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 Oscar-winner and El Capitan free solo-er talks to Heatmap about solar panels, fatherhood, and his new docuseries, Arctic Ascent.

In 2017, rock climber Alex Honnold went on Jimmy Kimmel Live! to promote Free Solo, the then-new documentary about his unassisted climb of Yosemite’s El Capitan. “Is there anything bigger than that?” Kimmel prompted as a closing question.
“I mean, there are technically some bigger walls in the world,” Honnold said. “But they’re in very remote places — like Greenland.”
Five years and an Oscar later, Honnold was scrambling off a boat at the base of Ingmikortilaq, a crumbly sea cliff that towers nearly 1,000 feet higher than El Cap over an iceberg-ridden fjord in eastern Greenland. His intended first ascent was the culmination of a six-week adventure across ice fields and glaciers.
This time, Honnold wasn’t alone. The Greenland expedition included two other legendary climbers, Hazel Findlay and Mikey Schaefer, as well as Aldo Kane, who provided safety and technical support; Adam Kjeldsen, a Greenlandic guide; and perhaps most surprisingly, Heïdi Sevestre, a French glaciologist who helped set up or run 16 different studies to collect data for scientists around the world.
The team’s adventure is captured in Arctic Ascent with Alex Honnold, a three-part docuseries that premieres on Hulu and Disney+ on February 5. Ahead of its release, I spoke separately with Honnold and Sevestre about the expedition, the importance of climate science, and their respective climbs. (While Sevestre, previously a non-climber, didn’t attempt Ingmikortilaq, she did scale a 1,500-foot rock face known as the Pool Wall while drilling rock cores for samples.) Our conversations have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Unlike a lot of other outdoor sports like mountaineering or skiing or even surfing, rock climbing doesn’t seem as obviously imperiled by climate change. How did this become the cause you wanted to devote your time and money to?
Oh, I think climbing is more imperiled by climate change than most other sports. I mean, you’re right that maybe it’s not as impactful as to skiing, but it’s way more impactful than almost every other sport.
You’re still in the mountains. Wildfire smoke every summer — that’s now a thing that just didn’t exist when I was growing up climbing. Even if you’re just rock climbing, you’re always approaching in the mountains. Nowadays, most couloirs [chutes between rocks that might typically fill with snow in the winter] have melted out. Stable snow fields that have existed for generations are now melted out. Piles of teetering rubble are falling down mountainsides, and also a lot of routes are just less safe. The mountainsides themselves are collapsing, like the Aiguille du Midi gondola in Chamonix. Which, actually — one of the things we were installing in Greenland were temperature sensors on one of the cliffs, related to studying how rocks thaw out, what happens when permafrost melts. I would say that climate change is still incredibly relevant for us.
Your way into climate was through your climbing, then?
A big part of my environmental awareness in general is because of the experiences I’ve had outdoors as a climber. But long before [the Greenland expedition], I started a foundation in 2012 where I’ve been supporting community solar projects around the world and caring about the transition to renewables. I’ve cared about climate change forever. I think this was just the first opportunity to do it on mainstream television.
I saw that Arctic Ascent purchased carbon credits to compensate for production emissions. I was hoping you could talk about that decision, and how else you might have minimized your impact on the expedition, since I don’t think people are aware of how energy intensive film and TV productions can be.
In this case, other than the obvious expense of all of our flights getting to Greenland, we had a relatively low carbon footprint because we were camping the whole time. I think you’re right that a lot of television is kind of insane when you have all the RVs and everyone’s in their own thing and there’s hair and makeup and it’s just crazy with, like, a million cameras. In this case, it was basically a bunch of people camping on a glacier for six weeks, so it’s not quite the same as a Hollywood set.
But yeah, I think the idea to purchase offsets was the obvious bare minimum for a project like this. If you’re going to be doing a whole story around sea level rise, you have to do something.
The Honnold Foundation focuses on bringing solar panels to vulnerable communities, but these are fairly small projects compared to the expansive solar farms we might more traditionally think of. Why did you choose to focus your time on something that might seem, at least on paper, to be of a smaller scale than, say, electrifying the grid?
It’s a totally fair question. In 2012, it wasn’t totally clear that the world was transitioning to renewables at all. It seemed like it was inevitable, but you’re never really sure — you know, back then people were into hydrogen and you’re like, “Oh, maybe we’re going to have hydrogen cars, or maybe battery electric really takes off,” blah, blah, blah. Anyway, now it seems totally clear that the world is transitioning to renewables. Within some timeframe, like 20 to 50 years, the world will be 100% renewable.
The thing is, we currently live in a world where something like a billion people don’t have access to power, and transitioning to renewables will still leave us in a world where a billion people don’t have access to power. [Editor’s note: The number of people living without electricity today is actually closer to 760 million.] As the system changes, there are so many people who are left behind. What the Honnold Foundation tries to do is find that sweet spot in helping with the transition, helping the people who are being left behind.
Part of that is just by necessity — I’m a professional rock climber, I’m not a tech billionaire. So the small-scale grants just make more sense to some extent, but they also have the biggest impact on human lives because when you do these small-scale projects, you can fundamentally change the way people live. That’s a huge impact.
I live in Las Vegas, and you see huge solar farms around the desert. It’s great; the grid is going 100% renewable. I’m into that. But realistically, the only difference it makes in most people’s lives is maybe a small change in their utility rate. Really, the people that benefit are the utility shareholders — it’s some Warren Buffett-owned utility in my case, NV Energy. That really isn’t that inspiring. This is my long rant to say that the Honnold Foundation is trying to help the humans who need it the most.
Did you get a chance to use solar panels on the Greenland expedition?
On this trip, no, because they were running a generator for production and it was charging, like, 50 batteries.
It’s funny because we did an expedition in Antarctica where we made a little climbing film as well. And on that trip, they planned to take a generator and then somebody just forgot the fuel. So we got there and we were like, “Oh, no,” and we wound up doing the whole trip off solar and it totally worked.
This was your first expedition since becoming a father. You’ve worked on the climate cause for a long time now, but I’m curious if your perspective has changed at all since your daughter June joined your family — and I know you have another daughter on the way!
Yeah, soon! No, I don’t think my perspective has changed too much. I’ve always cared about these kinds of issues. The bigger change is in the way that I spend my time. Having a family forces me to be a little bit tighter about the choices that I’m making, what expeditions I choose to go on. That makes a trip like this even more worthwhile, where you get to do great climbing and there’s a real purpose behind it, and you get to share important knowledge about things that matter.
Can you tell me a little more about the decision to bring Heïdi on board? I heard her version of the story earlier this week but I’m curious about how you found her and roped her in.
Isn’t she so amazing?
She was delightful!
That’s the thing with Heïdi. Because when you spend time with her, she just makes you care about about ice. And I don’t even like ice. It’s not my thing; I like rocks. But she made me much more knowledgeable and much more caring about that type of world.
Do you consider yourself an optimist when it comes to climate change?
I think so, which is weird because I’m optimistic despite all the data to the contrary. I understand the predictions, but there’s so much to gain. So far it’s been 20 years that I’ve been reading environmental nonfiction and we haven’t really chosen to make anything of this opportunity, but we still have this incredible opportunity to build a better world to live in, a cleaner world. We can still choose that at any point. And I just keep thinking that at some point, we’re going to choose it. You can’t keep ignoring the obvious thing forever.
How did you get involved in the Arctic Ascent expedition?
This was an absolute dream come true for me — I felt extremely lucky to get a call from the team. It is extremely challenging to go to that one remote location, one of the least studied places on Earth. But Alex, as you know, is a firm believer in the scientific work. The planets really aligned. It took about a year prior to the expedition to design the work we could do with boots on the ground.
I wanted to know what it was like to put together scientific objectives for an expedition like this. It’s a little bit unconventional because there’s a film crew and there was climbing involved.
I think it was extremely brave and extremely daring of the entire team to have the willingness to invite the scientists on board. Because not only did we have the best climbers in the world climbing in a very challenging and hostile environment, we’re also filming a series of documentaries and we have to do some of the very best possible science. So it’s not that easy! But what we did is, we took it step by step. We contacted all the universities and labs and institutions interested in data from this part of the world — and also interested in training me on how to collect this data. Because I really felt — it’s what I was thinking the whole time — I really felt like I was an astronaut on the ISS. I was the only one, and I had to do the best possible work.
We ended up with 16 different protocols to do on this expedition, so it was really major. And, you know, we worked with NASA, we worked with research institutes in Denmark, the University of Buffalo, and the University of Kansas, for example. So it was challenging but a dream come true to be trusted by the scientists.
Your first big polar expedition was actually to Greenland, back in 2011. Had you been back to the island between that research trip and this one?
I had spent a tiny bit of time — not so far in the field as East Greenland, but around the coastlines. But what I was doing there was mostly science communication with people who wanted to learn about the impacts of climate change on the Greenland ice sheets. So I hadn’t been on a big research expedition to Greenland since 2011. And the changes were absolutely massive.
That was going to be my question!
The Arctic is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth. Everything that’s taking place in Greenland is impacting the rest of the world, so I felt that we had a duty and a mission — on top of climbing these incredible monoliths, we actually had to bring something back to society.
In the series, you talk about how remote and understudied East Greenland is by climate scientists. But during the expedition, you were being assisted by support helicopters and by boats. So why aren’t expeditions like this one happening all the time? Is it an issue of funding or a lack of scientific interest in this particular region?
It’s crazy to think of how little data we have from the ground [in East Greenland]. We have satellites — we have as many satellites as we want. But it is very tricky to get there. What you have to understand about this place is that for 10 months of the year, there is sea ice blocking access to this field. Ten months of the year! So the rest of the year — yes, we can access by plane, we can access by boat, but it’s very expensive.
What was great about this project is that we had in mind, “How can we lower our carbon footprint?” This is why, for example, we worked with fishermen who had boats from a nearby village at the entrance of the field. It was very important for us to use local means of transportation. Of course, we had to use helicopters every now and then, because there was no other way. But it’s remote, it’s expensive, and on top of everything, it is extremely hostile.
Oh my gosh, the bashing you get when you go there! This is something that we really wanted to show in the series — how powerful nature can be. And climate change is accelerating and making these changes even more violent. So I think it’s important to show that when nature starts to be a bit destabilized, it can get very angry.
There was a paper in Nature that came out earlier this month that said nearly every glacier in Greenland has thinned or retreated over the past few decades. In the series, there’s a bit of good news, which is that the Daugaard-Jensen Glacier is a little bit more stable than you were anticipating. Do you have any insight into why that might be?
What’s so great is, it keeps part of the mystery! I like that we still don’t totally understand what’s taking place.
The scientists we’ve been working with have told us — this is a bit technical — but it has to do with the shape of the bedrock. It seems that the glacier is resting on a little ridge that might be holding everything together. This might be the reason why the glacier is still stable; also, this part of Greenland still receives a lot of snow.
But we’ve seen some cracks in this perfect picture. You know, the NASA float [that we launched on the expedition] has told us that the temperature of the water in the fjords is increasing. So it’s not all perfect. The environment around it is definitely changing, but it seems that it has some advantages.
Were there any findings from the expedition that you are particularly excited about?
All of them! But science takes a very long time, so at the moment, we’re still waiting on a lot of the results from these different protocols. But what I want to share is something that is very simple: Greenland holds a lot of ice, and if we lose the ice, it means 6 to 7 meters of sea-level rise. As you saw in the paper that was published by Nature, at the moment, Greenland is losing 30 million tons of ice per hour. What is crucial to understand is that every action we conduct back home to reduce our carbon footprints and to preserve our climate helps Greenland and helps our collective future. All this data will help us to prepare for the things to come.
Last question: Have you taken up rock climbing?
I’ll be honest: no. I think I’m a bit traumatized in a good way. I think I needed a minute to recover. But I really want to start climbing again — now, with the launch of this series, I know that it’ll be my mission for this year. Otherwise, I think Alex and Hazel will never forgive me.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Reflections on a rock ’n’ roll road trip.
I expected touring the whole country with my rock band could change me. I didn’t think it would shatter my understanding of the U.S. energy transition.
First, a quick word about myself for any Heatmap readers who may not know: Along with delivering you scoop after scoop, I’ve been writing and playing music as the front person of a band called Ekko Astral. Last fall, we had the privilege of touring the entire U.S. opening for two of my favorite rock acts, PUP and Jeff Rosenstock. The tour itself was immensely successful, with packed-out rooms full of thousands of screaming fans. Getting to play those stages was the culmination of a dream I’d had since playing guitar at age 11 at the local coffeeshop open-mic. It was awesome.
What I hadn’t considered about this cross-country rock n’ roll tour, however, was that it would take me through the fields of wind turbines and solar projects being built across the country that I’d reported on but mostly hadn’t seen in person.
Driving across the country with my band, I saw solar and wind projects in Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Idaho. One drive from Austin, Texas to Rozwell, New Mexico, sent me through a dizzying maze of wind farms in a western portion of the Lone Star State that surrounded my vehicle on all sides with spinning blades and transmission lines — and fracking rigs, because it was Texas. It felt like some sort of twisted, magnificent energy wonk video game level.
I also drove through myriad pockets of rural America where companies have been fighting tooth-and-nail to build utility-scale renewable energy and sometimes losing to hardened opposition. I drove through open fields and farmland in the Midwest and the Great Plains, for example, including places where building solar or wind is banned outright. I drove straight through the part of central Idaho where Lava Ridge, once the largest wind farm in the country, would have been built this year if not for Donald Trump. Sure, there were counties where I could understand wanting to avoid solar farms on farmland, or wind turbines cluttering more picturesque vistas. But I can’t tell you how many times I looked out the window of my vehicle and thought, Why isn’t this a solar farm? There’s no one here!
At the same time, I was trapped in my own form of climate hypocrisy, touring the country in a gas-powered Ford Transit van. I kept longing for us to have the capacity to tour by electric van. But setting aside the limited availability of electric vans for touring purposes, the sheer logistical requirements of going electric would be difficult for any touring band. Music venues do not always have reliable charging access, and calculating when and how to charge the van on our tour probably would’ve made already time-limited logistics impossible. Sure, Ed Sheeran might be able to do it, but not an up-and-coming band on a budget.
To make matters more frustrating, it turns out band merch isn’t great for the planet. Yes, you can choose greener materials for T-shirts and record packaging, but vinyl records are produced with petrochemicals. Cleaner alternatives, known as biovinyl, have been tried but can have serious quality issues (see: the Billie Eilish experiment). Then add in the shipping required to get multiple rush orders of shirts dropped in random spots across the country and, well, you’re looking at quite a lot of potential carbon emissions.
One day, late in the tour, I walked off stage in Salt Lake City and opened my phone to a text from a source notifying me that Esmeralda 7 — the largest solar project in the U.S. — had been killed. I wrote the piece, then went back to selling more copies of Ekko Astral songs printed onto petroleum discs.
All of this made me feel angry and helpless. By the time the tour ended I wasn’t quite a doomer, but I was tired, and my views on climate action had changed in three important ways.
First, we need to rethink what kind of “permitting reform” is necessary for the energy transition. After driving through so many open areas with so little economic development and no new renewable energy generation, I no longer think that changing federal environmental laws will make much of a difference, except to make more polluting forms of energy more economical. The permitting issues delaying projects in these places are, as I have reported for Heatmap, sometimes caused by people on social media who are manipulating a decline in civil engagement and participation in municipal government to block energy projects they personally dislike, even when the developments enjoy broad community support.
This is not a federal permitting problem, it’s a local one. But national politicians could help mitigate this issue if they really wanted to. New gas pipelines need approval from just one entity — the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — but transmission lines have to cross all the Ts with every state agency along their path. Lawmakers trying to rectify that problem should also turn their attention to the local moratoria and restrictive ordinances holding up what Heatmap Pro data shows is more than a thousand renewable energy and battery storage projects across the country. I do not know what the specific policy solution is here, but we need policy experts to start coming up with ideas.
Second, I believe that artists need to practice what we preach.
In the wake of my tour, I’ve found myself daydreaming about what a true climate-friendly tour would look like, and have spoken with fellow musicians — and climate wonks — about how to make it happen. Maybe one day I will commandeer an electric vehicle and bring only enough gear to play music off the battery in the car. Or perhaps I will put on an outdoor concert run entirely on renewable-powered generators, as the band Massive Attack did earlier this year, claiming it slashed most of the emissions from their performance. In any case, these forms of radical thinking will be crucial because culture is upstream of politics, and art is the soundtrack that defines action.
Lastly, I think more of us need to go out and see the rest of our world, because it’s frustrating it took me a rock n’ roll tour to see what was right there this whole time: the frustratingly slow pace of progress.
I’m used to hearing from all sides that renewable energy deployment in the U.S. is moving at a rapid clip, even in spite of Trump’s rise to power. Nearly half of all new power coming online this year is going to be solar and wind. Battery manufacturing investments continue to be a bright spot. Carbon emissions are going down, albeit slowly. All of this is nice to hear, but I just traveled the whole country and it didn’t feel like I was seeing or feeling the transition that is supposedly underway.
This country has a lot of potential. I want to see us go so much further towards a greener electric grid, transportation system, and arts community.
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.
Microsoft dominated this year.
It’s been a quiet year for carbon dioxide removal, the nascent industry trying to lower the concentration of carbon already trapped in the atmosphere.
After a stretch as the hottest thing in climate tech, the CDR hype cycle has died down. 2025 saw fewer investments and fewer big projects or new companies announced.
This story isn’t immediately apparent if you look at the sales data for carbon removal credits, which paints 2025 as a year of breakout growth. CDR companies sold nearly 30 million tons of carbon removal, according to the leading industry database, CDR.fyi — more than three times the amount sold in 2024. But that topline number hides a more troubling reality — about 90% of those credits were bought by a single company: Microsoft.
If you exclude Microsoft, the total volume of carbon removal purchased this year actually declined by about 100,000 tons. This buyer concentration is the continuation of a trend CDR.fyi observed in its 2024 Year In Review report, although non-Microsoft sales had grown a bit that year compared to 2023.
Trump’s crusade against climate action has likely played a role in the market stasis of this year. Under the Biden administration, federal investment in carbon removal research, development, and deployment grew to new heights. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission was also getting ready to require large companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate targets, a move that many expected to increase demand for carbon credits. But Trump’s SEC scrapped the rule, and his agency heads have canceled most of the planned investments. (At the time of publication, the two direct air capture projects that Biden’s Department of Energy selected to receive up to $1.2 billion have not yet had their contracts officially terminated, despite both showing up on a leaked list of DOE grant cancellations in October.)
Trump’s overall posture on climate change reduced pressure on companies to act, which probably contributed to there being fewer new buyers entering the carbon removal market, Robert Hoglund, a carbon removal advisor who co-founded CDR.fyi, told me. “I heard several companies say that, yeah, we wouldn't have been able to do this commitment this year. We're glad that we made it several years ago,” he told me.
Kyle Harrison, a carbon markets analyst at BloombergNEF, told me he didn’t view Microsoft’s dominance in the market as a bad sign. In the early days of corporate wind and solar energy contracts, he said, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon were the only ones signing deals, which raised similar questions about the sustainability of the market. “But what it did is it created a blueprint for how you sign these deals and make these nascent technologies more financeable, and then it brings down the cost, and then all of a sudden, you start to get a second generation of companies that start to sign these deals.”
Harrison expects the market to see slower growth in the coming years until either carbon removal companies are able to bring down costs or a more reliable regulatory signal puts pressure on buyers.
Governments in Europe and the United Kingdom introduced a few weak-ish signals this year. The European Union continued to advance a government certification program for carbon removal and expects to finalize methodologies for several CDR methods in 2026. That government stamp of approval may give potential buyers more confidence in the market.
The EU also announced plans to set up a carbon removal “buyers’ club” next year to spur more demand for CDR by pooling and coordinating procurement, although the proposal is light on detail. There were similar developments in the United Kingdom, which announced a new “contract for differences” policy through which the government would finance early-stage direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture projects.
A stronger signal, though, could eventually come from places with mandatory emissions cap and trade policies, such as California, Japan, China, the European Union, or the United Kingdom. California already allows companies to use carbon removal credits for compliance with its cap and invest program. The U.K. plans to begin integrating CDR into its scheme in 2029, and the EU and Japan are considering when and how to do the same.
Giana Amador, the executive director of the U.S.-based Carbon Removal Alliance, told me these demand pulls were extremely important. “It tells investors, if you invest in this today, in 10 years, companies will be able to access those markets,” she said.
At the same time, carbon removal companies are not going to be competitive in any of these markets until carbon trades at a substantially higher price, or until companies can make carbon removal less expensive. “We need to both figure out how we can drive down the cost of carbon removal and how to make these carbon removal solutions more effective, and really kind of hone the technology. Those are what is going to unlock demand in the future,” she said.
There’s certainly some progress being made on that front. This year saw more real-world deployments and field tests. Whereas a few years ago, the state of knowledge about various carbon removal methods was based on academic studies of modeling exercises or lab experiments, now there’s starting to be a lot more real-world data. “For me, that is the most important thing that we have seen — continued learning,” Hoglund said.
There’s also been a lot more international interest in the sector. “It feels like there’s this global competition building about what country will be the leader in the industry,” Ben Rubin, the executive director of the Carbon Business Council, told me.
There’s another somewhat deceptive trend in the year’s carbon removal data: The market also appeared to be highly concentrated within one carbon removal method — 75% of Microsoft’s purchases, and 70% of the total sales tracked by CDR.fyi, were credits for bioenergy with carbon capture, where biomass is burned for energy and the resulting emissions are captured and stored. Despite making up the largest volume of credits, however, these were actually just a rare few deals. “It’s the least common method,” Hoglund said.
Companies reported delivering about 450,000 tons of carbon removal this year, according to CDR.fyi’s data, bringing the cumulative total to over 1 million tons to date. Some 80% of the total came from biochar projects, but the remaining deliveries run the gamut of carbon removal methods, including ocean-based techniques and enhanced rock weathering.
Amador predicted that in the near-term, we may see increased buying from the tech sector, as the growth of artificial intelligence and power-hungry data centers sets those companies’ further back on their climate commitments. She’s also optimistic about a growing trend of exploring “industrial integrations” — basically incorporating carbon removal into existing industrial processes such as municipal waste management, agricultural operations, wastewater treatment, mining, and pulp and paper factories. “I think that's something that we'll see a spotlight on next year,” she said.
Another place that may help unlock demand is the Science Based Targets initiative, a nonprofit that develops voluntary standards for corporate climate action. The group has been in the process of revising its Net-Zero Standard, which will give companies more direction about what role carbon removal should play in their sustainability strategies.
The question is whether any of these policy developments will come soon enough or be significant enough to sustain this capital-intensive, immature industry long enough for it to prove its utility. Investment in the industry has been predicated on the idea that demand for carbon removal will grow, Hoglund told me. If growth continues at the pace we saw this year, it’s going to get a lot harder for startups to raise their series B or C.
“When you can't raise that, and you haven't sold enough to keep yourself afloat, then you go out of business,” he said. “I would expect quite a few companies to go out of business in 2026.”
Hoglund was quick to qualify his dire prediction, however, adding that these were normal growing pains for any industry and shouldn’t be viewed as a sign of failure. “It could be interpreted that way, and the vibe may shift, especially if you see a lot of the prolific companies come down,” he said. “But it’s natural. I think that’s something we should be prepared for and not panic about.”