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:
A conversation with essayist Emily Raboteau about hope and her new book, Lessons for Survival.
It was another Emily who wrote, “‘Hope’ is the thing with feathers,” but Emily Raboteau’s Lessons for Survival: Mothering Against “the Apocalypse” builds on that notion in a fresh and literal fashion. The collection of essays, out March 12, is loosely structured around Raboteau’s attempt to see and photograph all of the paintings in the Audubon Mural Project in her New York City neighborhood, Washington Heights. In practice, though, the book is an honest look at the overlapping injustices of our current age and an inspiring suggestion — by way of example — of how to move forward and survive.
Optimism, though, is not easy. Scrutinizing the idea of “resilience” in the face of climate change, Raboteau notes that the word means something different to communities of color who’ve managed retreats for decades — including her grandmother, Mabel, who fled her home of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, after Raboteau’s grandfather was shot and killed by a white man who faced no legal repercussions. Visiting the territory of Palestine, Raboteau witnesses the water crisis in the Middle East being weaponized against the region’s poorest communities; in Alaska, she sees traditional ways of living in the Arctic slipping out of reach for the survivors and descendants of residential schools, government-run institutions that aimed to forcefully assimilate Indigenous children.
Present in every essay is Raboteau’s perspective as a mother, which is fierce in demanding a better world while also necessarily believing that one is within reach. Even the bird murals — the tundra swan, the burrowing owls — become messengers of hope.
I spoke with Raboteau ahead of the book’s release about the adjective “mothering,” learning resilience from one’s community, and why “apocalypse” doesn’t have to be a bad word. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
I wanted to ask about the change in preposition from the title essay, “Lessons in Survival,” to Lessons for Survival, the book’s title. There’s an ever-so-slight change in meaning with that switch. Was it something you were thinking about?
What I like about the essay title from which the book title grows is that “Lessons in Survival” implies I’m the one who’s receiving lessons. To me, this is not a book that is offering — well, I don’t want to say it’s not offering guidance, but I hope it’s offering a feeling of camaraderie in the confusing and distressing times of the polycrisis we find ourselves in. It’s an acknowledgment of the bewilderment many of us are feeling and includes examples from people I think are wiser than myself about how to move through times like this.
Rather than being the author who’s offering lessons, I think of myself as more of a narrator who is interested in receiving lessons and witnessing examples of survival, and then sharing those with the reader.
You wrote the essays in this collection between 2015 and 2023. What was it like going back and revisiting your older essays? Is there anything that particularly strikes you about how your worldview has shifted over the years?
One of the earliest essays included in this collection, from 2015, is about playgrounds. In New York City, playgrounds are common spaces where all kinds of classes and races mix. Yet they are also spaces where a lot of parents encounter conversations about school choice that often are really coded conversations about race and class. And that can feel distressing. The concern that drove that essay, which is about imbalances of power, is a concern that drives all of the essays in this book. It’s not a coincidence that the less desirable school districts overlap with poor neighborhoods, which are also the areas with the highest rates of pollution and asthma. I’m really interested in staring grim asymmetries of power in the face, trying to dismantle them, and figuring out my position within them.
Another early essay was the Palestine one, about Israeli settler colonialism plus the installation of renewable energy and clean-water systems in the terrorized Arab communities of the West Bank's South Hebron Hills, which was actually my first explicit piece of environmental writing. Another thing that unites all these essays is the narrative perspective of a mother: How do I raise ethical and safe human beings in a world that feels in many ways like it’s unraveling? I had no idea when I was revising and expanding that essay for this collection that the war between Gaza and Israel would be unfolding, yet I hope that it offers readers some context about the decades of conflict that led to this war and that it gives a sense of apartheid — a sense of a literal imbalance of power vis a vis electricity, but also water access. I wasn’t in Gaza, I was in the West Bank. But still, you get a sense of what life is like for Palestinians there, and it’s only grown worse since the time I did the investigative reporting for that piece.
I really loved that essay — there’s a line when you’re going through border control in Israel that describes motherhood as “invisibility and power.” I was underlining and highlighting and circling that.
Motherhood confers a kind of moral authority, but there’s also the sort of thinking like, “Oh, but you can’t be too much of a threat. You’re just a mom.” In this context, I was using motherhood as a way to pass more easily through customs and then through a checkpoint. But I’ve been thinking lately about how radical a perspective and a stance motherhood is. To say, “You know, what I want more than anything is for all of our kids to live.” That’s my political stance: I want all of them to live.
The book’s subtitle, “Mothering against ‘the Apocalypse,’” seems like a call to arms — that fighting the apocalypse requires mothers. How do you see the role of mothers as different or set apart from the role of fathers or people without children when it comes to standing against the polycrisis?
Mothering is a very powerful way of thinking about the nurture and care that I feel is required to meet the moment. I also want to be sensitive to the fact that people who are not biological parents can also be mothering. We all have the power to be that; it’s why we also understand you can’t get between a mama bear and her cubs. You’re going to get torn apart. There’s great power in that role: Whether we are mothers or not, we may be mothering, and so — how did you just put it, that maybe mothers are required in the fight? It’s more like the fight requires the action of mothering.
It was also important to me to add scare quotes around “the apocalypse” in the subtitle because I felt it would be offensive to activists to suggest that the future is foreclosed. I wanted to suggest we’re in an apocalyptic mode, but I didn’t want that term to stop people from action.
Something else about the term apocalypse: I have a friend, Ayana Mathis, who is writing about the apocalypse in literature right now, and she reminded me that the ancient Greek term means literally “to unveil.”
I didn’t know that!
The way we use it so often is about the end times, the end game. We have a lot of biblical imagery we associate with it: fire and floods and locusts. But what the root word means is “unveiling,” which I find really exciting to think about. Yes, we’re in an apocalyptic moment and let’s actually accept that. It’s an opportunity for waking up.
There’s a tension in the book between the outdoors as being a kind of haven — it’s where your kids play, it’s where you go on walks and see the bird murals, it’s where you have your garden — and the outdoors as a source of danger, from the air pollution from car exhaust to the rivers rising. How do you manage to reconcile those two things?
I don’t want to suggest I feel the perils come from nature. The perils come from what is being done to specific communities, like the Black and brown communities that we’ve chosen to live in. My family lives in a frontline community, and so the solace that we get nevertheless from being outdoors, especially in parks in New York City, is crucial and restorative. In this book, I’m interested in holding cognitive dissonance. Nature is both a space that is imperiled, a place that has been plundered and abused, but it can also be a place of joy, a place that is home, and a place that is worth protecting and trying to alter to make safer for more people. I wanted to write about what it feels like for all those things to be true at once.
The sense of community in this book really struck me, particularly in some of the essays in the section “At the Risk of Spoiling Dinner.” Do you think of community-building as being one of your lessons for survival?
Absolutely. I’m really glad you picked up on that because I think it’s the number one thing. It’s driven by the feelings of care and love that I also associate with mothering. Ancillary to that is thinking about relationships not merely between parent and child but also in my extended and beloved community. That section that you’re referring to is an admission: “I can’t handle my degree of anxiety over how bad and scary things are by myself.” If I can’t talk about it among the people I love and trust and also listen to what they’re saying, I’m at risk of being stuck in this feeling, and that’s not helpful to anybody. It was a mobilizing gesture for me.
For a year, I committed to asking people in my social network both online and in person how they were feeling the effects of climate change in their bodies and in their local habitat. I did that because climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has said one of the best ways we can combat climate change is to bridge the gap between the number of us who are appropriately fearful and the number of us who actually talk about it. I was like, “Well, that’s an interesting idea. Let me try to put that into practice.” Was it an uncomfortable subject at dinner tables? Sometimes. But mostly everybody had it at the tip of their tongue; they were just so ready and grateful for the question.
I wanted to ask about the photos in the book, particularly the ones of the Audubon Mural Project. You use the word “document,” but the pictures are also intentional and creative — there are almost always people in your frames, and the photos seem to be as much about capturing a small part of Washington Heights as they are about recording the mural. Was there a moment when photography became a creative endeavor for you in addition to being a log, or were those two things always the same?
I think they’re really interrelated. There’s also a third thing: a therapeutic hobby. Some people find repetitive gestures like running or knitting to be ways of calming down their brain, and for me, especially during the Trump years, that’s when I began photographing the birds. It was a way I understood I could relax. It was a repetitive gesture, a thing I knew I could do to make myself feel better because I was getting outside.
These bird murals are sites of beauty and also memorials. Some of these birds are expected to be extinct by 2080 if we continue our current trajectory. So photographing was a way of paying attention and being in community and, you’re right, it was also an artistic project. Including people on the same plane as the birds was important even in thinking about endangerment: When we think about conservation, we often think about wildlife and wild places, but I also really wanted to be intentional in thinking about who’s endangered in the community I live in and the nation I live in.
What do you do, now, to survive?
One thing that I do to survive is name that there are so many feelings involved. Knowing that some of the feelings are in the space of fear, despair, anger, rage, bewilderment, and confusion — dark feelings, for lack of a better term — and understanding that I don’t linger in any of those feelings, that there are strategies to get out of them.
For me, it’s photographing birds in my neighborhood and gardening, getting my hands in the soil and contemplating and engaging with the most basic miracle that out of a seed comes a plant. That helps me to move into the space of those other feelings of being in this time, which are more in the space of hopefulness and gratitude. The feelings that come from being in a community with others, working through the hard stuff. Feelings of purpose and a deep sense of meaning. What I’m trying to say is: Understanding you don’t have to linger in the dark side; there are strategies to move into the space of action and unity.
Normally I end these interviews by asking if you feel optimistic, but I actually left that question off this time because your book feels so hopeful that it would have been redundant of me to ask.
I’m really glad that you shared that with me. It’s a hard balance to strike in writing because we want to be honest. I was thinking about that, but I almost always tried to end my essays in a place of hope — even if it’s an image, even if it’s tinged by ambiguity, to still lean toward hopefulness. That was important to me because who am I to linger in the opposite of hope when there are so many people working?
I want to amplify, also, the people and peoples who’ve lived through existential threats before and to highlight their resilience. Because that’s how we get through this — with lessons. I’m not the one who’s offering them; I’m trying really hard to learn them so I can offer them to my children.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Typhoon Ragasa slammed into East Asia as the year’s strongest storm to date, killing 14 and leaving dozens missing in southern Taiwan and forcing more than 400,000 to evacuate in China • Hurricane Gabrielle intensified into the second major hurricane in the Atlantic this season, churning rip currents on East Coast beaches in the U.S. and lashing Europe with heavy rain later this week • Argentina is facing an ongoing drought.
President Donald Trump speaking at the U.N. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, President Donald Trump called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” He complained that scientists used to warn the governments about “global cooling … then they said global warming will kill the world.” Yet “all of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people” from countries with “no chance for success.” He urged other nations that “if you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”
Scientists first suggested over a century ago that the carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels could create a greenhouse effect warming the planet and destabilizing the climate norms in which human beings evolved to survive. As global emissions of carbon and other planet-heating gases have surged over the past several decades, the Earth’s average temperature has risen by more than 1 degree Celsius, an increase that the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world attribute to pollution from fossil fuels and agriculture. The Trump administration issued a report written by contrarians who raised the possibility that climate change won’t be as bad as most scientists say, but more than 1,000 peer-reviewed researchers signed onto a letter condemning the findings. In a statement on the president’s UN speech, Gina McCarthy, the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency chief and the Biden administration’s climate policy director, said Trump “continues to embarrass the U.S. on the global stage and undermine the interests of Americans at home. He’s rejecting our government’s responsibility to protect Americans from the increasingly intense and frequent disasters linked to climate change that unleash havoc on our country.” For more on the basics of climate change, you can consult this explainer by Heatmap’s Jeva Lange.
As part of this week’s New York Climate Week, we’re hosting Heatmap House, a live journalism exploring the future of cities, energy, technology, and artificial intelligence. We’ll also be livestreaming all day for those who aren’t able to join in person. Register here and tune in any time from 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. EST on Wednesday to catch Heatmap journalists including Robinson Meyer, Emily Pontecorvo, Katie Brigham, and Matthew Zeitlin, in conversation with the likes of Senator Brian Schatz and executives from Amazon, Microsoft, and Duke Energy. We hope you’ll join us!
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Rhode Island’s biggest labor federation has brokered a deal for union workers to carry out the construction on the SouthCoast Wind project, a 2.4-gigawatt offshore turbine array — and won what the Rhode Island AFL-CIO called the first agreement in the nation guaranteeing organized labor handles all the operations and maintenance of the facility. On a panel I moderated for the Climate Jobs National Resource Center on Tuesday evening, Rhode Island’s AFL-CIO president, Patrick Crowley, told me the “labor peace agreement” will help the union organize more workers in the offshore-wind industry. “The labor movement is in this to win, and we’re not ready to give up the fight yet,” he told me. “If developers want to have a winning strategy, they have to partner with organized labor, because we’re going to make sure that, come hell or high water, we get these things built.”
After a federal judge lifted Trump’s stop-work order halting construction on the Revolution Wind farm off Rhode Island’s coast, a project that was 80% complete before the president’s abrupt intervention, Crowley said executives immediately directed workers onto boats to restart work on the turbines.
Microreactor developer Oklo’s stock price has been on a tear for months, surging to $21 billion in September despite no revenue or completed facilities. That’s starting the change. On Tuesday, the company broke ground on its debut nuclear plant at the Idaho National Laboratory. The California startup, which is also seeking to construct the nation’s first nuclear recycling plant, is the only company in the Department of Energy’s newly established Reactor Pilot Program to secure two projects in the federal effort to prove that new reactor technologies – Oklo’s tiny reactors use a different and rarer kind of coolant and fuel than the entire U.S. commercial fleet – can successfully sustain fission reactions by next July.
“As advancements in artificial intelligence drive up electricity demands, projects like this are critical to ensuring the United States can meet that need and remain at the forefront of the global AI arms race,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement.
Earlier this month, the federal Defense Logistics Agency backed Xerion Advanced Battery Corp. to help the Ohio-based startup’s efforts to commercialize a novel technology for processing cobalt for batteries. Now, as I reported in an exclusive for Heatmap on Tuesday, the company is applying its approach to refining gallium, another key industrial metal over which China has a monopoly grip.
It’s not the so-called DLA’s only push into minerals. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the agency is seeking to stockpile up to $40 million worth of scandium oxide over the next five years. The agency plans to buy the rare earth element used as an alloying agent used in aerospace, defense, and automotive technologies from mining giant Rio Tinto.
A team of researchers in China found a way to turn clothianidin, a widely used pesticide notorious for accumulating in soil and crops and harming human health, into a nutrient for plants that removes the chemical from the dirt. Scientists at Hunan Agricultural University developed a novel biochar-based catalyst that converts the pesticide residues into ammonium nitrogen, a form of fertilizer that helps crops grow. “Instead of simply eliminating pesticides, we can recycle their nitrogen content back into the soil as fertilizer,” Hongmei Liu, a co-author of the study, said in a press release. “It offers a win–win solution for food safety and sustainable agriculture.”
Rob and Jesse talk to Ember’s Kingsmill Bond about how electricity is reshaping global geopolitics.
A new stack of electricity technologies — including solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, and power electronics — seem to be displacing fossil fuels across China and the developing world. Are we watching an irresistible technological revolution happen? Or is something weirder going on — something that has far more to do with China’s singular scale and policy goals than physics and economics?
Kingsmill Bond argues that a global electrotech revolution has already begun — and that it will soon sweep Europe and the United States, too. Bond is an energy strategist at Ember, a London-based electricity data think tank. He previously worked for more than 30 years as a financial market analyst and strategist, including at Deutsche Bank and Citibank.
On this week’s show, Rob and Jesse talk with Bond about what the electrotech revolution looks like worldwide in 2025, why electricity will win out against fossil fuels, and how American and European climate policy should respond to this moment — and if they can respond at all. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation.
Robinson Meyer: How do we know this is a true solar, battery, EV-led revolution — with the full electrotech, the full beautiful, zero-carbon electrotech stack — and not just the continued march of electrification, which is as happy to accept energy from giant coal plants as it is to accept energy from solar panels.
Kingsmill Bond: It is always fun to debate this, but the point I think you nearly said — countries don’t have solar, but they do have coal — that’s the whole point. Everyone’s got lots of solar today. Unless you’re talking about mine mouth coal and existing assets, solar also beats coal. And that’s why we are spending $400 billion a year on expanding our solar and $40 billion a year, whatever it is, on expanding coal in a very small number of locations.
This coal pathway to development was the China path up to 2000, but they’ve kind of opened up a new pathway that other countries can now take. The classic example now is India, which is clearly taking a very different pathway to that taken by China 20 or 25 years ago. And incidentally, it’s a similar story in the transport market.
Certainly until recently — and indeed, even now for those who haven’t got the memo — are still forecasting that the emerging markets will follow the U.S. development path and have 16 barrels of oil per person per day of demand. But actually, China’s peaked at two and is already falling, and you’re going to see other countries following that path simply because it’s a lot cheaper. Whether or not this was by genius or design or luck, but the Chinese happened to have stumbled into a very, very successful path of finding a cheaper energy source — or a better mousetrap, as it were. I think that that’s what’s now happening across the emerging markets.
If I may make one other point, let us not forget that the emerging markets are going down this path very quickly. And to give you a couple of stats on this, the classic one is the fact that from our calculations, two thirds of the emerging markets, by design, already have a higher share of solar in their electricity system than the United States, which is astonishing given that the United States is a global leader in so many other respects. In terms of electrification, it’s a quarter of the emerging markets, also, ahead of the U.S. — or Europe, actually, for that matter.
And so we are seeing here that the emerging markets are going down a new path, which was not expected. And if you contrast that with the internet, for example — after 2000, internet was a pretty clear, standard graph of the U.S. leads and then Japan follows — and Western Europe, and then China, and then the other markets. But this time around, these folks are streaming into these technologies much earlier than expected.
Mentioned:
Ember’s research on solar-plus-batteries
Oxford’s Doyne Farmer on how clean energy tech will get cheaper
Jesse’s upshift; Rob’s upshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Xerion is using molten salt to refine the key battery mineral domestically and efficiently.
When John Busbee started his battery technology company in 2010, his strategy was about making just one small part that could be widely used by other manufacturers. He launched Xerion Advanced Battery Corp. at a University of Illinois startup incubator in a bid to commercialize a novel breakthrough in nanostructured foam for the internal components of batteries.
That same logic has since led the company to produce other key materials for the energy transition, including cobalt and, now, gallium, Heatmap has learned.
The same year Busbee started Xerion, some 7,000 miles west across the Pacific, China cut off shipments of rare earth metals to Japan amid a geopolitical spat over contested islands. The move shocked the democratic world and made apparent a troubling fact — that over the preceding few decades, China had seized nearly full control of the global supply of these key metals for magnets and electronics. In the years since, Beijing has used export restrictions on rare earths and other minerals to the U.S. and its allies as a geopolitical cudgel, leading Busbee and others to look for ways to rewire global supply chains away from China.
Xerion had previously experimented with molten salt electrolysis, a process that involves running an electrical current through salt that’s been heated to somewhere from 800 to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit — hot enough to achieve a liquid state, corrosive enough to eat through rock ore but leave behind the desired metals.
Ultimately the team at Xerion found that this method could be used to process cobalt, which is sourced mostly from Chinese-controlled mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The molten salt would eat away at the igneous rock containing the bluish battery metal, leaving behind the mineral. The company opened its pilot cobalt-refining facility in Dayton, Ohio, in April, and reached its goal of producing 5 metric tons for the year.
Now Xerion is expanding into producing gallium. The U.S. has no domestic industry to produce the soft, silvery metal, and imports of the raw material – widely used in solar cells, nuclear sensors, electric vehicle batteries, and semiconductors – have skyrocketed by nearly threefold since 2020. China banned exports to the U.S. in December.
“Gallium was low-hanging fruit,” Busbee told me. “It’s in all the radars. It's in all the missiles. It’s in all the planes. All the new chargers that are really compact are made with gallium nitride. It’s also in the cell phones. And it’s something where China has the market cornered.”
The U.S. stopped producing its own gallium in 1987, according to a U.S. Geological Survey report. Before then, the metal came as a byproduct of turning bauxite into aluminum; in China, where the vast majority of global production moved, the government requires alumina refineries to also extract gallium. As alumina processing disappeared in the U.S., there was no market incentive for refineries to invest in the complex process of also extracting gallium, which makes up a tiny fraction of 1% of the total bauxite ore.
At least one major proposed rare earths mine in the U.S., the Sheep Creek site in Montana, boasts large deposits of gallium, and U.S. Critical Materials Corp., the project’s Salt Lake City-based developer, inked a deal to work on building a pilot plant to test its own refining technology with the Idaho National Laboratory this summer. But the project is still at an early stage.
The benefit of using molten-salt electrolysis, Busbee said, is that it provides a shortcut. “I tell people I’m kind of dumb and stubborn,” he said. “What I mean by dumb is that I wasn’t in the industry, so I didn't know that it was widely known that you don’t use this method because it’s so aggressively corrosive that it’s a pain in the butt. And by stubborn I mean that, once we picked that, we stuck with it and spent 10 years optimizing these incredibly corrosive molten salts for the battery space.”
Since the molten salt will eat through nearly everything the Ohio-based Xerion isn’t looking to collect, the process can pull gallium out of mining waste and other sources with low concentrations of the metal.
“It’s a one-step process,” Busbee told me. “A lot of people dissolve in acid, then have to evaporate it and recrystallize it. Sometimes there are multiple rounds. There can be 15 to 100 steps. Ours is one step.”
Asked what the catch might be, Busbee laughed. “It’s been a pinch-me technology,” he said. “As we keep going further, we keep finding good things.”
There’s still some waste rock left behind after the process, and the company said it’s figuring out useful ways to sell that material.
Despite its 15 years in operation, Xerion’s bid to enter the critical minerals market is new enough that many analysts were unfamiliar with the company and its approach. BloombergNEF declined to comment. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, the London-based battery metals consultancy, cautioned that Xerion’s claims of “very high recoveries” of materials “seems to be in a lab environment rather than at scale.”
“With respect to Xerion’s original cobalt line, my understanding is this is still at pilot stage, so difficult to compare against industry production,” William Talbot, the lead cobalt analyst at Benchmark, told me via email.
But Ryan Alimento, an energy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, said the ability of molten salt to refine minerals to much higher concentrations than water-based solutions is real.
“The advantage of molten salt is exactly what Xerion says,” he told me. Still, he said, opening a pilot plant is just “the first stage in the entrepreneurial valley of death.”
“There’s still a lot more steps needed along the way,” Alimento said. “When you have a company introducing a new processing technology like this that really diverts from the norm, it requires a lot of capital.”
Xerion has raised “a little over $100 million” from venture capitalists and family offices, Busbee said. As the company moves into manufacturing, however, he told me he plans to tap into more large institutional investors. That may offer some promise. Critical minerals are undergoing something of a dealmaking boom as investors clamber for stakes in companies whose metals could win the bonus tax credits the Biden administration offered for domestically-produced materials or avoid the trade penalties the Trump administration has slapped on imports from adversary nations.
President Donald Trump has also used the military to invest directly into rare earths production. The Department of Defense bought a stake in MP Materials, the only active rare earths producer in the U.S., in what The Economist described as the federal government’s biggest intervention in a private company since nationalizing the railroads during World War I. While it’s not a direct ownership stake, the federal Defense Logistics Agency earlier this month awarded Xerion funding through the Small Business Innovation Research program to carry out tests on the economic viability of its technology. Xerion said it expects to complete the first phase of the testing in the first quarter of next year, and plans to pursue grants for the second and third phase analyses.
“This is definitely a priority for the U.S., which is good because what companies need is unambiguous and long-sustained government support for something like this,” Alimento said. “It does not surprise me that a company like Xerion would be thriving in this kind of industrial-policy ecosystem.”