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:
Investors are piling into startups that promise to solve hard problems using little energy. But that doesn’t mean the answer is ‘yes.’

Physicists have spent decades trying to apply the laws of quantum mechanics to the physical world in the form of quantum computers, devices that promise to solve some of the hardest problems in biology, chemistry, and materials science at unfathomable speed. Many experts say this technology is finally on the cusp of commercial viability. Physicists and software engineers are understandably excited. But so, too, is another group that might raise eyebrows: climate investors.
Investment in quantum startups rose to $12.6 billion in 2025, six times the prior year’s total, according to McKinsey. The consultancy forecasts that the technology could drive up to $2.7 trillion in economic value by 2035 as it spurs efficiency and revenue gains across sectors. Climate tech venture capitalists understandably want a piece of that pie.
Examples abound. Lowercarbon Capital participated in the quantum startup Oratomic’s gigantic $300 million Series A, announced earlier this month. Just a few months prior, Breakthrough Energy Ventures led quantum pioneer Sygaldry’s $139 million Series A, which also included participation from Singapore-based climate-focused investor Earth Venture Capital. And earlier this year, Planet First Partners led a $200 million later-stage round for quantum company Photonic Inc., now valued at over $2 billion.
They’re hardly the first VCs to argue that the worlds of quantum and climate are closer than they might initially appear. Prelude Ventures has backed Atom Computing since its 2018 seed round, all the way through its $100 million Series C last month, while Berlin-based VC World Fund has supported IQM Quantum Computers — which went public via SPAC about three weeks ago — since 2022. All say that quantum computers will be dramatically more energy efficient than today’s so-called “classical computers,” reducing costs and electricity usage across applications ranging from artificial intelligence workloads and transportation logistics to power grid optimization.
That advantage stems from the fundamental nature of the system’s architecture. The physics is extraordinarily complex, but the basic idea is that unlike a standard computer, which encodes information as zeros and ones, quantum computers rely on units called “qubits.” Rather than representing a single binary value, qubits can “be both a zero and a one, or any state in between at the same time,” Idalia Friedson, Sygaldry’s co-founder, told me.
That mind-bending proposition totally changes the way computers problem-solve. Rather than sequentially testing one possible solution after another, quantum computers can evaluate many possibilities simultaneously, hopefully allowing them to solve challenges such as molecular simulation, materials discovery, and drug design exponentially faster than is currently possible.
This tech won’t replace today’s computers, which experts told me will almost certainly remain more practical for everyday tasks such as browsing the internet, making spreadsheets, and word processing. Rather, the future of computing will likely be a hybrid in which classical computers handle the bulk of the work while quantum computers address specific, complex problems.
For its part, Sygaldry is building quantum-powered AI servers that can plug directly into existing data center infrastructure, combining quantum processors with classical chips in the same machine to expedite both model training and inference. The startup is also unique in its effort to combine multiple types of qubits — yes, there is more than one kind — within the same system, matching each qubit type to the problem it’s best suited to solve.
“You can create a qubit by using photons, which are actually like light particles, by trapping ions, by creating artificial atoms,” Friedson told me, explaining that each type has its pros and cons. “Some are fast, some are less expensive, some are more manufacturable or scalable. But by and large, no single type of qubit meets all of the characteristics needed for commercial high-performance computing.” Thus, Sygaldry is taking a mix-and-match approach, pairing different types of qubits with the AI workloads they’re best adapted to handle, ultimately aiming to extract more from our existing data center infrastructure and curb the AI boom’s runaway energy demands.
But as with all breakthroughs that promise faster, better, cheaper AI, the spectre of Jevon’s paradox looms large. This is the observation that as technologies become more efficient and cheaper, total resource consumption often rises rather than falls as lower costs spur demand.
When I asked BEV’s Christian Garcia, who led the firm’s investment in Sygaldry, about whether he worries that quantum companies could contribute to an uptick in overall AI energy demand, he told me it seemed a little outside his remit. “I almost feel like it’s a question for a philosopher to answer,” he said, explaining that he has no way of knowing what the advanced computing industry will look like decades down the line. Instead, he’s focused on the shorter-term problem companies like Sygaldry purport to solve: Grid bottlenecks are constraining AI growth.
“Even as algorithms get more efficient, and even as GPUs get more efficient, the demand for tokens is outstripping the ability to bring power online,” Garcia explained. “And so we view investing in new computing platforms as a way to solve power challenges in a lot of ways, and I think that’s bread and butter for us.”
Mark Cupta, the Prelude investor who has backed Atom Computing since 2018, expressed a similar sentiment. “Regardless of what [quantum computing] is used for, it will use less energy as a baseline,” he told me. “Could it discover great things? Yes. Could it also break things? Absolutely. We’ve gotten comfortable with that.” Climate-positive applications that particularly excite Cupta include designing novel compounds to better capture carbon dioxide out of the air or industrial smokestacks, discovering more efficient catalysts for the energy intensive Haber-Bosch process used to produce ammonia-based fertilizer, and perfecting the chemistry behind solid-state batteries, which could be safer, longer-lasting, and far more energy dense than standard lithium-ion cells.
But quantum computing could also break many of today’s standard encryption methods, which secure everything from online banking systems and medical records to cryptocurrencies. It could help oil and gas companies with exploration, extraction, and petrochemical processing, helping to make fossil fuel production more efficient and cost competitive with renewables. Or maybe its greatest commercial value lies in, say, helping hedge funds optimize their trading strategies and portfolios — not necessarily a climate-negative application, but a far cry from the breakthroughs many sustainability-focused investors are hoping for.
The technology’s ultimate climate impact will always depend, to some degree, on how and where it’s deployed. Yet when Cupta looks at Prelude’s portfolio of climate tech solutions, he mainly sees the ways that quantum could help them move faster and build superior products. “If you think that the things we’re inventing are going to be better for the world than what came previously, you want to supercharge those things,” he told me.
He’s betting Atom’s platform will prove to be “the most energy-efficient and lowest footprint” approach in the industry. The company builds its qubits from neutral atoms, which have an equal number of protons and electrons and thus no net electrical charge. This system traps them in mid-air using tightly focused laser beams, a setup that allows the atoms to be packed far more densely than many competing designs, which often use micron-scale wires. And because the laser traps are movable, the system can rearrange qubits on the fly to optimize for different tasks.
Neutral atom-based systems are a relative newcomer to the quantum computing landscape, but Cupta believes they have the potential to leapfrog the industry’s dominant architecture: superconducting qubits. Often described as artificial atoms, these qubits are tiny electrical circuits engineered to mimic the quantum behavior of atoms. They underpin the quantum efforts of tech giants like Google and IBM, as well as startups such as Rigetti Computing — founded by Sygaldry’s other co-founder, Chad Rigetti — and IQM Quantum Computers.
But when Cupta was first exploring the idea of a quantum investment, he said nearly everyone he spoke with admitted that if they were “starting from scratch” they wouldn’t choose to work with superconducting qubits. That suggested to him that this approach had become a legacy technology, while Atom Computers’ neutral atoms represented the future. Other investors now appear to be buying that thesis. Last month, the startup announced a $100 million Series C, and is also set to receive $100 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce as part of a $2 billion CHIPS Act investment in quantum computing and manufacturing. For its part, Oratomic — a Lowercarbon portfolio company — is also working to build a neutral atoms-based quantum computer.
Prelude has been wrong about quantum before, as have plenty of other investors. The firm also co-led the Series A and B rounds for the quantum software company Zapata Computing, which went public via SPAC in 2024. The stock quickly collapsed, and within seven months the company had run out of cash and ceased operations. It eventually restructured and reemerged as Zapata Quantum, though its shares are still only worth around $1 on the lightly traded OTCQB market.
There’s also always the possibility that a climate-focused startup could simply reinvent itself, pivoting toward a more promising market opportunity. Consider the case of Crusoe. The AI data center builder and operator now valued at over $10 billion initially pitched itself at the beginning of the decade as a climate tech startup, using natural gas that would have otherwise been flared off to power cryptocurrency mining, thereby reducing emissions. While always an unconventional thesis, sustainability-focused VCs like Lowercarbon, G2 Venture Partners, and MCJ Collective piled in. Since then, the company has greatly expanded its natural gas footprint as it’s pivoted aggressively toward building AI data centers.
All of which is to say, there’s simply no guarantee that a climate tech startup will stay true to its original mission, or that the energy savings and efficiency gains it promises will ultimately materialize. The possibility of a paradoxical outcome is just a part of investing in energy efficiency technologies.
Investors seem to have gotten comfortable with the discomfort. But the public may not have to wait too much longer to see the first signs of what a quantum-powered future could look like. Sygaldry is aiming to “have some meaningful technology by the end of the decade,” Friedson said. “Over the next couple years I expect quantum is going to start reaching these really valuable inflection points that continue to drive adoption.”
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 industry has gotten excited before, to no avail. Will it stick this time?
Over a decade ago, when the global price of silicon-based photovoltaic modules was roughly five times what it is today, the solar industry and media were already hyping up the next big thing: perovskites, a class of materials defined by their specific cube-like crystal structure. The technology promised to boost photovoltaic efficiency while driving down costs, and the industry was atwitter.
“All the cool solar-cell scientists are working on perovskites photovoltaics,” IEEE Spectrum proclaimed in a 2014 article. In the same piece, Oxford Photovoltaics predicted that it would have commercially available cells within four years. The Wall Street Journal profiled the tech that same year, and in 2015, The Guardian declared that perovskites could be “game changing.” The excitement centered around the potential for higher output at lower costs: Perovskite cells were seeing rapid efficiency gains, could be made from cheap materials, and were remarkably thin and lightweight. When the question of durability came up, it was often as an afterthought. But that has turned out to be the technology’s biggest obstacle.
“What the industry came to understand very quickly is that, yes, you could see higher efficiency, but that material is going to degrade pretty quickly,” Laureen Sanderson, chief communication officer at the perovskite startup Cubic PV, told me. “A lot of the efficiency records that you were seeing were records that were achieved on very small scale devices in a laboratory environment, potentially measured in the dark.” Not ideal for a technology designed to soak up the sun on a large scale.
It’s true that perovskite cells tend to break down rapidly on contact with moisture, heat, and light, a problem scientists have been slowly chipping away at in the lab. That fragility largely arises because perovskites are made of electrically charged ions held together mostly by the attraction between positive and negative charges, much like magnets snapping together. That’s an intrinsically looser structure than the covalent bonds in silicon, which fuse the atoms together via shared electrons. As a result, the ions in perovskites migrate when exposed to the elements, accumulating in places where they react with surrounding materials to form unwanted byproducts that gradually break down the cell’s structure.
But while durability has been its fatal flaw, efficiency is perovskite’s superpower. Silicon’s efficiency tops out at 29.4%, a fundamental physics limitation that no amount of engineering can overcome. But because perovskites can be tuned to absorb different wavelengths of light beyond what silicon can capture, stacking a thin perovskite cell atop a conventional silicon cell lets the combined device make use of more sunlight than either material could alone. In July, one of these silicon-perovskite tandem cells — the industry’s dominant architecture — set a new 35.5% efficiency record.
So while this new tech still doesn’t match the stability of conventional panels, it’s getting much better. Tandem cells hold up increasingly well when exposed to heat, light, and moisture in the lab, and early outdoor trials are starting to produce promising real-world performance data. With headlines about perovskites starting to roll in once more, scientists say there’s good reason to believe that, this time around, the hype might actually be justified.
“Over the better part of a decade, there’s been lots of, for want of a better word, device engineering to engineer the material to just be much more stable,” Sam Stranks, an energy materials professor at the University of Cambridge and co-founder of perovskite startup Swift Solar, told me. That includes swapping out an unstable chemical building block in perovskites called methylammonium with a more stable one called formamidinium, improving the connection point that binds the perovskite layer to the electrode layer, and improving the packaging of perovskite cells to seal them off from air and moisture.
“There’s still work to be done to really get it to the point where you could put it up on a rooftop for 25 years and you know it will last. But the trajectory is very promising,” Stranks said.
Scientists have managed to extend perovskite durability from mere hours to the point where cells and modules are now passing industry-standard tests that suggest they could survive outdoors for five to 10 years. That’s still a ways away from the standard 25-year warranties for silicon solar panels, which typically guarantee that a module will retain 85% to 90% of its original output by year 25. And because these latest perovskites simply haven’t been around that long, scientists have yet to test these more ambitious durability claims in the real world.
Industry experts say there’s no reason continued incremental improvements can’t get perovskites to that 25-year standard relatively soon, however. “If you look at silicon, it’s been 70 years of trial and error,” Scott Wharton, CEO of perovskite startup Tandem PV, told me. “Seventy years of constant tweaking and improvement, whereas perovskites have only had about 12.”
Wharton said that Tandem’s testing indicates its panels will degrade at a rate of less than 1% per year. Furthermore, he predicts perovskites will become the dominant solar technology by 2033, a more ambitious timeline than others in the industry typically project. But as he sees it, seven years is roughly enough time to build and deploy two generations of perovskite factories — the kind of iterative ramp-up he says new technologies typically need to achieve market dominance.
The economics just make sense, he told me. Because perovskites are more efficient, they will produce more power per unit — which means less land, hardware, wiring, and labor needed to achieve the same total energy output, driving down costs at every step of the process. Why wouldn’t everyone jump onboard immediately? “All of our customers have said that once we’ve proven it out, they’re going to move,” Wharton told me. “They’re going to move 100% to tandems because of the power of the efficiency gains.”
Others are somewhat more measured regarding how long this may take. Stranks predicted it would be about five years before perovskites with multi-decade warranties even begin hitting the market, while Sanderson estimated they’ll gain real commercial traction by 2029, with perovskites making up a “significant portion of the market” throughout the 2030s.
While the date of that tipping point remains up for debate, the industry appears to have largely settled the question of materials. At least for now, the preferred configuration is to pair a lead-based perovskite cell with silicon rather than build an all-perovskite cell, which would likely face even greater durability challenges. That’s because such a cell would also need a tin-based perovskite layer to capture lower-energy light like silicon does, but tin degrades even faster than lead. In other words, it’s easier to keep silicon — a proven, durable material — in the mix by building so-called “tandem cells” for the foreseeable future.
But there’s still plenty that remains unknown. Every startup’s exact chemistry is proprietary, and there’s no clearly dominant formula yet. There’s also no industry consensus on the architecture best poised to address perovskite’s stability challenge, either, with leading players typically taking one of two different approaches.
Stranks’ Swift Solar team is pursuing what’s known as a “two-terminal” tandem architecture, in which a manufacturer builds the perovskite layer directly on top of the silicon layer, with the two cells functioning as a single unit. That’s opposed to a “four-terminal” design, where companies build two independent perovskite and silicon cells and then mechanically stack them on top of each other rather than fusing them together.
Two-terminal is the more widely studied approach, pursued by other industry leaders such as Oxford PV — the same company that once predicted commercialization by 2018 — along with Chinese solar giants LONGi and JinkoSolar. Proponents argue that using fewer material layers means less light lost, which translates into greater efficiency and lower costs. In a blog post last year, Swift Solar’s team also argued that the four-terminal designs rely on laser cutting, which it says can create more entry points for degradation.
Two-terminal isn’t just the leading theoretical contender, it’s the first architecture to officially make it to market. Oxford PV’s finally executed its long-delayed commercial launch in 2024, shipping its modules to an undisclosed U.S. customer for use in a utility-scale solar project. It was the world’s first commercial sale of perovskite panels, which Oxford claimed could produce up to 20% more energy than standard silicon modules.
But newer market entrants such as Cubic PV and Tandem PV are bullish on the four-terminal approach. For one, while two-terminal designs use fewer materials, they are more difficult to manufacture. Building a perovskite layer directly onto silicon’s rough surface is more technically difficult than coating it onto smooth glass, as Cubic and Tandem do. And because four-terminal companies manufacture the perovskite and silicon cells separately, they can swap in whatever silicon cell is cheapest or most efficient at any given moment, rather than being locked into a single supplier’s tech.
That flexibility could prove important as the market moves beyond early adopters. For now, Stranks said, customers buying tandem modules are probably doing so for strategic testing purposes — placing small, one-off orders to trial the tech themselves. An installer today can’t simply go buy perovskites on the open market by consulting a public pricing list or product catalogue the way they can with silicon panels. “But it’s not too far away before that would be the case,” he explained.
For its part, Swift is moving … swiftly, acquiring the manufacturing assets and IP of the bankrupt Swiss silicon cell maker Meyer Burger this spring. The company plans to use those assets first to build a U.S.-based gigawatt-scale silicon cell and module factory to meet demand for domestically manufactured solar cells, eventually adding silicon-perovskite tandem module production to that same facility.
Tandem PV is also pushing ahead with plans to begin selling to customers by the end of this year “in a volume that would be big enough to hit bankability goals,” Wharton told me. It also plans to bring a gigawatt-scale factory online by 2028. The company is targeting the independent power producers who build, own, and operate most utility-scale solar projects today. And like Oxford, Swift, and Cubic, Tandem is focused primarily on the utility-scale solar market — by far the biggest opportunity for perovskite technology.
Cubic scrapped plans in 2024 to build a facility producing silicon wafers — the raw material used to make solar cells — amid collapsing wafer prices globally and surging construction costs domestically. While Sanderson says the company remains interested in building its own factory, it has no timeline for doing so. But in the meantime, it’s also interested in licensing its IP to other perovskite companies.
The outlook for domestic wafer production has improved in recent years, though, after the Biden administration provided stronger financial incentives for producing wafers in the U.S. The Trump administration has kept these in place, though it’s made domestic content requirements stricter and more complex overall.
There’s also another new policy variable in the mix: Section 232 tariffs on cheap silicon wafers from China. Going into effect this December, the tariffs could benefit producers like Swift and Cubic, which plan to manufacture silicon cells domestically, while potentially raising costs for companies like Tandem that hope to simply source the cheapest, most efficient silicon available on the market.
At any rate, perovskites give the U.S. a chance to secure a domestic supply chain for the next wave of solar tech. Because while Chinese perovskite producers are setting efficiency records, Wharton told me that they tend to be quieter on the question of durability. That could easily give a Western producer with a credible, multi-decade warranty the opportunity to jump to the front of the pack.
And that may happen sooner than you’d expect. “This always follows the same pattern,” Wharton said of technology breakthroughs generally. “You have a bunch of early entrepreneurs who overhype things, and then everybody goes, Yeah, that was a bunch of BS. And then it actually gets real, and then people go, It’s real, but it’s going to take forever. But then it doesn’t take forever because economics always wins.”
On Duane Arnold, Germany’s far-right win, and Israel’s Falklands play
Current conditions: After decades without a major storm, Hawaii is set to be brushed by its second hurricane this season as Hurricane Lowell comes within 100 miles of the state’s western islands • Typhoon Krovanh is stalling over Okinawa, Japan, and weakening back into a tropical depression • Eastward in the Pacific, Hurricane Marie battered Southern California with 10-foot waves.
On Labor Day, I took a long drive through southern New England and filled the tank of my typically very efficient Honda Accord. The price at the pump made me grateful for work. Gas prices hit a record high for America’s end-of-summer holiday, reaching an average of $4.14, according to the AAA motor club. The national average has never been above $4 for Labor Day weekend, and the new figure easily bested the previous peak of $3.82, set on September 3, 2012. I was too irritated to write down the exact price I paid on Interstate 95 in Connecticut, but it was somewhere closer to $4.30.
The new high came as Iran set up what The Independent called a “potential clash with the U.S. Navy” over a new exclusion zone the Islamic Republic threatened to enforce in the Strait of Hormuz. In response, the price of crude ticked upward. Murban crude, the benchmark for barrels coming out of the United Arab Emirates, spiked more than 3% to nearly $107. Europe’s Brent crude rose nearly 1% to $97 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. measure, rose by more than 1% to about $93. Never fear, for the Russians are — despite sanctions — bringing more supply online. Rosneft shipped the first crude from its Vostok Oil project, which Russia believes holds around 7 billion tons of low-sulfur crude. Per Oil Price, the “project reinforces Russia’s energy pivot toward Asia and the Arctic, with the Northern Sea Route becoming increasingly important for future exports.”
The Department of Energy has unveiled a $1.9 billion loan to restart Iowa’s lone, shuttered nuclear station, the Duane Arnold Energy Center. This morning, the agency’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing said it had already closed the deal with NextEra Energy, the station’s owner. The funding comes as little surprise. The Trump administration is pushing hard to bring more nuclear generation online. One of the first Biden-era spending packages the current administration approved to go out after taking office was a $1.5 billion loan to fund the restart of the first reactor expected to ever begin operations again after a permanent closure, the Palisades nuclear station in Michigan. That plant, as I told you in July, has reached a “watershed moment” and could come back online before its contract to sell electricity kicks in early next year. “Returning 615 megawatts of reliable baseload generation will drive down electricity costs, while supporting thousands of American jobs,” James Danly, the deputy secretary of energy, said in a statement. The head of the financing office, Gregory Beard, called Duane Arnold, which closed in 2020, “exactly the kind of investment that will help restore American nuclear leadership.”
The company behind Palisades, meanwhile, just took a major step toward debuting on the stock market. Early this morning, Holtec Nuclear Corporation, as the company previously called Holtec International will now be known, announced plans to raise more than $1 billion when it starts trading on the Nasdaq. Holtec has not yet given a specific date for its IPO. And just now, another nuclear startup announced an initial fundraising round. Bluecore Energy, one of the firms competing to commercialize offshore floating nuclear in the U.S., pulled in a $50 million seed round led by the venture firm Silverton Partners.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank has issued a letter of interest expressing its willingness to invest up to $750 million into Project Dynamo, a rare earth processing facility in Louisiana.
The plant is the flagship refinery of Alcara Resources, where the Vancouver-based company behind the project, plans to process heavy rare earths such as dysprosium and terbium from its Carina mine in Goiás, Brazil. Compared to the light rare earths produced at California’s Mountain Pass mine, the only U.S. rare earths mine, heavy rare earths are more difficult to refine. The infrastructure is particularly risky given its high cost and the relatively small volumes of heavy rare earths that are needed. “The potential support from EXIM would provide a pathway to bring these capabilities together at industrial scale,” Ramón Barúa, Aclara’s chief executive, said in a press release. “Our objective is to establish a secure, traceable, and sustainable supply chain capable of serving U.S. and allied industries across some of the most critical sectors of the global economy.”Meanwhile, Africa is set for its largest initial public offering in the history of any stock exchange on the continent. Alika Dangote, Africa’s richest man, is looking to raise at least $1.6 billion by listing his oil refinery business on the Nigerian stock exchange. “We’re targeting 10 million shareholders from all over Africa and maybe other parts of the world,” Dangote told the Financial Times. “If you can afford 10 shares, you buy 10. If you can afford one million, you buy one million.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

For the first time since democracy returned to Germany after World War II, a far-right party is set to assume control of one of the republic’s states. In Sunday’s elections, Alternative für Deutschland won the race to control Saxony-Anhalt, bringing the party to power in one of five former East German states. The national party’s manifesto calls for a “180-degree U-turn in energy policy.” The statewide party in Saxony-Anhalt pledges a “wind power moratorium,” though an analysis by the German investigative site Correctiv — translated into English by the anti-fossil fuels publication DeSmog — cautioned that the party has limited powers since turbine permits are regulated at the federal level. In 2024, Saxony-Anhalt bested the national average by generating about 60% of its power from renewables. Before Germany’s other parties embraced calling the country’s nuclear phaseout a mistake, the AfD, at least on the national level, was among atomic energy’s only high-profile defenders in the country. Still, the AfD’s most significant electoral victory to date sent shockwaves through Germany, where anxiety over the Nazi era has stirred intense debates over whether the party itself has a legal right to compete in elections where right-wing extremists are barred. The party’s defenders, including Elon Musk, counter that the AfD is a legitimate conservative movement addressing issues Germany’s mainstream parties have ignored or obscured.
Across the border in the country exporting lots of nuclear power into Germany every day, France is putting up nearly $1.2 billion to support farmers suffering losses from this summer’s brutal heat waves and wildfires. The funds, according to Bloomberg, will compensate farmers whose crops died off during the drought and heat. “This is new money, not recycled,” Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard said Friday in a press conference, pledging a “massive effort” from the government amid heated debates over the 2027 budget and preparations for next year’s presidential election, which could vault the far-right Marine Le Pen to office.”
You may have been barbecuing and drinking Surfsides on your day off. But on Monday, Ilya Espino de Marotta took over as the new head of the Panama Canal Authority, becoming the first woman to lead the agency overseeing the waterway. The Panamanian engineer has her work cut out for her. She arrives at the helm after a summer of drought that left water levels in the 50-mile pass between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans impassably low. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, she said she is simultaneously taking on major infrastructure upgrades while managing an influx of shipping as cargo haulers veer away from the Persian Gulf amid the ongoing war. “We are developing a new lake, the Río Indio project. It will be able to accumulate enough water to provide 10 to 15 additional transits per day or about the same volume consumed by drinking water,” she said when asked about water levels. “This project should be ready in 2031.”
In more inflammatory Latin American geopolitics, Israel’s controversial national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has publicly urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands. Buenos Aires has long claimed the oil-rich archipelago, which has no documented history of indigenous habitation prior to the British setting up the most permanent settlement ever established. In repeated elections since Britain defeated Argentina following its invasion in 1982, the population of fewer than 4,000 predominantly British people has voted almost unanimously to remain under the Union Jack. Now that the United Kingdom is building the infrastructure to begin drilling for oil offshore starting in 2032 — under a project led by investors with strong ties to Israel, mind you — Argentinian President Javier Milei is working his strong relationships with other right-wing leaders, including President Donald Trump, to gain recognition of what his country calls Las Malvinas. “It’s time for the State of Israel to publicly recognize that the Malvinas Islands are Argentine territory under occupation, which the British violently stole from the Argentine people. The British are not content with merely occupying the territory; they also carry out oil drilling there and steal the money from the Argentine people,” Ben-Gvir wrote in a Spanish-language post on X. “I call upon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize Argentina’s sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and to impose sanctions on Great Britain as long as the occupation continues.”
In November 2016, I rode a ferry from Rhode Island to see North America’s first-ever offshore wind turbines. The five-turbine Block Island wind farm, located just off the vacation enclave, seemed magnificently novel a decade ago. This past weekend I rode the ferry with my family to Block Island — the first time I had come near these waters since then. When I stood on the port side pointing out what looked like pinwheels in the distance, I was struck by the vast array of turbines that preceded it: Revolution Wind. On a sunny day, most of the blades in sight were spinning. That wasn’t a given. Regular Heatmap readers know the saga of that project well: Trump tried to kill Revolution Wind repeatedly, the developer fought back, and now it’s roaring. Back when the U.S. turned away from nuclear power following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, a lot of nuclear engineers headed to South Korea to help that country build what’s now the democratic world’s most competitive atomic power industry. Offshore wind workers may consider a similar pathway. Last week, Renewables Now reported that Seoul plans to designate 25 gigawatts of preliminary offshore wind zones by 2031, with the potential to support up to 45 gigawatts of turbines by 2040.
Talking with National Grid’s Matthew Satterwhite about his new report with S&P Global.
This week’s conversation is with Matthew Satterwhite, head of U.S. policy for National Grid. This week National Grid released a report in collaboration with S&P Global I found noteworthy amidst the data center backlash, asserting that building new transmission lines can potentially reduce consumer costs. I reached out asking if we could chat about how this argument leans into the fight over hyperscale infrastructure. I found our conversation illuminating and educational.
The following Q&A was lightly edited for clarity.
Why did you make this report?
It’s all focused on our customers. We’re always looking to find ways to make sure we can provide our service in the most affordable way possible, the most efficient way possible, and we always think of transmission, but it’s fallen out of favor recently. There’s so much demand with large loads, data centers, advanced manufacturing, reshoring. There’s such a need, and a lot of the debate has been focused on what we need on the generation side. We think transmission is an answer, as well.
We focused on what we have control over — since we’re in deregulated states, the only generation we’re doing is to help states reach their renewable goals. It’s a real page-turner. We really get to the core of everything.
Can we lower customer bills with transmission? This report actually showed us that’s a good investment and helps with the resource adequacy and the constraint problems we have in the Northeast. You can bring cheaper electricity in.
With respect to concerns for everyday consumers, how much do you feel like new transmission might alleviate ordinary Americans’ concerns about rising energy prices?
When you look at the demand that’s coming, the projection is that by 2035, we’ll have to add 45 gigawatts, currently. We’re on that path right now. Transmission alone isn’t going to meet that, but the question is, how do we temper that down? What do we do as National Grid to help alleviate the need for all that demand? Can we get that somewhere else rather than in the region by building generation? It's a different version of all of the above. It’s not a generation single answer or a transmission single answer. We think transmission is a big part of that.
This also allows you to bring in cleaner energy from other places. The more robust the network is, you can have energy in different places and bring that in. It replaces the need for some of the generation to be built and pays for itself by creating a cheaper return for customers adding this.
How much of the data center backlash is affecting your transmission project planning calculus? How is it changing what lines are built in the country?
We’re focused on how we can provide the cheapest service for our customers and physics. It’s science and long-term planning. We don’t have the luxury — we can’t follow, this month we’re thinking something, someone got mad, and so we’re thinking something else. We study a lot of science and physics to figure out how to build the grid.
Do you feel like the average Joe Schmoe American sees transmission as making their life less expensive and making their electricity more reliable?
I think there’s frustration and a lack of understanding about the industry overall. There’s fear of the unknown. Are data centers really driving everything that’s happening? That’s where I think, with reports like this, the benefit of it will be that people will read this and see there’s other things we can do to address the load that we need, something different than building a bunch of generation plants.
How do the question marks around whether data centers get built affect transmission planning? How much harder is the backlash making your job?
It’s a science question. Do we do a bunch of work and then nothing happens? That’s why states put their policies out. There’s multiple studies you go through with a region and with a utility. I think that’s one reason why you see states slowing down, to make sure the policy is in check so people don’t do work they don’t need to do. It’s about having the policy to make sure, if you’re studying something, you’re doing it with a purpose.