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:
There will not be one type of cultured chicken. There will be kosher cultured chicken, halal cultured chicken, and ... vegan cultured chicken?

When you’re a vegetarian, you get used to dealing with sneering, horrified, nosy, and bewildered questions of “...but why?!”
My own well-practiced answer — designed to minimize confrontation — goes something like this: I was raised not eating red meat and then when I was a teenager, I became obsessed with our cultural disconnect from our food and decided that if I couldn’t stomach killing and preparing an animal myself, then I had no right to eat it. But don’t worry, my husband eats meat! I’m not judgmental!
The truth is actually much more complicated and nuanced (my “long version” includes anecdotes about my stint at a wildlife rehabilitation center, my father’s heart attack, and an explanation of why I eat meat when I travel abroad), but I usually don’t get that far when talking with strangers. That’s because what we eat and why are deeply personal questions that can touch on everything from one’s religious beliefs to their code of ethics, cultural and philosophical values, health, and concerns about environmental impact. Every person who observes dietary restrictions around meat has spent at least some time — perhaps very little, maybe every single day — privately weighing these considerations.
Then earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture threw all of that carefully considered reasoning out the window by approving the sale of lab-grown chicken.
Don’t get me wrong: This is incredible news. Around 15% of global emissions come from livestock farming (including dairy and eggs), and it would likely be impossible to get everyone on the planet to switch to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Indeed, for animal rights activists, “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat has long been akin to cold fusion for food — that is, a science-fiction solution that theoretically fixes everything.
But now, using cells harvested from live animals, companies like Upside Foods and Good Meat are able to safely grow animal fat and muscle tissue in stainless steel tanks, resulting in what is essentially slaughter-free animal protein for human consumption. When I spoke with the influential animal welfare philosopher Peter Singer a few months ago about the ethical quandaries of eating meat during the climate crisis, he’d cited such advancements in cultured meat (at the time, only available in Singapore) as an exciting, if far-off, opportunity, telling me “if we can get that economically competitive, maybe that’ll be a solution to the problem.”
The widespread proliferation of cultured meat is admittedly still a long way off. For the time being, lab-grown chicken will only be sold in select U.S. restaurants and an enormous amount of scaling is required for cultured meat to begin to replace industrial farming. There are also concerns that current production methods are not actually more sustainable than live-animal farming. Plus, there is a squeamish factor of “meat grown in tanks” to be cleared.
But the USDA approval is still nothing short of a game-changer. “I’m vegan for ethical reasons, and so if people can enjoy the familiar tastes of meat and textures of chicken and whatever else without animals dying, then that’s a huge win in my book,” Nisha Vora, a vegan recipe developer and cookbook author who runs the YouTube channel and blog Rainbow Plant Life, told me. Still, “it will be weird to eat chicken!” she admitted.
Vora isn’t sure yet how much lab-grown meat will factor into her future recipes, explaining that many of her followers are interested in whole foods and cooking that is meat-adjacent, “so I don’t think I have a huge swath of my audience that’s really like, ‘oh, I can’t wait for meat,’ you know?” She observed, though, that lab-grown meat could potentially make labor-intensive parts of some of her recipes, like her popular vegan Crunchwrap Supreme dupe, easier and quicker, albeit not quite as healthy. “If you are vegan for health reasons, or you’re plant-based for health reasons … then maybe that’s not what you want to be eating,” she pointed out.
Omnivores might be scratching their heads at these fine nuances, wondering why they’re a big deal: No animals are killed, can’t you people ever be happy? But it’s actually the fact that the animals aren’t killed that might prevent a quarter of the world’s population from eating lab-grown meat.
Many religions have customs regarding meat consumption, including Judaism, Hinduism, certain denominations of Christianity, and Islam — groups that together make up approximately half of the global population. That means there is a lot of confusion and theological debate when it comes to cultured meat. As The Washington Post once memorably put it, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, but you’re not supposed to eat a duck, does God consider this ‘cheating’?”
The answer is, it depends.
Take halal, the Islamic laws governing food. A number of rules must be met for meat to be considered permissible to eat, including proper slaughtering of the animal. It is, for example, forbidden to eat an animal that dies naturally and becomes a carcass. This is an essential technicality for the 25% of people globally who keep halal.
“Any severed part of a surviving (land) livestock animal can become a carcass” — including its cells, one recent Malaysian study explained. As such, lab-grown meat would only be halal if the animal the cells were collected from was “slaughtered according to the Shariah law.” Such an interpretation has been echoed by religious authorities in Pakistan and Indonesia, the two countries with the largest Muslim populations. (Kosher-slaughtered origin animals may be acceptable in the eyes of rabbis, too, although Jewish authorities have gone back and forth on the matter).
But using cells from a slaughtered animal might be a non-starter for some hardcore animal rights activists since the shift makes the lab-grown cells ever so slightly less cruelty-free. PETA has long been a proponent and backer of cultivated meat, although on the grounds that “no animal died for it.” As PETA’s Catie Cryar clarified for me, “It is our hope that the original process used to obtain cells will be superseded by scientific advances, but at the very least, our goal would be to have no additional animals slaughtered after the original cell lines were obtained.” That means there is potentially a world in which even cultured meat gets labels distinguishing it as either “vegan friendly” or “halal and kosher” (currently, most cultivated meats are made from live-animal cells).
Hindus, meanwhile, may not eat cultured beef regardless of its origin due to the sacred status of cows, one 2020 survey found, although overall Hinduism was “the only religious group who were … more willing to eat cultured meat than conventional meat … perhaps highlighting the motivation to avoid harming animals.” And of course, all of this generalizes the positions of enormously diverse world religions — every worshipper will have their own perspective.
Then there is a whole other sect of non-meat-eaters that we’ve largely ignored: those who abstain for health reasons. While meat substitutes on the market today are made from plants, lab-grown meat is still animal meat. But that also means eating cultured steaks isn’t any better for you than eating real steaks. Even if cellular meat does eventually take off, there will be plenty of people who avoid it simply because they don’t want to include meat in their diet, no matter what its animal or, uh, tank of origin is.
Now let me guess, you nosy Nelly — you’re wondering at this point what I am going to do? I admit my thinking has been all over the place. Sure, when it comes to my animal-ethics-forward viewpoints, there should be nothing stopping me from eating lab-grown meat. I’m a big believer in open-mindedness and adaption and I fully support lab-grown meat being available on the wider market. But I also enjoy the health benefits of eating plant-based, and it’s conceptually just strange to think of myself eating chicken protein even if no chickens were harmed in the making of my meal.
Mostly I just think it’s funny how one little USDA stamp of approval has the potential to unmoor my entire identity as a vegetarian — whatever that even means anymore. We’ll probably need to come up with new terms to distinguish between people who don’t eat animal proteins, period, and people who don’t eat slaughtered animals.
I’m sure, also, that there will eventually be a need for a term to describe meat purists who avoid tank-grown proteins. Then at last it’ll be my turn to snort and ask, “...but why?!”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Greg Abel agree: The “regulatory compact” is breaking down.
What are utilities anyway? And what are they supposed to do? Elected officials, regulators, utility executives, and scholars are asking fundamental questions about the so-called “regulatory compact” that has governed electric utilities for — depending on who you ask — decades or a century.
Two events in the past week crystallized the moment of transition electric utilities find themselves in.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro, wrote a letter to the state’s utilities (including water and gas), telling them that “the 20th century utility model is broken,” citing “markedly higher utility costs” and “rising utility bills” which he claimed were in part the “result from your policy and fiscal decisions, including the excessive rate requests several utilities have sought in recent years.”
And over the weekend at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, its new chief executive Greg Abel, who came up in the conglomerate through its energy division, was also speculating that utilities may be at a precipice. “What’s the challenge? It’s the regulatory compact,” Abel said at the company’s annual meeting.
The way he explained the utility business, “We leave your capital, our owner's capital, Berkshire’s capital, in these businesses, and often a portion of the earnings that they generate, we may reinvest back into those businesses. And for that, we get a very specific set of returns. And, over the long run, it’s been a very balanced and fair return,” Abel said, referring to the setup where utilities make investments approved by state regulators for which they receive a regulated return on their capital. “That model has worked very good for a number of years,” Abel said.
But, he cautioned, that model is becoming “more stressed.”
The dilemma, Abel said, was that utilities’ have high investment needs, including from replacing existing assets, while state regulators and governors want to keep rates as low as possible. “If we don’t see that balance, we don’t deploy our capital back into those businesses or into those utilities.”
The Berkshire Hathaway-owned utility PacifiCorp, which operates in the Western United States, has been challenged by high legal claims stemming from wildfires, especially in Oregon, and has been seeking to get legislation passed in a number of states to limit wildfire liability.
Earlier this year, it agreed to sell almost $2 billion worth of assets in Washington state, citing “diverging policies among the six states PacifiCorp serves [that] have created extraordinary pressure, affecting the company’s ability to meet demand reliably and at the lowest cost to customers.”
The utility was threatened with credit downgrades following large jury awards stemming from wildfire claims in Oregon. Washington is also a state with an aggressive decarbonization timeline and mechanisms that PacifiCorp has chafed against, claiming they would raise costs for its customers in other states.
Americans everywhere are angry about electricity costs but utilities think too much is being demanded of them to profitably run their businesses.
In the West, those high costs stem from wildfire-related damages that existentially threaten utilities. (PG&E in California even went bankrupt over wildfire liability.)
On the East Coast, electricity costs are rising in part due to data center construction and the structure of PJM, the 13-state electricity market that runs from Washington, D.C., to Chicago. Here, elected officials are angry at utilities for skyrocketing costs while those who manage the electricity market say that the real issue is regulatory barriers to bringing on the new generation they think they need (i.e. gas).
In both cases, the “regulatory compact” — utility investment in exchange for regulated rates that allow future investment — is seen as under threat.
Where Greg Abel sees the model endangered by uncapped liability and decarbonization mandates, Shapiro sees the threat in higher costs to consumers. Over the past five years, electricity prices in Pennsylvania have risen 47% while average bills have grown 49%, from $116 per month to $169, according to the Heatmap-MIT Electricity Price Hub.
“We can no longer simply prioritize corporate profitability to drive infrastructure development,” Shapiro wrote in his letter.
The commonwealth’s government has been doing more than just writing letters. The utility PECO Energy, a subsidiary of Exelon that serves the Philadelphia area, withdrew a recent rate case in April asking for over $500 million worth of electricity and gas rate hikes. The Governor’s office didn’t just claim credit for the pulled rate case, it announced it, with Shapiro saying in a statement, “PECO’s proposed rate case would have increased Pennsylvanians’ utility bills, but I demanded that their CEO put customers first and withdraw their rate hike request.”
Now Shapiro wants more fundamental reforms to how utilities operate in the state, including asking the utilities to fund themselves more by borrowing money, including from the federal government through Department of Energy programs.
“Consumers should not be expected to bolster corporate profits through over reliance on costly equity,” Shapiro said in his letter, and asked that utilities fund themselves with a “clear majority” of borrowed money.
Utilities have high investment needs. They finance these with a mix of debt (borrowed money) and equity (shares it sells to investors). They then gets a regulated return on the equity portion of its total approved capital investments, known as its “rate base.” That return on equity is recovered through ratepayers’ bills.
Berkshire Hathaway’s Abel argues that if the utility business becomes less appealing to investors, there will be less investment. But Shapiro thinks that there’s a lower cost way to finance utility investment, money borrowed from investors, i.e. debt. His approach rhymes with other utility reformer ideas around lowering the return on equity that utilities ask for in their rate cases, often around 10%.
“The average Pennsylvania utility requested a return on equity a staggering 682 basis points above the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield last year. Before raising such expensive equity, you should take advantage of more affordable sources of capital,” Shapiro wrote.
For the equity utilities do fund themselves with, Shapiro writes, those returns must be “transparent” and “justifiable,” and no longer be based on “educated guesses.” He instead proposed a market process to determine a fair return based on “competitive bidding by multiple participants to establish a fair market cost of that equity” or setting one by a combination of returns on government debt and a measure of the returns stocks get over debt on average.
Shapiro’s proposal could take down Pennsylvania utilities’ return on equity down to the “high 8%s” according to Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith. In the now-withdrawn PECO rate case, the requested ROE was almost 11%. (Other utility reform advocates have called for pulling ROEs down to around 6%.)
As a result, Dumoulin-Smith argues, Pennsylvania utilities “could see authorized ROE trends well below peers in prospective rate cases,” which will mean “gradual capital expenditure reductions to align with the new reality,” i.e. less investments by utilities in new transmission and distribution lines, substations, and other grid infrastructure even as demand increases.
This gets to the crux of utility regulation at a time of public anger at ballooning prices: how will utilities be able to revamp an aging grid, prepare for electrification of home heating and transportation, build news transmission for new renewable resources, and build out the grid infrastructure necessary for the data center boom? And what about that wildfire liability? All while making a fair return for investors that passes musters with regulators, elected officials, and voters?
The answer many have come up with is to transform the “regulatory compact.” This can mean, as some scholars have proposed, not offering firm service to all new customers. It can mean getting data center developers and their customers to specifically pay for grid upgrades.
In the case of wildfire liability, the California Public Utility Commission has declared that the set-up of the modern regulatory compact in the Golden State, with utilities required to serve all customers in the state (including in severe fire hazard areas) and then be liable for damages that get passed on to ratepayers, is “unsustainable.”
“Our existing system places outsized and unsustainable burdens on utilities and utility ratepayers to mitigate the risks of wildfires and pay for wildfire damages,” the CPUC wrote in a report mandated by a recent wildfire bill. This translates to higher borrowing and cost of equity for utilities, as well as higher rates.
The CPUC recommended a version of opening up the compact, arguing that the state “should consider funding a portion of utility wildfire mitigation from non-ratepayer sources,” including the state’s general fund (i.e. taxpayers). This echoes Shapiro’s proposal to have the state fund itself with cheaper public equity.
“Public debt is typically cheaper than private credit,” Josh Macey, a professor at Yale Law School, told me.
Another approach is to limit what utilities owe, thus ensuring that they can maintain reasonable returns and stay in business in the states they operate in.
In Utah, Berkshire Hathaway was able to win liability limitations for wildfires, including time limits on claims, the ability to use ratepayer dollars for wildfire mitigation plans, and limiting utility liability from wildfire claims if they comply with wildfire mitigation plans, a model it has tried to export to other states PacifiCorp operates in.
But do all these challenges to utilities represent the end of the “regulatory compact,” as Abel might put it?
For Abel, he claims that changes (or lack thereof) in state law have led to Berkshire’s exiting Washington and potentially other states. In Pennsylvania, analysts claim that changes to the debt-equity mix could mean fewer capital investments. In California, state regulators think utilities are being asked to do too much.
But will these utility reforms mean the death of the utility model itself? Maybe not — after all, PacifiCorp was able to sell its Washington assets to another utility.
The compact is “a kind of political intuition that if we’re asking them to provide low cost, consistent service, we have to give them a real right to kind of recover the costs and earn a steady profit,” Macey said. “It’s hard for me to imagine how that could break down, because if you really see a state not allow a utility to have some chance of doing good business in the state, the utility will not be able to attract capital, and as a political matter, the state will not be able follow through with that.”
Where the company is trying to restart its electric car program from scratch
Two thousand miles from Detroit, just across the road from the runways of Long Beach Airport, the future of Ford is taking shape. What that shape is, however, the company isn’t quite ready to share yet.
Last week, the automaker invited some members of the car press inside the secret compound where Ford is developing its next battery-powered vehicle, an affordable midsize pickup truck due out next year. Although the actual appearance of that truck is a closely guarded secret, as is just about everything else about it, Ford wanted to show off its launchpad, the Electric Vehicle Development Center. The research and development campus, with its two white warehouses glimmering in the Southern California sun, is about more than one car. Inside, teams of engineers, coders, and designers are trying to reinvent how Ford makes vehicles in the hopes of turning around its fortunes in the electric era. As the company at large has canceled EV models and infrastructure and taken on billions of dollars in losses to transition some of its EV assets back to combustion, EVDC represents its one big chance to find a way forward in electric cars.
Ford knows it’s at an inflection point. The company’s first forays into making mainstream electric cars, such as the Mustang Mach-E and Ford F-150 Lightning, were quality vehicles that beat many established automotive rivals into the space. But Ford struggled to keep costs down and wound up losing billions as it tried to scale up an electric car business.
Something had to change. Last year, CEO Jim Farley said Ford would restart its electrification efforts through a skunkworks team, a small unit that would rethink how it builds EVs. “They're from all over the place,” Alan Clarke, the executive director of advanced EV development, said of the skunkworkers during our visit last week. “Some of them are from startup EV, some of them are from established EV. Many come from consumer electronics, startup aerospace companies, and you'll meet many of them today, but there's also many that have come from Ford. Many of them have waited decades for a moonshot like this.”
The group studied EV brands like Tesla and Rivian that simplified their electrical and computing architectures to strip miles of expensive wiring from their vehicles. They worked fast and leaned in a way meant to echo Silicon Valley more than Motor City. The result is the Universal EV platform that will underlie not only next year’s new truck, promised to start in the $30,000s, but also a variety of vehicles to come, creating manufacturing savings that will hopefully allow Ford to sell more affordable electric cars.
Even the California locale is no accident. It’s meant to call back to a time when the brand was the innovator, not the establishment , with the hope that the secret sauce of the past can propel Ford back into a race dominated by startups – and now by rivals like GM and Hyundai that beat Ford to the punch with better EV platforms. The facility itself is already 100 years old, built to expand production of the Ford Model A in the 1920s and 30s.
Inside, EVDC represents a full embrace of the frictionless workplace: no corner offices, just open rows of computers amid a makeshift garage brimming with 3D printers, spools of wiring, and racks of gear. Coders are a short stroll from the visual designers tinkering with clay models. Electrical engineers are around the corner from the “lab car,” a rectangular steel frame meant to suggest the general shape of a vehicle, with a complete mockup of the future car’s electrical system strung along the skeleton so that workers can test any part of it. This is about process; the closest thing to the shape of a car is a wooden one with test car seats inside, set up in the fabrication shop. The shepherds of our tour met any question about the specifics of the forthcoming truck with a quick you’ll find out next year, though a prototype dressed up in that zebra camouflage just happened to sneak by as we moved between building.
The point of all this is to innovate at speed, without the barriers inherent in the old-fashioned hierarchical struggle that governs an established business. Any idea that can make a car a little bit better, or cheaper, is welcome. It can come from something as simple as fabric on the seats. In the seating lab, Scott Anderson is using new algorithms to lay out the necessary shapes to be cut from a sheet of fabric with the least possible waste.
The more pressing concerns for an electric car lie in the battery, though, since that unit still makes up about 40% of the cost of an EV. On Ford’s campus, a chamber is coming together that will test cells under just about any climatic conditions, from about -40 degrees Fahrenheit to 150 degrees. Inside a thermal lab dedicated to battery development, engineers can build and test battery cells in the same location. As with every department at EVDC, the point is to be able to prototype, test, and move on to the next iteration within a couple of weeks rather than the months it might have taken before.
The lessons that emerge from Long Beach are meant to spread throughout the Ford ecosystem. For example, EVDC researchers are working on ways to build EVs from three modules that can be assembled separately and come together toward the end of the process. It’s a plan that’s meant to double as a life improvement for workers at the plant in Louisville, Kentucky, that will build Ford’s EV pickup truck — they can, for example, work on brake pedals while standing up rather than sitting awkwardly in the driver’s seat and reaching down to the footwell.
That is the eternal skunkworks challenge. It’s not enough to establish a small team charged to move fast and break things without the suits there to say no. Their innovations must really take root. Ford, at least, seems to understand the urgency at the very top. Farley, the CEO, has been especially vocal among industry bigwigs about the existential threat of cheap Chinese EVs, which lots of American drivers would buy if they could. EVDC will not magically allow Ford to compete at Chinese’s pricing level. But by restarting its EV program from scratch, Ford’s version of the Apollo program, it could follow a manufacturing path that’s competitive with the likes of Tesla and with the electric offerings of its longtime rivals. Compared to the status quo of losing billions every year on electrification, that would indeed be a giant leap.
Current conditions: Severe thunderstorms are drenching the American South from New Orleans to Virginia Beach • Mount Mayon has forced thousands to evacuate within the Philippines’ Bicol peninsula • Temperatures in Denver are poised to plunge from about 75 degrees Fahrenheit yesterday to 39 degrees today with a chance of snow.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the quasi-governmental watchdog that monitors the health of the power grids that span the United States and Canada, has issued a rare Level 3 warning. The alert, announced Monday, marks only the third time NERC has put out a notice with that degree of severity in its 58-year history. The warning comes on the heels of reports that data centers abruptly went offline in Virginia and Texas, prompting concerns of potential blackouts. “Computational loads, such as data centers, could increase exponentially in the next four years,” NERC said in a draft of the alert, adding that “significant risks” to the power network “need to be addressed through immediate industry action.” Lee Shaver, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told E&E News that NERC’s action was a “big deal.”
The California Energy Commission has issued an administrative investigative subpoena to Golden State Wind seeking documents and information related to the company’s recent deal with the U.S. Department of the Interior to take a payout in exchange for abandoning its offshore wind lease. Last week, the developer announced a deal to scrap its lease in the Morro Bay Wind Energy off the central California coast for $120 million as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to kill off an industry he failed to destroy through regulatory fiat alone. The facility was supposed to be California’s first offshore wind farm, and planned to use floating turbines to account for the steep continental shelf dropoff on the nation’s Pacific Coast. Now the administration’s latest “shady deal” is drawing scrutiny from state regulators. “The Trump Administration is recklessly spending billions of taxpayer dollars on backroom deals that would turn back the clock on innovation,” David Hochschild, the chairman of the California Energy Commission, said in a statement. “Californians deserve immediate answers about the nature of this payout. Taxpayer dollars should be used to build a sustainable energy future, not to pay to make projects disappear.”
Meanwhile, California’s grid operator has switched on a new regional electricity market as part of what E&E News called “a major milestone in the yearslong push to expand energy trading” across the American West. The California Independent System Operator launched its new Extended Day-Ahead Market early Friday morning, allowing California’s investor-owned utilities and the Northwestern giant PacifiCorp, whose coverage area spans two million customers across six states, to trade electricity on the regional market for the first time. “The West is rich with a diverse mix of renewable resources, and this market will capture their potential,” Michael Colvin, director of the California energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “Through better sharing of cheap, clean energy beyond state borders, the market will cut household bills, reduce reliance on expensive, polluting fossil plants and build a grid that's bigger than any single extreme weather event.”
For nearly as long as there have been nuclear power plants, there have been thorium bulls insisting the metal is a better fuel than uranium. In most places, the thorium dream faded long ago as ample new sources of uranium were discovered. But China revived the thorium race in 2023, when its experimental molten salt reactor powered by the metal split atoms for the first time. Now the only serious contender in the entire West looking to commercialize thorium is a Chicago-based company taking an unusual approach. Rather than creating a whole new kind of reactor to run on thorium, Clean Core Thorium Energy has designed fuel assemblies that blend thorium with a special kind of uranium fuel and work in existing reactors without any modifications. Clean Core’s technology only works, at least for now, in pressurized heavy water reactors, which make up the bulk of the fleets in Canada and India, though the U.S. has none in operation. But the key verb there is that: It works. On Tuesday, I can exclusively report for this newsletter, Clean Core plans to announce that its patented fuel completed a high burnup irradiation test at Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor. The fuel burnup represented “more than eight times the typical” output from the traditional uranium fuel used in pressurized heavy water reactors. The latest test “provides meaningful performance data” and demonstrates that Clean Core’s fuel “achieve burnup levels comparable to those seen in PWR fuels while offering improved fuel utilization, enhanced safety characteristics, inherent proliferation resistance, and meaningful reductions in long-lived nuclear spent fuel radioisotopes,” Mehul Shah, Clean Core’s chief executive, told me in a statement. “Our objective has been to introduce thorium into the nuclear fuel cycle in a practical way using existing reactors, and this milestone represents a significant step toward that goal.”
It’s the latest good news for Clean Core. Last month, as I reported for Heatmap, the company inked a deal with the Canadian National Laboratories to manufacture its first commercial fuel assemblies.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
In July 2017, South Carolina abandoned its $9 billion expansion of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, leaving ratepayers holding the bag and utility executives facing prison time for lying about the project’s viability. Now the pair of Westinghouse AP1000s planned at the site are making a comeback. On Monday, Westinghouse-owner Brookfield Asset Management formed a new joint venture with The Nuclear Company, a reactor construction manager, to work together on building more Westinghouse reactors such as the AP1000 or the smaller version, the AP300. V.C. Summer is the likely first project. “Our team was built on the field of Vogtle and on some of the most complex energy projects in the world,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer, said in a statement. “We know what it takes to deliver nuclear. What’s been missing is a model that brings together the people, the capabilities, and the capital to do it at speed and scale. That’s what this partnership creates.” The announcement comes as the Trump administration meets with utility executives to discuss funding deals to build the 10 new large-scale reactors President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Energy to facilitate construction on by 2029, as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer reported. Completing 10 AP1000s would give the U.S. economy a trillion-dollar boost, per a PricewaterhouseCoopers report Westinghouse released in March.
That’s not the only nuclear developer making deals. On Tuesday morning, Blue Energy, another startup focused on serving as a project developer for existing reactor designs, announced a partnership with GE Vernova to work on building the world’s first gas-plus-nuclear plant in Texas. The 2.5-gigawatt project would include GE Vernova’s gas turbines and its BWRX-300 small modular reactors through its joint venture with Hitachi. “Innovative projects like this one will help advance the future of nuclear power and meet the surging demand for electricity,” Scott Strazik, GE Vernova’s chief executive, said in a statement.
Steel, if you’re unfamiliar, is made in two big steps. Traditionally, iron ore is melted down in a coal-fired blast furnace, then forged into steel in a basic oxygen furnace. New plants typically run on something called direct reduced iron, which uses natural gas to turn the ore into iron, then made into steel in an electric arc furnace. The latter process is far cleaner. It can even be green, if the natural gas is swapped for green hydrogen and the electric arc furnace is powered by renewables or nuclear reactors. Nearly 40% of all global clean steel investments to date are hydrogen-powered DRI facilities. That’s according to new data from the Rhodium Group, which released its latest estimates Tuesday. Another 57% of investments are gas-powered DRI plants. While Europe has so far dominated investment into hydrogen DRI, “the region will likely see relatively little demand growth for iron over the coming decades,” the report found. In the fastest growing regions, such as India, Africa, and South America, “most new demand is being met with traditional, fossil-based ironmaking technologies, which risks locking in emissions for decades.” The consultancy’s modeling shows that clean steel supply capacity is on track to exceed demand by between 1.8 and 4.3 times by 2030, “risking a collapse of the nascent industry, where existing projects cannot find buyers and scale production to drive down costs.”
It may be time for a new New Orleans. The city has reached a “point of no return” that will see it surrounded by ocean within decades as climate change worsens. That’s the conclusion of a new paper in the journal Nature Sustainability. “In paleo-climate terms, New Orleans is gone; the question is how long it has,” Jesse Keenan, an expert in climate adaptation at Tulane University and one of the paper’s five co-authors, told The Guardian.