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:
Because you never know what’s going to take off.

Not even 12 months of unceasingly bleak climate news could keep climate tech founders and funders from getting involved in some seriously sci-fi sounding ideas. While the first half of the year may have been defined by a general retrenchment, the great thing about about early-stage venture capital is that it very much still allows for — nay, encourages — the consideration of technologies so far beyond the mainstream that their viability is almost entirely untethered from current political sentiment.
Below are seven of the most fantastical technologies investors took a bet on this year, with almost all announced in just the past quarter alone. In an undeniably rough year for the sector, perhaps VCs are now ready to let their imaginations — and pocketbooks — run just a little bit wilder.
In November, the startup Terranova emerged from stealth with $7 million in seed funding and a plan to lift low-lying areas out of flood zones by deploying robots to inject a wood-based slurry deep underground, thereby raising the land above sea level. The lead investors were Outlander and Congruent Ventures.
“Terranova’s mission is nothing less than to terraform the earth and usher in a new era of resilience and societal abundance,” Terranova’s 24-year old CEO Laurence Allen said in a press release. He cofounded the company with his father, Trip Allen, who lives in the flood-prone Bay Area city of San Rafael.
The company says that its system, which consists of three robots and one “mothership,” can lift one acre by a foot per day, making it more cost-effective than other options for defending against climate change-driven flood risk, such as building a levee or a sea wall. Already the startup has quoted San Rafael $92 million to lift about 240 acres of land about four feet.
Not one, but two space-based solar companies made headlines this year. Just this month, Overview Energy emerged from stealth with plans to deploy satellites that beam energy via lasers directly to Earth, targeting preexisting utility-scale solar farms. The company has already raised $20 million in seed funding in a round led by Lowercarbon Capital, Prime Movers Lab, and Engine Ventures, and is now raising a Series A expected to close next spring.
Back in April, another space-based solar startup called Aetherflux raised a $50 million Series A led by Index Ventures and Interlagos. That funding will support the startup’s first launch, targeted for next year, which will deploy a constellation of satellites into low-earth orbit — a far lower altitude than Overview is targeting. These satellites will also use lasers to transmit solar energy to ground stations on Earth, where the power will be stored in batteries for later use.
If these companies can prove that their tech actually works in space, they have the potential to turn solar into an always available, 24/7 resource. That’s not going to happen in the next few years, though. Overview’s CEO Marce Berte told me that the company is aiming to put megawatts of power on the grid by 2030 and gigawatts by the mid-2030s, with the ultimate goal of building a system that can deliver the equivalent of 10% to 20% of global electricity use by 2050.
Did you know that low-frequency sound waves can extinguish a fire? It’s a relatively well-understood phenomenon, but now one company, Sonic Fire Tech, has raised $3.5 million to turn this hypothetical concept into a commercial firefighting tool. With a seed round co-led by Khosla Ventures, Third Sphere, and AirAngels, the startup hopes to launch pilots with homeowners, utilities, and firefighting agencies at the beginning of next year.
As Scientific American explained, the system emits low-frequency sound waves below the threshold of human hearing, which prevent and extinguish flames by displacing oxygen away from the fuel. This deprives a potential or existing fire of the air it needs to sustain combustion. The system can channel the soundwaves through ducts atop a building’s roof and beneath its eaves, or be installed on utility equipment. There’s even the potential for a “sonic backpack,” which would offer portable protection for firefighters.
The startup’s goal is to produce 500 units by the second quarter of next year, and it’s now seeking public-sector grant funding as well as partnerships with insurance companies for its novel “infrasound-based fire suppression.”
My colleague Robinson Meyer broke the news in October that an Israeli geoengineering startup called Stardust Solutions had raised a $60 million round led by Lowercarbon Capital. The company aims to develop tech that would enable solar radiation management — an as-of-now hypothetical method of cooling the planet by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth — by the end of the decade.
The tech is controversial, however. Many experts believe that solar radiation management systems, if they’re developed at all, should be built by governments after much public deliberation. Stardust, by contrast, is a for-profit company seeking patent protection for its proprietary sunlight-reflecting particle. While the company says that the particle meets certain standards for safety and reflectivity, it has not disclosed what those standards are or anything about its composition.
The company’s CEO, Yanai Yedvab, said that Stardust is farther along than any other research efforts, public or private. And while some dispute the viability of Stardust’s proprietary particle, the fact that the company received a vote of confidence from a prominent climate tech VC indicates that this tech is entering the mainstream. As Rob put it, “Stardust may not play the Prometheus here and bring this particular capability into humanity’s hands. But I have never been so certain that someone will try in our lifetimes.”
Though climate tech investors have poured millions into the long-held dream of fusion energy, we’re likely still a long ways away from connecting a commercial reactor to the grid. But one startup, Maritime Fusion, is already looking to put fusion reactors on ships. The company raised a $4.5 million seed round last month led by the transportation firm Trucks VC to do just that.
The startup is developing a low power-density tokamak reactor that requires less power and less uptime than grid-connected power systems. According to TechCrunch, the startup projects that its first reactor will be up and running by 2032 and will cost about $1.1 billion to build, a far lower price than reactors on land will likely command. Another potential advantage is that at sea, fusion won’t have to compete with low-cost solar and wind resources, but rather more costly green shipping fuels such as ammonia and hydrogen.
"Breakeven fusion is on the horizon, but the grid may not be the first place fusion achieves commercial success," said Maritime Fusion’s CEO Justin Cohen in a press release.
Even with the rapid rise in grid-scale batteries, pumped storage hydropower still leads the world in total energy storage capacity. But traditional pumped hydro is costly to build and only feasible in specific geographies. One startup, Sizeable Energy, thinks it can overcome these constraints by building pumped hydro out at sea, raising $8 million in a round led by Playground Global to do so.
Traditional pumped-hydro systems store energy by using excess electricity to pump water into an elevated reservoir, then releasing it downhill through turbines when demand rises. Sizeable’s concept is the same, just offshore: One reservoir floats on the water’s surface, while the other — connected by a pipe and turbines — sits on the seafloor. When power is plentiful, brine is pumped into the upper reservoir; when it’s scarce, the brine gets released. And because that brine is heavier than the surrounding seawater, it naturally flows downwards to spin turbines.
Sizable is now working to deploy its pilot plant in Italy, with the goal of installing commercial projects at a variety of sites around the world next year.
This one’s a bit of a bonus. Technically Deep Fission, a startup planning to build tiny fission reactors in underground boreholes, raised its pre-seed round last year, But this year it went public via a curious SPAC merger on the lesser-known stock exchange OTCQB, raising $30 million in the process.
The idea is that building a reactor a mile underground will save costs and enhance safety, as it negates the need for the large pressure vessels and containment structures that are typically responsible for holding a reactor in place and preventing radioactive leaks. Instead, the company says that the surrounding rock will serve as a natural barrier and containment vessel.
But as Latitude Media pointed out, some are questioning whether the recent raise will be enough for the company to build what’s sure to be an expensive pilot by next July — as it aims to do — and to deploy reactors at the three project sites that it’s already announced. Next year certainly promises to be a reckoning for the hitherto unconsidered fortunes of the underground small modular reactor industry.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
At this point, I think it’s clear that AI data centers are unpopular.
You probably know it, at least. I was preparing talk about data center opposition on a podcast today and I took the opportunity to dive back into our data, so I certainly know it. At this point, we’ve written about results from our polling that show Americans overwhelmingly oppose local data center construction, that majorities of Americans now support a national data center moratorium, and that the only group of Americans who feels more optimistic than pessimistic about artificial intelligence is … men older than 65 years old.
So I got curious: Given all that, who actually supports AI data centers?
One question from our recent Heatmap Pro poll, conducted by Embold Research, helps give us a sense. This is the profile of someone our data says would support a data center built in their local area:
A few facets stand out. These data center YIMBYs are more likely to be men, and more likely to be 2024 Trump voters, but they’re not locked into one age demographic or voting cohort. A third are Harris supporters, and roughly a third are women. Data center YIMBYs are more likely to be older than 50, but the majority isn’t overwhelming.
Get Rob in your inbox daily.
Perhaps more surprising: The group has many more people who voted third-party in the 2024 election (8%) than the general population (just under 2%), although that response could also include people who didn’t vote. (Alas, the data can’t quite confirm how many in this group are libertarian.)
What’s perhaps most interesting: This group overwhelmingly believes that artificial intelligence will make their lives better. And in heartening news for climate advocates, they are even more likely to support a given data center project if it is powered by renewables.
I was going to joke that the profile is essentially a newly retired engineering dad — except that, to my surprise, these data center YIMBYs are far less gender imbalanced than the American engineering profession. (They’re also less gender-imbalanced than American Tesla owners.) So I’ll leave it at that.
Five takeaways from the latest Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy report.
It’s all getting more expensive.
That’s the conclusion of the investment bank Lazard’s latest report on the levelized cost of energy, one of the most closely watched and cited energy reports of the year.
Levelized cost of energy measures the dollars per megawatt-hour a power plant needs to earn in revenue to break even over the course of its lifetime in present-value terms.
What makes LCOE so alluring is that it’s a way to compare any type of generator, whether it requires a large upfront investment but has few operating costs, like a utility-scale solar project, or whether its expenses are largely fuel costs incurred in the future, like a combined cycle natural gas plant. This is also why LCOE has its critics, who point out that a solar panel that only runs during certain times of day has a different value to the electricity system than a natural gas plant that can ramp up and down quickly or a nuclear plant that provides steady baseload power.
Anyway, here’s what we can learn from this year’s Lazard report.
Curves that were once gently sloping downward are starting to look like incipient U’s. While longterm LCOE falls are still dramatic and impressive for some technologies — utility solar has fallen from $359 per megawatt-hour in 2009 to $69 in 2026 — the short term rises are worrisome. That $69 per megawatt hour represents a nearly 10% increase from 2025, when utility-scale solar had a LCOE of $58. And it’s not just renewables — the LCOE for a combined cycle natural gas plant rose from $78 per megawatt-hour to $90 in the past year. Gas plant LCOE got as low as $60 in 2021. That’s a 50% price hike in just five years.
Lazard attributed the increase in solar and wind LCOE to “higher capital costs, sustained interest rates, tariff pass-through and supply chain repricing.” These technologies are also the most “sensitive” to subsidies by way of the tax code, with federal tax tax credits taking the low end cost of utility solar to as low as $16 per megawatt hour. To the extent those tax credits are no longer available or weren’t accessible due to strict eligibility rules, that could be a source of future upward pressure on costs.
That being said, renewables “maintain their relative cost advantage despite facing the same cost pressures affecting the rest of the generation stack,” the Lazard analysts concluded.
Natural gas, meanwhile, is seeing prices spiral upward on huge and growing customer demand.
“Continuous upward revisions to demand projections have driven a sharp increase in announced new-build gas generation despite a 15-year high LCOE and historically long development lead times,” according to Lazard.
The report hints at what LCOE is not always able to capture, namely that generators like gas have attributes besides low cost that make them attractive. “New gas combined cycle plants offer the lowest-cost dispatchable power in high-demand and low-cost-gas environments,” the analysts point out.
Anyone building a new combined cycle gas plant, however, will have to deal with the high cost and low availability for turbines, which is “extending development timelines well beyond historical norms.” That provides an opening for renewables that can be deployed quickly and cheaply, like solar and accompanied by battery storage.
In 2019, the low end of LCOE for onshore end was $28 per megawatt-hour, according to Lazard’s figures, and the high end was $54. In 2026, however, the low end costs sits a bit higher at $37 per megawatt-hour, but the high end cost rose to $99. There’s a similar story for utility solar: in 2019, the spread between low and high was a snug $8 per megawatt-hour, while this year it’s ballooned to $58.
The broadening range is “likely reflecting that some project developers have been better able to mitigate broader cost pressures across supply chain and project-level economics than others,” the Lazard analysts wrote.
The Lazard report doesn’t just look at the discounted cost of individual generators over their lifetimes. It also tries to figure how much they cost on certain grids. One way of doing this is to look at what Lazard calls the “cost of firming intermittency” or “levelized firming costs.” This is essentially looking at what it costs to bring solar, solar and storage, and wind and storage onto actual grids considering their ability to perform when the grid is most stressed.
This measure tries to refine LCOE to give a sense of how various forms of energy generation compare to gas plants in real world circumstances, not just as a financial construct. This is not a perfect, real-world comparison — gas capacity needs to be “firmed” as well, as it’s not always entirely available at times of peak need — but at least it gives an idea of how these resources actually function in a real-world grid.
Even with firming costs, “renewables remain broadly cost-competitive,” the report concludes.
Not surprisingly, some of the most dramatic costs are in America’s most troubled electricity market, PJM Interconnection. The unsubsidized cost of firming intermittency for solar and storage is $167 per megawatt-hour, compared to $150 in Texas or $115 in California. That’s also compared to a $129 per megawatt-hour at the high end for conventional combined cycle gas plants in PJM.
PJM is notorious for its inability to bring on new resources quickly and its strict standards for accrediting the contribution of storage and renewables to grid stability.
While the Lazard authors explicitly caution that it doesn’t measure what the“total system costs are for 1 MWh of incremental electricity” and can’t say “the optimal mix of renewables, conventional generation and storage,” it does conclude that “firming costs and dispatchability are increasingly critical for comparing resources on a more complex grid.”
In short, no matter what ends up on the grid, grid planners will have to think carefully about how to make sure it’s reliable and works in concert with what’s already there.
Timber companies think of them as pests, but new research indicates that stands of the slender tree can act as barriers against raging flames.
Colorado’s Aspen Acres Fire is named after a quiet RV campground located high in the San Isabel Mountains, about a five-hour drive due southeast of the state’s better-known Aspen. Both places, however, are named after the iconic deciduous tree known for its golden leaves in the fall. While the start of monsoon season may yet prevent the Aspen Acres Fire — the seventh-largest in Colorado’s history — from joining Utah’s Babylon Fire as the second 100,000-acre “megafire” of the season, the conflagration has been aided in its rampage not by aspens, but rather by dead, downed, and blighted ponderosa pines, spruce, and Douglas firs. The wildfire has now burned over 98,000 acres and nearly 300 homes, and is only 36% contained due to steep terrain that has hampered firefighting efforts, along with extreme drought conditions and beetle infestations that have greatly degraded the forest health of the region.
But what about its aspens? Though the extent of the damage at the campground remains unknown, according to a recent study of Populus tremuloides, Colorado’s iconic golden trees could be one of the keys to more wildfire-resistant forests in the future.
Flavie Pelletier, a recent PhD graduate of McGill University’s Natural Resource Sciences program, told me she first became interested in aspens while working as a tree planter in British Columbia. “The historical assumption on aspen is that stands are very good at stopping fire progression. But the paradox is that if you take an aspen by itself, it’s going to burn at high severity,” Pelletier, who published her findings in Forest Ecology and Management, told me.
By creating near-real-time maps of fires using satellites and comparing them against the Canadian Forest Service’s newly available maps of dominant tree species in the boreal, Pelletier and her colleagues discovered that aspen were almost two and a half times more common at the perimeter of a burned area than inside it. The finding suggests that despite the flammability of a single aspen with its thin bark, stands of aspen act as a kind of barrier when wildfire ran up against them, likely because they lack the flammable resins of conifers and their high foliage helps force running crown fires back toward the ground. Pine and spruce, by contrast, showed a near-zero or even negative effect.
When aspen stands did burn, Pelletier found they did so more slowly: A tree cover of 50% aspen burned at about 224 hectares per day, compared to 717 hectares per day in areas where aspen made up less than 10% of the cover. That’s the equivalent of about 1,000 FIFA-regulation soccer pitches per day in places where aspen are sparser — like Aspen Acres.
Even more surprising, though, was that the pattern held true in the early season, when the trees are still twiggy and have yet to grow their moisture-filled leaves, and despite the severity of fire weather. “Aspen still showed resilience even when the fire weather was very intense, [like in 2023, when] we had all the fires,” Pelletier said.
But she was also the first to admit that seasons are getting more extreme, and that there’s no guarantee the pattern will hold for the next 10 or 20 years.
Pelletier was reluctant to make a policy recommendation based on her research, noting that she’s not a forest manager. But in Alberta and British Columbia, timber companies spray hundreds of thousands of acres of timber with glyphosate, an herbicide, to kill off aspens because the trees outcompete the more commercially valuable conifers. Her findings are “a big argument to stop the spreading of herbicides because you’re increasing the risk of fire in your forest by removing aspen,” Pelletier said.
Despite her hesitation, Pelletier is explicit in her paper about one thing: that aspens “should be encouraged — specifically around key landscape positions, such as population centers” — given that they are a proven means of hardening the wildland-urban interface against wildfires. It might be too late for the idyllically named Aspen Acres, of course; any of the aspens that once drew tourists to the area are likely now ash.
But this not be Colorado’s last fire, either.