You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:

It is the hottest summer in recorded history. (It is also possibly the coolest summer of the rest of our lives.) Records are falling left and right, and the numbers from this summer are nothing short of staggering. Here are some that show just how hot it’s been this summer.
(A fair word of warning before we jump into superlatives: Just because these temperatures are the highest humans have ever seen does not mean they’re the highest ever.)
150 million: The approximate number of people who were under heat alerts as of Thursday.
62.78 degrees Fahrenheit: The average temperature on Earth on July 6 — the hottest ever recorded.
128 degrees Fahrenheit: The high in Death Valley on July 17, one of the highest temperatures ever recorded accurately there — or in the history of the planet.
126 degrees: The temperature in a Xinjiang, China township, the hottest recorded in the country’s history.
90 degrees: The high in Fairbanks, Alaska, on Monday.
44 percent: The portion of the world’s oceans that are experiencing heat waves, with temperatures 9 to 18 degrees above normal off the coast of Newfoundland .
249: How many people have died in Mexico due to heat over the last four months, according to the country’s Ministry of Health.
46: How many days in a row Miami’s heat index sat above 100 before the first day it stayed in the double-digits.
28: How many days Phoenix has recorded a high temperature above 110 degrees, shattering the record of 18 days set in 1974.
1: The number of 24/7 cooling centers open in Phoenix.
532: How many months in a row global temperatures have sat above the 20th-century average.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It’s amazing what you can do with a repurposed car engine.
Venture capitalists love a system that fits inside a shipping container. But that kind of modularity has been hard to pull off in the low-carbon fuels industry, where producers have generally remained yoked to the prevailing wisdom of economies of scale as the key to profitability. That’s led to enormous, capital-intensive facilities packed with complex, custom-built machinery churning out fuels and chemicals like hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
But Massachusetts-based startup Emvolon thinks it can upend this model with its compact, prefabricated chemical plants powered by the likes of repurposed car engines. Its modular systems convert methane captured from landfills and other sources into energy-dense liquid methanol on-site, making it easier to transport to customers. On Tuesday, the company announced $22 million in new funding — an undisclosed mix of Series A equity and non-dilutive federal and state grants — to build its first commercial-scale system at a landfill near Houston, in partnership with biogas company Montauk Renewables.
The approach aims to solve a persistent logistics problem. Economics dictate that commodity producers typically locate near a high-volume source of feedstock or a pipeline that can deliver it. But for captured methane — a potential feedstock for lower-carbon fuels, chemicals, and fertilizers — that’s often not an option. The potent greenhouse gas escapes from geographically dispersed landfills, farms, and wastewater treatment plants, many of which are too small to support a large gas-to-liquids facility and too far from existing pipelines. Trucking the gas to a centralized plant is generally prohibitively expensive, often leaving operators to either flare it or let it escape unabated.
“We are really kind of burning money, creating a lot of emissions when we could be capturing this and making high-value products,” Emmanuel Kasseris, Emvolon’s CEO, told me in an August conversation about the company’s technology, which it spun out of MIT.
“We really try to flip the script completely,” Kasseris said of the startup’s modular approach. Rather than one large facility, the company aims to produce “a few tons to maybe tens of tons per day” of methanol for the $40 billion global market. For comparison, conventional gas-to-liquid facilities can produce hundreds of times more product daily.
Emvolon’s technology is “engine agnostic,” running on repurposed engines from used cars and diesel generators as well as new builds modified for the startup’s purposes. The engines take in captured methane from landfills, farms, or gas-flaring sites. But instead of burning the fuel completely like a standard combustion engine, Emvolon limits the oxygen supply, triggering only partial combustion of the methane to produce a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide known as syngas. The company then feeds that mixture into a conventional reactor, where a catalyst converts it into liquid methanol that can be shipped in standard tanker trucks.
The process requires relatively few modifications to standard internal combustion engines, Kasseris told me, thereby bringing the economics of mass production to small-scale chemical production. “You’re taking something that comes from an assembly line, you repurpose it — changing sensors, controls, simple things that require a lot of [intellectual property] but are not expensive — and you build the plant around it,” he explained. The goal is to offer customers a four-year payback period sans low-carbon fuel subsidies.
Emvolon is now attempting to push that logic a step further. For the second stage of the conversion process, the company is working to swap out its conventional reactor with another modified engine in order to “replace even more one-off process equipment” with mass-produced components. The Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy awarded Emvolon a $2.3 million grant to develop this part of its system.
But the startup doesn’t need to have this additional piece of technology dialed in to start securing customers. In August, global commodities merchant Freepoint Commodities signed on as the startup’s primary buyer, securing priority rights to purchase at least $450 million worth of Emvolon’s biomethanol for use across maritime shipping, aviation, heavy transport, and specialty chemicals. The agreement also gives Freepoint priority rights to invest in or lend to future Emvolon projects, a provision Kasseris described as the anchor for the startup’s project financing platform.
The company’s first commercial projects are designed to produce up to 50,000 metric tons of biomethanol annually across multiple sites, with the Freepoint agreement structured to scale that output to 300,000 metric tons per year. Because each plant should cost only “a few million dollars,” Kasseris said, the company can spread out its risk rather than bet on “the half a billion dollar e-fuels plant” common to the alternative fuels industry. If one plant runs into trouble, the setback should be manageable, and the company can keep churning out and deploying its modular units elsewhere.
“This is great for scaling,” Kasseris told me. “It’s just very different. It’s just more boxes.”
Most Americans still say they would oppose a data center being built near where they live, but the facilities’ standing has improved among Republicans, a new Heatmap Pro poll finds.
The American public’s backlash against data centers may finally be starting to slow down, although the facilities remain staggeringly unpopular, a new poll finds.
Seventy-one percent of Americans said they would oppose a data center being built near where they live, according to a new Heatmap Pro poll conducted by Embold Research earlier this month.
That is an abysmal finding for technology companies and would-be developers of the computing facilities. But it actually represents an improvement from previous polling, and it suggests one of the fastest shifts in public opinion in recent memory may be tapering off.
That shift has been swift. As recently as September of last year, about 43% of Americans said they would support a data center being built near where they live, and Americans broadly appeared to be evenly split on the infrastructure, according to Heatmap Pro polling. Eleven months later, 75% of Americans told the same poll that they would oppose a nearby data center — a 32 point shift. That monumental turnaround helped make data centers a defining issue in this election cycle.
That backlash has transformed the economics of the data center boom, the largest infrastructure buildout in recent U.S. history. The overwhelming majority of data center projects now face some degree of community opposition, Heatmap Pro reporting suggests. More than $260 billion in proposed data centers have been canceled this year after meeting local opposition. The artificial intelligence company Anthropic even flagged the infrastructure slowdown on Monday when it filed for its initial public offering, which is widely expected to be among the largest ever.
Now our new survey shows that Americans’ rejection of the enormous computing facilities may itself be slowing. The small observed drop, which only slightly exceeds the survey’s margin of error, was driven by a four-point decline in the share of Americans who said they would “strongly oppose” the technology.

While Americans of all parties improved their view of data centers, the change was most pronounced among Republicans. In August, 23% of GOP voters said that they would support a data center being built near where they live. In the new poll, conducted after weeks of favorable campaigning by President Trump, 34% of Republicans said they would support a data center slated for their area, while the share of Republicans who said they would oppose it fell from 66% to 58%. Data centers’ standing among independents improved by nine points during the same period.
Democrats remain largely unified against the infrastructure, and data centers’ improvement among that group was just outside the margin of error.
While Americans of every age, race, gender, and partisan ID remain more opposed to local data center development than in favor of it, their standing has also improved among men since the summer. In August, 21% of men said they would support a data center being built near where they live. Now, 28% of men would support one.
Will America be the land of opportunity for AtkinsRéalis’ tried-and-true CANDU?
Unruffled by President Trump’s taunts of turning Canada into the 51st state, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed to regain leverage over Washington by remaking his nation as an “energy superpower.” Instead of building pipelines from the oil fields of Alberta to American refineries, Ottawa will run them to its West Coast ports to sell crude directly to Asia. Rather than importing electricity from offshore wind farms in the American Northeast, Nova Scotia will build its own turbines and sell the power back to energy-starved New England as the Trump administration thwarts the region’s own buildout.
But Canada’s path to reviving its nuclear industry may run — counterintuitively — through the United States.
Last week, Montreal-based AtkinsRéalis inked a deal with utility Hoosier Energy and the Indiana government to explore building up to 6 gigawatts of reactors in the state. The agreement is only a memorandum of understanding to kick off a study examining potential sites across the state. But it marks the first real effort to export Canada’s unique pressurized heavy-water reactors, called CANDUs, to the U.S., and highlights how America’s domestic nuclear industry has atrophied to the point that foreign developers of large-scale units are racing to establish a beachhead in the world’s largest atomic power market.
“If the Americans had created the CANDU, everyone in the world would know about it,” Joe St. Julian, the American-born president of AtkinsRéalis, told me. “There’s just a cultural difference in the way that the Canadians go about things and the way the Americans do.”
Pronounced “CAN-do,” the upbeat acronym stands for Canada Deuterium Uranium and evokes the government’s post-war, can-do spirit, mustered to help protect its sovereignty during the bipolarity of the Cold War. Developed in the 1950s by Canadian government scientists and now used across the country’s entire nuclear fleet, CANDUs rely on deuterium, a version of hydrogen with an extra neutron, as their “heavy water” coolant to sustain their chains of split atoms. Uranium powers virtually all commercial nuclear reactors, but CANDUs are distinct in that they can run on the raw stuff, rather than enriched uranium. That’s their real advantage: By forgoing the costly and heavily scrutinized enrichment process, Canada can tap its vast resources of mined uranium without facing the bottleneck of the expensive enrichment facilities or attracting the intensive oversight of global regulators monitoring for the production of atomic weapons.
The 17 reactors that provide 15% of Canada’s electricity today are all CANDUs. India’s fleet largely borrowed the technology, and Argentina, China, Romania, and South Korea have all imported their own CANDUs. But the buildout largely stopped in the last century. Canada built its last CANDU in Romania in 2007. The last Canadian CANDU — Unit 4 of the Darlington nuclear plant in Ontario — came online in 1993.
Two years ago, Canada sought to restart its reactor buildout by commissioning its first American-designed unit. Construction began last year on the world’s first BWRX-300, a small modular reactor that uses enriched uranium as fuel. The U.S. plans to build the second version of the same reactor at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Clinch River site. Whether it can deliver the cost savings SMRs promise remains an open question, given that nuclear developers have historically improved economics by making reactors bigger, not smaller.
But Chris Keefer, a Toronto physician-cum-nuclear advocate who hosts the in-depth energy podcast Decouple, told me he believes Canada’s real error is in benching the CANDU. While Ontario’s government-owned utility “got their backs slapped endlessly for having the courage to go first” in building the inaugural SMR on the continent, “they’re idiots to be investing $21 billion of Canadian ratepayers’ money to prop up an American company with American technology,” he said, colorfully characterizing the move as a massive error and “the result of dis-coordinated decision-making.” (Converted from loonies to U.S. dollars, that figure is about $14.9 billion.)
While Keefer added that he opposes the trade war between Washington and Ottawa, he also recognizes it as a potential opening. “Part of me loves it and this deglobalization moment we’re in, where strategic autonomy and national interest matter,” he said.
The Carney administration has yet to set clear rules on what kind of reactor technology it will support domestically, but it could, in theory, limit access to federal subsidies for provinces and utilities that opt for non-CANDU technologies. For now, however, there appears to be quiet agreement between the U.S. and Canada on bringing the technology south. St. Julian said the Canadian Ministry of Energy has been “very supportive” in talks about providing financing for CANDU exports to the U.S. AtkinsRéalis is also in talks with the U.S. Department of Energy, though a source familiar with that agency’s thinking cast doubt over the possibility that the Trump administration would ultimately fund a Canadian project in the U.S.
None of this was a part of AtkinsRéalis’ long game, St. Julian told me. “The U.S. had four or five of its own reactor technologies,” he said. “Why would it build a foreign technology?” But shortly after Trump returned to office, “We looked at it and realized the U.S. is down to a single large reactor technology: Westinghouse. The other three or four are no longer in business.”
That was the opening AtkinsRéalis needed. “The U.S. made clear it had the aspiration to build 300 new nuclear power stations,” St. Julian went on. “Between Westinghouse and new technologies coming online with SMRs, we said they couldn’t possibly reach their aspiration no matter how optimistic they are about the capacity and supply chain of first-of-a-kind technologies.”
So the company applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval of the CANDU. In June, AtkinsRéalis sent the regulator a formal heads-up about its plans to file an application this past summer, and it expects to complete its second topical report for the NRC by the end of this month.
The CANDUs aren’t the only foreign reactors making a play in the U.S., though. Last month, South Korea unveiled a deal with the Trump administration to fund construction of up to six AP1000s and two APR1400s.
The CANDU does have some drawbacks that the APR1400 doesn’t. The same characteristics that let its reactors sustain fission using raw uranium also cause wear and tear that requires a significant refurbishment every 35 years. (Canada is already funding a campaign of repairs domestically.) And while a typical refueling outage for a light water reactor lasts up to two months and renovations ahead of a relicensing can take up to a year, the refurbishment process for a CANDU can take the unit offline for two years or more.
AtkinsRéalis declined to comment on its internal estimates of the cost of such a refurbishment, which is — among industry experts — widely criticized as costly. But St. Julian said the company guarantees at least two refurbishments in a CANDU’s lifetime, giving each unit a 105-year lifespan. Amortizing the costs over more than a century of electricity production, not to mention the company’s experience building units all over the world, means a CANDU is “a lot less expensive” than rival technologies, he said.
“The APR1400’s biggest advantage is the Korean industrial ecosystem,” Nana Menya Ayensu, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who worked on energy policy in the Biden White House, told me. “But the CANDU has lots of advantages that are specific to the technology in terms of not needing enriched fuel.”
Keefer highlighted another upside he’s acutely aware of due to his day job as an emergency-room doctor: CANDUs are particularly well-suited to batch-producing “enormous amounts” of medical isotopes, such as cobalt-60, used in cancer chemotherapy and the sterilization of surgical instruments, among other uses.
The technology is certainly attracting attention. Last month, Argentina and Romania agreed to work together on more CANDU projects. Weeks later, as I reported, Poland’s state-backed nuclear developer approved a tender for a second nuclear power station, for which it’s considering the CANDU. Last week, Turkey signed an agreement with Carney to cooperate on civilian nuclear energy, putting the CANDU in contention for the country’s second atomic power station.
And earlier this month, Atlas Atomics, a startup backed by Ohio’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, raised $400 million in a Series A to commercialize its own pressurized heavy water reactor, in what Keefer dubbed in his newsletter the “AmeriCANDU.”
St. Julian said the new competition shows the unique value of the CANDU. “The difference is, we’ve been doing it for 70 years, and we spent tens of millions of dollars to perfect this technology; they’re just starting,” he said. Then he cracked a half smile. “They have the benefit of being a second movement,” he added. “But, man, we have a big head start.”