, because interest rates are going to be high. They seem to be getting higher. Among the crises that Democrats will have promised to solve is this deficit crisis that is of Trump’s own creation. And so why should a scarce dollar go to wind and solar tax credits?
Amanda Levin: I think it’s important to remember that renewables have a lot of benefits, and not all of them are reflected in the decisions that a utility might make on behalf of its customers. Renewables both lower pollution, which can help reduce the costs and the burden that we have both from public health pollution as well as from climate pollution. They also can enhance energy security and increase economic opportunities.
But I think importantly, it’s a recognition of, one, we need to build a lot of energy fast, and we want to build it clean, as well. And that is going to take quite a bit of money up front. Even if wind and solar are some of the cheapest, lowest cost options over the life of their investment, when looking at something more simplistic, like a levelized cost of energy, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have large upfront costs that need to then be recovered from someone. And in the structure of many of our states, that someone is going to be ratepayers. And often the way that we recover money through electricity bills and rates is not progressive. It’s pretty regressive. So I think the way that we see the kind of tax credits playing into this is it’s an essential part of ensuring that as we transition towards a cleaner system, it remains affordable for everyone by moving costs off of ratepayers, who are going to be much more regressively taxed, and putting them onto the federal government, when we know that we need to be spending more on clean energy to meet our growing load, and also just to invest in our grid that is, in many cases, reaching the end of its life for certain investments.
And so I think to that kind of question of what are we trying to solve here? Obviously, wind and solar, we still see that they are being built, and they make up the bulk of anything that’s going to be built in the next decade. But we’re definitely not building enough.
There was a paper that I was part of at the beginning of 2025 that found that in order to meet our climate commitments, we would need to quadruple the amount of wind, solar, and battery storage that was being added to the system compared to recent day records. The IRA got us basically halfway there. And if you look at where we are now with Trump, we’ve basically lost that halfway there. But what we know is, if we want to actually tackle our societal challenges — climate, health, everything — and affordability, we’re going to both need to build a lot of clean energy, but also we can’t put that on the backs of ratepayers. We need to explore other ways to mitigate the near-term affordability shock that will come from just having to invest in our system.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Amanda Levin’s new report: An Affordability Crisis of Trump’s Own Making
A ‘Glass Half Full’ Isn’t Enough to Fight Climate Change
Previously on Shift Key: The New Paper Arguing Biden’s Power Sector Emissions Cuts Are Largely Intact — Even Under Trump
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Discover the Yale Clean and Equitable Energy Development online certificate program at the Yale Center for Business and the Environment. In this fully online, 5-month program, you’ll learn from leading experts, develop practical skills, and grow a powerful network. Visit cbey.yale.edu to learn more and apply.
Verse's software platform Aria helps data centers connect to the grid faster and optimize power operations in real time. Learn more at verse.inc.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.