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 imminent closure of Duke University’s herbarium sparked an outcry in the natural sciences community. But the loss to climate science could be even worse.

Kathleen Pryer did not watch March Madness this year.
That isn’t unusual in and of itself — Pryer describes herself as “not a basketball person,” though that might still raise a few eyebrows this time of year at Duke University, her place of employment. But the professor of biology has been a bit distracted lately. For the past few months, she’s been on defense, fending off a loss of her own: the pending closure of the school’s herbarium.
A herbarium (or plural, herbaria) is a collection of preserved plants, typically dried and mounted on sheets of rigid paper. The oldest existing collection in the world, the Gherardo Cibo herbarium in Rome, dates back to the mid 1500s; many U.S. collections are well over a century old. Browsing digitized herbaria online, one can easily get sucked in by their unintended whimsy; though the preserved plants are scientific specimens, traditionally collected by botanists to be used in the study of taxonomy during Western biology’s golden age of naming things, the pages remind me more of the pale, beautiful botanical illustrations in my childhood copy of Thumbelina.
Duke’s herbarium turns 103 this year and contains 825,000 specimens, making it one of the largest collections in the country. But back in mid-February, Susan Alberts, Duke’s dean of natural sciences, sent an email to Pryer, who curates the herbarium, and four other associated faculty members to inform them that “it’s in the best interests of both Duke and the herbarium to find a new home or homes for these collections.”
Though there had long been rumblings about the future of Duke’s herbarium — calls for “strategic plans,” hand-wringing about funds, worry about hiring new staff — the news came as both a shock and a slap in the face to the faculty, chief among them Pryer. “It’s some kind of little stinky plot,” she told me, adding, “I didn’t just roll over when it happened. I reached out to absolutely everybody I could think of.”
The news of Duke’s herbarium closure ricocheted through the tight-knit natural sciences community. Mason Heberling, an associate curator in the Section of Botany at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, told me it should be a “wake-up call” for other researchers. The Duke herbarium is prestigious and hardly a “languishing collection,” he explained; researchers and faculty can easily slip into taking their herbaria for granted. “I’ve realized now that a huge part of my job as a curator will need to be explaining why these collections are important,” he said.
Swiftly, botanists and curators came to Duke’s defense. Opinion pieces and quotes decrying Duke’s decision appeared in the pages of The New York Times and Science. A petition went up on Change.org urging the school to reconsider its decision. Online fora burbled with discontent. “This may be the single worst thing to ever happen to Southeastern botany,” one post on Reddit read, with 64 additional comments piling on the administration for being “profit-obsessed business assholes.” “They could probably fund the entire thing with the salary of one head [basketball] coach,” grumbled another commenter.
The criticism of Duke’s decision is rooted in both a romantic nostalgia about herbaria — the same way you might feel fondly about hand-painted globes or cabinets of curiosities — and a very modern sense of scientific urgency. Researchers have only recently started leveraging the collections as invaluable pieces of data in the greater picture of climate change. “Herbaria are, in many ways, one of our best places to understand nature across space, time, and species,” Charles Davis, the curator of vascular plants at the nation’s largest private herbaria, at Harvard University, told me. “These collections are snapshots of events and occurrences in space and time that you just can’t easily replicate anywhere else. In fact, I would argue it’s impossible.”
Think of it this way: Worldwide, there are about 3,600 herbaria located in 193 different countries that collectively hold about 400 million specimens. Botanists estimate as much as half of the planet’s undiscovered flora could be found in herbaria backlogs. Barbara Thiers, the editor of the Index Herbariorum, a digital guide to the world’s collections, told me that when she was the director of the New York Botanical Garden Herbarium, “we had a huge room filled with unidentified species; I think there were 35,000 or 40,000 specimens in there.” That wasn’t for lack of effort — Thiers said that for many of the plant groups, there simply aren’t any working experts or published literature for curators to consult.
Because the climate is changing so fast, many plants in herbaria will go extinct before they’re formally discovered and named, a process known as a “dark extinction.” “It’s a very sobering feeling to touch the leaves of a tree that doesn’t exist anymore,” Erin Zimmerman, an evolutionary biologist and author of the forthcoming book Unrooted: Botany, Motherhood, and the Fight to Save an Old Science, told me, recalling coming across such a specimen in an herbarium while doing her own research. She likened herbaria to a library, but in her description I also heard echoes of a church: “The specimens are sometimes very old; you have to be very gentle with them, which just adds to the sense of holding something precious,” she went on.
Dwindling biodiversity is only the most obvious way herbaria are critical to 21st-century science. “Phenology, whether it’s when plants flower or when birds migrate, is one of the most important signals of climate change response,” Davis, the Harvard curator, said. Still, our long-term datasets aren’t very robust; research on how plants are changing with warming climates typically dates back only 25 to 30 years, tends to concentrate on the U.S. and Western Europe, and centers on easily observable phenomena, like the leafing out of woody trees. Researchers can turn to herbaria for centuries-old records of where certain plants grew and when they flowered, helping to bridge gaps in our understanding.
Heberling, of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, tracks environmental changes in his research, but he didn’t start using herbaria until well after he’d obtained his Ph.D. Only then did he realize “herbarium specimens are incredible archives of the past,” he told me.
“You can look at the tiny pores, the stomata, on the leaves” of a plant in a herbarium and “see how that has changed over time with increased carbon dioxide,” Heberling said. Scientists have even used this method to create CO2 records.
Admittedly, climate science is still a relatively cutting-edge use case for the herbarium; according to Davis’ research, “global change biology” remains one of the least popular ways to leverage herbaria, well behind “taxonomic monographs” and “species distributions” that still dominate the field. Still, “there are things that, five to 10 years ago, I’d never even imagined we’d be doing today with herbarium specimens,” he told me.
As a result, Duke’s herbarium closure has made some question the university’s commitment to climate research — something that Alberts, the school’s natural sciences dean, emphatically refuted when I raised the question with her. She told me that a rough search revealed that only 23 of the 2,000 papers published by Duke researchers over the past few decades on climate change contained the word “herbarium” anywhere in them. “With my knowledge about all of the climate change research that’s been going on at Duke, the herbarium is not really central to whether or not Duke studies climate change,” she said.
For her part, Pryer has bristled at the administration’s insinuations that the herbarium is of limited use to students and faculty on campus. “You don’t measure a collection by who uses it,” she told me. “As I’ve been naughty enough to say, it’s not a toilet. People outside — the global community — uses it. That’s how you measure its value; things like 90 refereed publications a year [across all disciplines] cite the Duke collections.” Pryer can quickly tick off the climate projects that have come through the herbarium’s halls, including her recent supervision of a local high schooler’s research paper that found the pink lady’s slipper is flowering in the area 17 days earlier than it used to.
Duke is “not an appropriate home for a herbarium that is this large and valuable” for a number of reasons, according to Alberts, ranging from the need to hire new faculty to manage it (Pryer and several of her colleagues are approaching retirement) to the collection’s current building needing renovations. “I have had people email me saying, ‘I know you have enough money, I know you have the facilities.’ I’m like, ‘I’m sorry, you should tell me who you’re talking to, because we don’t,’” Alberts said. She added that she plans to be personally involved in finding the right home for Duke’s herbarium over the next several years.
After all, it’s not like the potential untapped climate records in the Duke collection are being destroyed (though both Pryer and Davis told me they’ve had deans wonder aloud if they could be, since many herbaria are now digitized). The goal is only to move the collection somewhere where it might be better utilized.
Thiers, though, said this is exactly what makes the natural science community so alarmed. As the collection is split up, ideally, the Index Herbariorum would record where Duke’s specimens get sent so scientists can still find them. But when new collections absorb the materials, curators will weed out duplicates, sending unneeded pages elsewhere — at which point specimens can fall between the cracks. “Before you know it, individual specimens will be lost,” Thiers said. “I can almost guarantee that as these secondary moves happen, people will not keep up with the database records.”
There is also a worst-case scenario everyone seemed nervous to mention: that Duke’s collection, in whole or in part, will end up in storage somewhere. Herbarium specimens are extremely susceptible to insect damage and must be kept in expensive, climate-controlled cabinets and rooms. “If they’re putting boxes in a storage storeroom someplace, they’ll be worthless in no time,” Thiers warned. The unidentified plants and uncollected climate data — all of it could be lost. And the cruelest part? Scientists wouldn’t even know what they are losing; it’s a dark extinction of a dark extinction.
When I spoke with Alberts, she said there were no updates on the administration’s plans for the herbarium. She expressed sympathy, though, for the faculty who oppose the administration’s decision. The herbarium “is their life’s work, and it’s important that they have a voice in this process,” she said.
Pryer is determined to keep fighting, even if this isn’t exactly how she’d pictured spending her golden years at Duke. “It’s having an impact on my research and on my health,” she told me. “It’s been pretty unrelenting. I’m anxious for something to resolve.”
She looked tired. There was a faculty meeting later in the day, and she hoped she’d be able to get more clarity about the administration’s decision then. “I don’t want this to go on forever,” she said. “But I also don’t want there to be a decision that makes Duke look insane.”
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 New Mexico facility aims to achieve net energy gain by 2030.
Three-year old startup Pacific Fusion broke ground on Tuesday on what it says will be the world’s first fusion plant to produce more energy than it consumes. The company is aiming to achieve this milestone, known as net facility gain, by 2030. If successful, it would provide the first real-world demonstration that the physics underpinning commercial fusion can work at facility scale.
To date, fusion tests have only achieved scientific net gain — when a reaction produces more energy than was used to ignite it. But that metric ignores the substantial energy lost at other points in the system — whether that's converting stored power into a laser beam or electric current or sustaining powerful magnetic fields to hold the fusion plasma in place. For example, Lawrence Livermore National Lab first achieved scientific breakeven in 2022, and has since repeated the feat numerous times — something no other reactor has replicated. But its laser system, which compresses and heats tiny pellets of fusion fuel, is only about 1% efficient, meaning it draws orders of magnitude more energy from the grid than the reaction produces.
“They proved that with a big laser, if you drive fusion fuel to a certain pressure, you’re going to get more energy out of the fuel than went into the fuel,” Carrie von Muench, Pacific Fusion’s co-founder and COO told me. Indeed, the startup’s founding was partially inspired by the lab’s 2022 breakthrough, which proved fusion ignition is physically possible. “That’s awesome, but not a practical basis for commercial power if you have to store way more energy in the machine than you get into the fuel.”
Other fusion startups, such as Inertia Enterprises and Xcimer Energy, are pursuing the same technical approach as Lawrence Livermore — called inertial confinement fusion — while working to make the lasers dramatically more efficient. Pacific Fusion, however, thinks there’s a cheaper and more effective path, drawing inspiration from another national lab: Sandia.
Like Lawrence Livermore, Sandia National Laboratories built its fusion machine in large part to study nuclear weapons’ performance and impacts without live testing, helping scientists confirm that the country’s aging stockpile would still act as intended. But the Albuquerque, New Mexico-based lab uses a different approach, known as pulsed-power or Z-pinch fusion. It works by sending extremely fast bursts of electric current through a fusion target, generating a magnetic field that pinches and compresses the fuel and heats it enough to trigger a fusion reaction — all while using far less energy than a laser system.
In 2022, Sandia’s Z-machine achieved what was then the second-best fusion performance ever recorded, as measured by what’s known as Lawson’s triple product — the multiple of plasma density, temperature, and confinement time. That result inspired Pacific Fusion to base its reactor on Sandia’s system, scaling it up significantly, with the goal of delivering roughly two to three times more current than the lab’s machine. And while Sandia’s system is a singular, custom built piece of research equipment, Pacific Fusion plans to cut costs by housing its power system in 156 identical, mass-manufacturable modules that can be shipped, assembled, and swapped out for repairs.
The startup raised a whopping $1 billion Series A in 2024, which von Muench told me should be enough to cover the full cost of this demonstration facility, also located in Albuquerque. General Catalyst led the round, with participation from Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison, venture capitalist John Doerr, and others. Investors are doling out the funding in three sets of milestone-based tranches, two of which the company has already unlocked.
The first phase involved building the module’s key components and demonstrating that they met the required specifications, validating the company’s in-house simulation tools, and using those tools to show that its fusion targets could achieve ignition in the demo system. In the second phase, the team assembled and tested a scaled-down prototype module, which delivered 440 gigawatts of peak power. Next up is building a full-scale production module that will produce over a terawatt of peak power.
“Especially for these well-established approaches to fusion — like inertial fusion, which now has a proven path to scientific gain — the question is, how fast can we execute, and how cost-effectively can we execute successive first-of-a-kind projects?” von Mench told me. For Pacific Fusion, breaking ground on the demo reactor is a clear sign the company is on the right path, she told me. “Getting to this milestone was the first real test of our team’s ability to do that.”
The company says it’s unlocked each funding tranche ahead of schedule, and has now gone from founding to groundbreaking in less than three years. It’s betting that cheaper hardware — that is, swapping expensive lasers for electrical switches and capacitors — combined with mass manufacturable components and a supply chain that avoids rare and expensive materials, will also give it an edge in the race to commercial fusion.
Once it completes the demo reactor, the company will begin work on its first commercial power plant, which von Muench told me should come online by the mid-2030s. But in the meantime, this first reactor could provide a nearer-term revenue stream by helping the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration conduct stockpile stewardship research. Pacific Fusion just signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the NNSA that opens the door for the agency to use the startup’s machine for national security purposes.
Pacific Fusion’s tech is uniquely suited for such high-stakes testing. That’s because the company’s process, once scaled up, is designed to produce bursts of fusion energy exceeding 100 megajoules — roughly enough to power over 40 houses for an hour, but released in just a fraction of a second. That’s much more energy than either fusion system at Lawrence Livermore or Sandia produces, and would make Pacific Fusion’s demo plant the world’s first "high-yield" facility, capable of recreating the kind of extreme pressure, heat, and neutron conditions produced by a nuclear detonation. The resulting data could then help the government assess how warheads and other components hold up as they age.
Von Muench views this potential government work as a valuable side benefit of the company’s overall approach, rather than a primary or necessary source of revenue. “But nevertheless, building a diversified and valuable business along the way, I think certainly improves the probability of success and the speed with which you can deliver against the fusion power goal,” she told me.
And for those that still doubt that next decade, we’ll actually see real fusion reactors coming online? “I would just say wait and see,” she told me. “We’re building.
Current conditions: A sleepy Atlantic hurricane season just snapped to attention as two tropical storms started forming near the Caribbean and off Africa’s coast • Southern California is bracing for a week of triple-digit temperatures • The Hawk Fire has forced 42,000 people to evacuate an area near Reno, Nevada.

The United States nearly doubled its pipeline of gas-fired power plant projects in the first half of this year, “but uncertainty persists about how and when this capacity gets built,” the watchdog Global Energy Monitor concluded in a new analysis. The country now has 189 gigawatts of planned gas projects, accounting for one-third of the global total. Completing all the plants would cost more than $647 billion. The U.S. is taking unique approaches to expanding its gas fleet, including building what would be the largest power station in the country as a federally-owned gas plant. As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo points out, however, there’s a big asterisk on these numbers: Many of the projects are still in nascent stages of development and may never be built. “When I went through the group’s data to try to identify the 10 biggest gas projects under development that are tied to data centers, it became clear how slippery the whole picture really is,” she says in her write-up of the report, which I highly recommend checking out.
Electric cooperatives, meanwhile, are lobbying to make building more gas plants even easier. Last week, Utility Dive reported, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association urged the Environmental Protection Agency to exempt more gas plants from emissions rules.
Last month, a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research made the case that “the glass is half full” on federal green spending, finding that President Donald Trump’s landmark tax law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, preserved 74% of the clean energy gains from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. (You should listen to my colleague Robinson Meyer’s podcast conversation with the author, Lily Bermel, from last month.) Now the Natural Resources Defense Council has come out with the bearish counterargument. The environmental group’s new analysis, out this morning, found that the U.S. will lose between 390 gigawatts and 540 gigawatts of new solar, wind, and battery projects that would have been built before OBBBA’s passage.
“I see a glass much more than half empty,” Amanda Levin, the director of policy analysis at the NRDC, wrote in an op-ed for Heatmap. “The repeal of the key IRA tax credits and other Trump administration policies will result in 637 fewer gigawatts in added clean energy over the next 15 years and cost the average American household $4,500.”
One popular theory of Trump’s motivation for joining Israel in launching a war against Iran is that halting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz would demonstrate China’s vulnerability as a top importer of foreign fossil fuels and America’s strength as the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas. But China’s actual response proved to be robust. In addition to ramping up domestic production of its own limited reserves of fossil fuels, Beijing deployed more renewables and nuclear reactors, electrified things that once ran on oil or gas, and made real progress on fuels such as hydrogen and its derivatives. Between that and China’s own carbon-cutting goals, last year was likely the peak of the country’s demand for oil, according to the state oil company Sinopec. In an earnings call Monday in Hong Kong, Sinopec Chairman Hou Qijun said demand had already crested, two years earlier than the 2027 peak the company had previously forecast, according to Bloomberg. Keep in mind that only means oil demand is no longer growing. The Chinese economy isn’t exactly on a GLP-1 treatment for crude just yet. In fact, Reuters noted that, on the call, Sinopec said it was now eyeing Brazil and Africa as new sources of oil imports. That’s probably partly why, as I told you last week, American oil giants are setting sights on Africa.
In the meantime, the People’s Republic may finally be sorting out carbon capture and storage. Last week, GD Power’s Jinjie Company issued a tender for engineering design of its 4 million tons per year full-sized CCS project for coal power stations. The project, according to the China Hydrogen Bullet, “is described as the world’s first full-flue-gas carbon capture facility at a coal-fired power plant.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Nearly two weeks after a powerful storm took out power for roughly 800,000 households in one of America’s most important industrial clusters, as many as 30,000 in northwest Indiana remained without electricity this past weekend. “My people are being overlooked,” Myles Tolliver, a Gary councilman whose family decamped to Chicago while the power was out, told The New York Times. “Our families are sitting in the dark. We don’t need any more excuses. We need the lights on.” By Monday evening, more than 8,300 households and businesses remained disconnected from the grid, according to data on PowerOutage.us, a tracker website.
The worst outage in the U.S. as of Monday night was in Shelby County, in the southwesternmost corner of Tennessee, where storms knocked out the power for nearly 32,000 households and businesses. Behind that was Washoe County, on the western flank of Nevada, where the aforementioned Hawk Fire damaged power lines.
The Trump administration is working with the British startup Core Power to help build a fleet of nuclear-powered merchant vessels to loosen China’s tightening grip over commercial shipbuilding. In an interview Monday with the Financial Times, U.S. Maritime Administration chief Stephen Carmel announced a public-private partnership agreement with Core Power in a bid to speed up commercialization of nuclear propulsion for ships. “We are not going to beat China by being a cheaper version of China. They have mastered the art of being cheap,” Carmel said. “The way we win in all this is to change the terms of the competition to something that is more favourable to us. So, we don’t compete on trying to be cheap. We compete on technology … and nuclear technology is something we are really good at.”
Vietnam just took a big step toward building its nuclear power station. On Monday, NucNet reported that the fast-growing Southeast Asian nation’s parliament had approved plans for its first commercial nuclear plant, a two-reactor, 2.4-gigawatt plant built by Russia. Hanoi is looking beyond just atomic energy to supplement its surging demand for power. The municipal government in Ho Chi Minh City, the nation’s largest metropolis, is reviewing a feasibility study into developing up to 6 gigawatts of offshore wind, according to offshoreWIND.biz.
The Trump administration fast-tracked a Rare Earth Resources’ plan for an open-pit mine in Wyoming to extract rare earth minerals. Even in a deep-red state that mines more coal than any other in the U.S., the project is getting pushback. “It was kind of hush-hush, in my opinion, as far as not much word about it around Sundance,” Sundance resident Justin Johnson told WyoFile. “All of a sudden, in July when it came to our attention, it’s like, ‘Holy cow. We got little time before the federal deadline to get our comments and concerns to the Forest Service … You would think there’d be a lot more time for the actual owners of public land — the citizens of the U.S. — to have a response to what’s going on.”
A new report from Global Energy Monitor shows just how rapidly the U.S. is expanding its fleet.
The race to build data centers is driving a natural gas boom in the U.S. power sector unlike any seen before. According to Global Energy Monitor, a group that tracks energy infrastructure around the world, the amount of natural gas generation proposed to power data centers in the U.S. doubled in just six months, from January to July.
In a report released Tuesday, the nonprofit said it counted 189 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity that has either been announced, entered the pre-construction phase, or come under construction, up from 97 gigawatts at the end of last year. That count includes plants proposed by utilities to meet demand from data centers, as well as off-grid projects that companies are building to power data centers directly.
And that’s not even the full scale of what’s in the pipeline. In total, taking into account additional planned natural gas-fired power plants that are not necessarily tied to data center projects, the U.S. has 378 gigawatts of generation capacity under development, the report found. For reference, the country had 512 gigawatts of natural gas generation capacity operating as of the end of last year.
While many of the projects included in the Global Energy Monitor's data are in early stages and may not materialize, the authors count 52 gigawatts that are already under construction. That’s a 76% increase compared to last year, according to the report, and double the amount under construction in China, making the U.S. the top builder of natural gas plants in the world.
The closest historical precedent to this was in the early 2000s, when the U.S. added more than 150 gigawatts of natural gas power plants in just four years. The key differences this time are the momentous size of the proposed plants and the fact that so many of them are foregoing electric grid connections. Most of the plants built during that earlier period also used a more efficient design known as combined cycle, which uses the waste heat from gas combustion to power additional steam turbines. Due to supply chain constraints, however, about a quarter of the planned natural gas plants related to data center development are installing combustion engines, which are dirtier and less fuel efficient but easier to come by.
“From a climate perspective, there is definitely a risk that it locks in emissions from these resources and creates long term demand for gas as a fuel,” Brendan Pierpont, the director of electricity at the research firm Energy Innovation, told me. The projects also raise affordability concerns, he said, whether they are on the grid or not, as the increased demand for gas could raise gas prices for all users of the fuel.
Because so many of these projects are speculative, it’s difficult to get more specific about what it all means for U.S. electricity consumers, let alone emissions and climate change. Last week, Bloomberg News estimated that 126 gigawatts of planned natural gas projects tied to data centers would increase power sector emissions by at least 20% compared to 2025 levels were it all to be built. That estimate did not take into account the fact that the projects will be built amid other changes in the U.S. grid mix, however. More than 200 gigawatts of solar projects and nearly 30 gigawatts of onshore and offshore wind capacity spurred by the expiring clean energy tax credits are working their way through the development pipeline and could come online by around 2030. Battery energy storage is also surging.
Here’s another data point to consider: A recent report by the Rhodium Group modeled changes in U.S. emissions through 2040 and found that power sector emissions could decrease by 24% to 48% given current policy, energy, and technology trends. This is a significantly worse outcome than what the group found two years ago, when the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits were in effect; then, emissions from the power sector were set to decline by at least 42% by 2035, according to Rhodium modeling.
Both the new Rhodium report and the 2024 version take into account surging electricity demand driven by AI data centers, but neither considers the buildout of off-grid natural gas plants. Those would make the outlook “demonstrably worse” emissions-wise, Ben King, one of the authors, told me. The grid routes power when and where it’s needed, prioritizing the least-cost generation, King explained, whereas these off-grid plants will serve just one customer, whether it needs their full capacity or not.
It’s also important to take the Global Energy Monitor numbers with a grain of salt. Many of the projects haven’t even applied for permits, named a start year, or found an offtaker for the energy. Off-grid projects will need air and water permits from state governments, while on-grid projects may need additional approvals from utility regulators. Many will also need pipelines to deliver the gas, requiring additional approvals.
When I went through the data to try to identify the 10 biggest gas projects under development that are tied to data centers, it became clear how slippery the whole picture really is. As I looked up each project to verify the details, I found several that had upgraded or downgraded their advertised size multiple times since they were announced. Some were officially permitted for a smaller amount of generation but claimed they would eventually double or even triple that amount when the project is complete. Some were speculative to the point of not even having an advertised location.
Below I've compiled the 10 biggest projects according to their developers' stated aspirations. Many of the projects on the list do not yet have customers for their energy, while a number of megaprojects that didn’t make the cut do. For example, Chevron is building the Kilby power plant, a nearly 2.7-gigawatt off-grid natural gas plant in Texas, to serve a Microsoft data center. There are also large data center projects that didn't make the list because they are tied to more geographically distributed gas plants. Meta, for example, is working with the utility Entergy to bring more than 5-gigawatts of natural gas capacity online scattered across multiple sites in Louisiana to power its massive Hyperion project.
Still, viewed together, these projects provide a picture of what kind of progress the developers with the biggest natural gas plans are making so far.
Potential size: 11 gigawatts
Location: Amarillo, Texas
Developer: Fermi America
Grid connection: No
Customer: TensorWave, a cloud company, has agreed to buy 222 megawatts from the site.
Fermi has obtained state air permits for 6 gigawatts and submitted an application for five more. Fermi also recently enlisted a partner, Hillcore Energy, to build and operate 2.6 gigawatts of the total.
Potential size: 9.2 gigawatts
Location: Piketon, Ohio
Developer: SB Energy, backed by the U.S. government
Grid connection: According to the Department of Energy, it will “connect to the local grid,” i.e. PJM Interconnection
Customer: OpenAI
No air permits have been filed. Because the project is partially on federal land, it will have to undergo federal environmental review. The Trump administration has already decided to fast track permitting for the project, however, and expects to complete it by Christmas.
Potential size: 9 gigawatts
Location: Box Elder County, Utah
Developer: Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority and investor Kevin O’Leary
Grid connection: No
Customer: Unknown
Box County approved two resolutions in support of the project in May. It faces intense local opposition. The developers reached an agreement with Utah Governor Spencer Cox in May to cap Phase I of the project at 1.5 gigawatts.
Potential size: “8+” gigawatts, though the initial phase is much smaller
Location: Point Pleasant, West Virginia
Developer: Nscale
Grid connection: No
Customer: Microsoft agreed to offtake just over 1.3 gigawatts of compute
Nscale’s air permit application for a roughly 2.2-gigawatt natural gas power station is pending. The company says it has “a clear expansion path to 8GW+ as workload demand grows.”
Potential size: about 7.7 gigawatts
Location: Fort Stockton, Texas
Developer: Pacifico Energy
Grid connection: No
Customer: Amazon
The state approved Pacifico’s air permit for 7.65 gigawatts in January. The site is under construction.
Potential size: More than 7 gigawatts
Location: Hubbard, Texas
Developer: Nexus Data Centers
Grid connection: No
Customer: Anthropic
Nexus’ air permit application is pending. The permit’s list of natural gas turbines and engines amount to more than 7 gigawatts of generation, however a July Wall Street Journal article about a potential financing deal for the project noted that the site would be capable of generating just 1.6 gigawatts. The deal has not yet been confirmed.
Potential size: 5.2 gigawatts
Location: Bethel, Texas
Developer: NextEra
Grid connection: Unknown
Customer: Unknown
The planned facility is part of a trade deal between the Trump administration and Japan. On August 12, NextEra executed agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the government of Japan to fund the development and operation of the project.
Potential size: 5 gigawatts
Location: Midland County, Texas
Developer: FO Permian Partners/HiVolt Energy
Grid connection: No
Customer: Unknown
Highly speculative. The developers haven’t made any permit filings that I was able to find. FO Permian’s website says that Phase I will be just 150 megawatts, but that the site has “5GW+ of dedicated gas supply.”
Potential size: 4.4 gigawatts
Location: Homer City, Pennsylvania
Developer: Knighthead Capital Management
Grid connection: Developer says it “will have capacity to serve multiple large data center customers and supply power to thousands of homes on the local grid.”
Customer: Amazon is in talks
Air permits were approved in November. Construction is underway.
Potential size: 4.3 gigawatts
Location: Southwest Pennsylvania (precise location undisclosed)
Developer: NextEra
Grid connection: According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, it will connect to PJM
Customer: Unknown
The project is part of the same trade deal with Japan as the NextEra project in Bethel, Texas.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct Energy Innovation’s tax status.