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:
What began as a dispute over world-leading computer chips is now rocking the auto and clean energy industries.
America and China’s increasingly acrimonious rivalry over national security is now spilling over into clean energy.
On Friday, China imposed export restrictions on three high-purity forms of graphite, a mineral that is essential to making semiconductors, electronics, and — most importantly — electric vehicle batteries. Under the new rules, Chinese companies cannot export any of these especially valuable types of graphite without getting a waiver from the government.
For now, these new restrictions exist in a curious quantum state: They could be a big deal, permanently reshaping the global clean-energy economy, or they could quickly fizzle into a bureaucratic wrinkle.
Yet the potential importance of these new rules to the EV industry is difficult to overstate. Graphite makes up about 20% of the mass of an EV battery, and at least two-thirds of the world’s graphite comes from China.
What’s most ominous might be the fact that the rules exist at all. The new restrictions show that America and China’s growing trade battle over “dual-use technologies” — tools and materials that can be used by both civilians and the military — is proving difficult to contain. What began as a dispute over world-leading computer chips is now rocking the auto and clean energy industries.
As far as critical minerals go, graphite is relatively simple: It is just a crystal of carbon atoms. It can be mined from the Earth or produced synthetically by processing fossil fuels. Humanity goes through hundreds of tons of low-grade graphite every year — it is in pencils and chemicals, for instance — but high-grade graphite is crucial for two uses. First, it is used in the equipment needed to make semiconductors, including those used for AI and other uses. Second, it makes up the anodes — or the negative electrodes — of lithium-ion batteries, the type of batteries that power smartphones, laptops, and electric vehicles.
Right now, China makes most of the world’s graphite. It also processes much of that graphite, grinding it into flakes 1/10th the size of a human hair and rounding them into tiny spheres. Graphite then must be processed to incredible purity — 99.5% or higher — to be used in batteries or semiconductors; only exceptionally pure graphite has the chemical properties needed for these technologies. It is the export of these very pure forms of graphite that China has now restricted.
The new rules follow restrictions on the export of gallium and germanium, which are crucial for electronics and EVs, that China imposed in June.
“In the wider critical minerals space, the talking point is that China dominates. Which is true. But it’s especially true for graphite,” Morgan Bazilian, the director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, told me.
Graphite makes up about 20% of the mass of a lithium-ion battery. There is, in all likelihood, several grams of graphite in the device you are using right now. The odds are high that it originated in a Chinese factory.
The new limits came in the context of a widening United States-China trade war. A few days earlier, the United States had closed loopholes and tightened its restrictions on the kind of semiconductors that can be exported to China. Those American restrictions were first imposed last year; they aimed to preserve America’s technological supremacy by blocking China’s ability to produce the most advanced forms of semiconductors domestically. The restrictions limited what kinds of technology and intellectual property could be shared with China; they also blocked U.S. citizens or green-card holders from working on technology that could be shared with the Chinese.
There is some disagreement about whether these rules are working; China has announced production of a 7-nanometer chip, which puts it close to the state of the art. But in any case, China’s new limits on graphite export don’t seem to be an in-kind response to the American semiconductor restrictions, and it’s unclear whether the graphite restrictions will matter as much for the rest of the world. The restrictions could temporarily spike short-term prices, according to Alex Turnbull, an investor who has proposed, along with the think tank Employ America, that the U.S. maintain a strategic lithium reserve. But in the long-term, graphite producers in the West should be able to increase production and fill the gap.
Bazilian said that these new restrictions have hit at a lucky time. Graphite prices have fallen this year due to an excess of Chinese capacity and softer demand for electric vehicles than expected.
The good news is that unlike with other minerals, a number of American, Indian, and Japanese firms have already begun manufacturing graphite. Many of these firms saw their share prices rise on Monday.
In a way, the restrictions were a blessing for non-Chinese graphite suppliers, Turnbull said. Many companies would have struggled to scale up in the same market as the Chinese firms, which regularly produce more graphite than they need. (It also helps that — unlike semiconductors — graphite does not rely on proprietary or especially advanced technology; its risks are primarily financial, rather than technical.)
That said, there are still reasons why a rapid scale up might not happen, Bazilian said. “This is really a place where China dominates, and the other parties that have, like, 10% market share are places like Mozambique,” he said.
And Mozambique’s mines have suffered from what are sometimes euphemistically referred to as “security issues.” Last year, the Balama mine in the country’s Cabo Delgado was attacked by Islamist terrorists, who beheaded two security guards. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack.
America’s efforts to develop a rival graphite supply chain depend on that mine. Last year, the Department of Energy issued a $102 million loan to Syrah Vidalia, a new Louisiana facility that will process graphite from the Mozambique mine and manufacture battery anodes.
“The critical minerals discussion is not a homogenous discussion. Each of these supply chains is different — it’s not easy to make big analogies to the oil market or something,” Bazilian said. “People love to say, Rare earths aren’t rare, but that’s not nearly as profound as people think. All of these minerals are abundant on Earth, but it’s not easy to find economically viable deposits of these ores.”
As long as the global graphite market remained constrained, he added, then Chinese firms would continue to have the easiest, cheapest access to it — which means that they will likely continue their dominance of producing anodes, a crucial midstream part of the EV battery supply chain.
Climate advocates have long pointed out that the technologies needed to fight climate change — batteries, renewables, electric vehicles, and more — have profound national-security implications. They are, like semiconductors, the industries of the future. It’s little surprise that battles over the former have been dragged into fights over the latter.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital
Today’s conversation is with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital, which has invested in developers like Summit Ridge and Brightnight. I reached out to Mary as a part of the broader range of conversations I’ve had with industry professionals since it has become clear Republicans in Congress will be taking a chainsaw to the Inflation Reduction Act. I wanted to ask her about investment philosophies in this trying time and how the landscape for putting capital into renewable energy has shifted. But Mary’s quite open with her view: these technologies aren’t going anywhere.
The following conversation has been lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
How do you approach working in this field given all the macro uncertainties?
It’s a really fair question. One, macro uncertainties aside, when you look at the levelized cost of energy report Lazard releases it is clear that there are forms of clean energy that are by far the cheapest to deploy. There are all kinds of reasons to do decarbonizing projects that aren’t clean energy generation: storage, resiliency, energy efficiency – this is massively cost saving. Like, a lot of the methane industry [exists] because there’s value in not leaking methane. There’s all sorts of stuff you can do that you don’t need policy incentives for.
That said, the policy questions are unavoidable. You can’t really ignore them and I don’t want to say they don’t matter to the industry – they do. It’s just, my belief in this being an investable asset class and incredibly important from a humanity perspective is unwavering. That’s the perspective I’ve been taking. This maybe isn’t going to be the most fun market, investing in decarbonizing things, but the sense of purpose and the belief in the underlying drivers of the industry outweigh that.
With respect to clean energy development, and the investment class working in development, how have things changed since January and the introduction of these bills that would pare back the IRA?
Both investors and companies are worried. There’s a lot more political and policy engagement. We’re seeing a lot of firms and organizations getting involved. I think companies are really trying to find ways to structure around the incentives. Companies and developers, I think everybody is trying to – for lack of a better term – future-proof themselves against the worst eventuality.
One of the things I’ve been personally thinking about is that the way developers generally make money is, you have a financier that’s going to buy a project from them, and the financier is going to have a certain investment rate of return, or IRR. So ITC [investment tax credit] or no ITC, that IRR is going to be the same. And the developer captures the difference.
My guess – and I’m not incredibly confident yet – but I think the industry just focuses on being less ITC dependent. Finding the projects that are juicier regardless of the ITC.
The other thing is that as drafts come out for what we’re expecting to see, it’s gone from bad to terrible to a little bit better. We’ll see what else happens as we see other iterations.
How are you evaluating companies and projects differently today, compared to how you were maybe before it was clear the IRA would be targeted?
Let’s say that we’re looking at a project developer and they have a series of projects. Right now we’re thinking about a few things. First, what assets are these? It’s not all ITC and PTC. A lot of it is other credits. Going through and asking, how at risk are these credits? And then, once we know how at risk those credits are we apply it at a project level.
This also raises a question of whether you’re going to be able to find as many projects. Is there going to be as much demand if you’re not able to get to an IRR? Is the industry going to pay that?
What gives you optimism in this moment?
I’ll just look at the levelized cost of energy and looking at the unsubsidized tables say these are the projects that make sense and will still get built. Utility-scale solar? Really attractive. Some of these next-gen geothermal projects, I think those are going to be cost effective.
The other thing is that the cost of battery storage is just declining so rapidly and it’s continuing to decline. We are as a country expected to compare the current price of these technologies in perpetuity to the current price of oil and gas, which is challenging and where the technologies have not changed materially. So we’re not going to see the cost decline we’re going to see in renewables.
And more news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – The SouthCoast offshore wind project will be forced to abandon its existing power purchase agreements with Massachusetts and Rhode Island if the Trump administration’s wind permitting freeze continues, according to court filings submitted last week.
2. Tippacanoe County, Indiana – This county has now passed a full solar moratorium but is looking at grandfathering one large utility-scale project: RWE and Geenex’s Rainbow Trout solar farm.
3. Columbia County, Wisconsin – An Alliant wind farm named after this county is facing its own pushback as the developer begins the state permitting process and is seeking community buy-in through public info hearings.
4. Washington County, Arkansas – It turns out even mere exploration for a wind project out in this stretch of northwest Arkansas can get you in trouble with locals.
5. Wagoner County, Oklahoma – A large NextEra solar project has been blocked by county officials despite support from some Republican politicians in the Sooner state.
6. Skagit County, Washington – If you’re looking for a ray of developer sunshine on a cloudy day, look no further than this Washington State county that’s bucking opposition to a BESS facility.
7. Orange County, California – A progressive Democratic congressman is now opposing a large battery storage project in his district and talking about battery fire risks, the latest sign of a populist revolt in California against BESS facilities.
Permitting delays and missed deadlines are bedeviling solar developers and activist groups alike. What’s going on?
It’s no longer possible to say the Trump administration is moving solar projects along as one of the nation’s largest solar farms is being quietly delayed and even observers fighting the project aren’t sure why.
Months ago, it looked like Trump was going to start greenlighting large-scale solar with an emphasis out West. Agency spokespeople told me Trump’s 60-day pause on permitting solar projects had been lifted and then the Bureau of Land Management formally approved its first utility-scale project under this administration, Leeward Renewable Energy’s Elisabeth solar project in Arizona, and BLM also unveiled other solar projects it “reasonably” expected would be developed in the area surrounding Elisabeth.
But the biggest indicator of Trump’s thinking on solar out west was Esmeralda 7, a compilation of solar project proposals in western Nevada from NextEra, Invenergy, Arevia, ConnectGen, and other developers that would, if constructed, produce at least 6 gigawatts of power. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin was first to report that BLM officials updated the timetable for fully permitting the expansive project to say it would complete its environmental review by late April and be completely finished with the federal bureaucratic process by mid-July. BLM told Matthew that the final environmental impact statement – the official study completing the environmental review – would be published “in the coming days or week or so.”
More than two months later, it’s crickets from BLM on Esmeralda 7. BLM never released the study that its website as of today still says should’ve come out in late April. I asked BLM for comment on this and a spokesperson simply told me the agency “does not have any updates to share on this project at this time.”
This state of quiet stasis is not unique to Esmeralda; for example, Leeward has yet to receive a final environmental impact statement for its 700 mega-watt Copper Rays solar project in Nevada’s Pahrump Valley that BLM records state was to be published in early May. Earlier this month, BLM updated the project timeline for another Nevada solar project – EDF’s Bonanza – to say it would come out imminently, too, but nothing’s been released.
Delays happen in the federal government and timelines aren’t always met. But on its face, it is hard for stakeholders I speak with out in Nevada to take these months-long stutters as simply good faith bureaucratic hold-ups. And it’s even making work fighting solar for activists out in the desert much more confusing.
For Shaaron Netherton, executive director of the conservation group Friends of the Nevada Wilderness, these solar project permitting delays mean an uncertain future. Friends of the Nevada Wilderness is a volunteer group of ecology protection activists that is opposing Esmeralda 7 and filed its first lawsuit against Greenlink West, a transmission project that will connect the massive solar constellation to the energy grid. Netherton told me her group may sue against the approval of Esmeralda 7… but that the next phase of their battle against the project is a hazy unknown.
“It’s just kind of a black hole,” she told me of the Esmeralda 7 permitting process. “We will litigate Esmeralda 7 if we have to, and we were hoping that with this administration there would be a little bit of a pause. There may be. That’s still up in the air.”
I’d like to note that Netherton’s organization has different reasons for opposition than I normally write about in The Fight. Instead of concerns about property values or conspiracies about battery fires, her organization and a multitude of other desert ecosystem advocates are trying to avoid a future where large industries of any type harm or damage one of the nation’s most biodiverse and undeveloped areas.
This concern for nature has historically motivated environmental activism. But it’s also precisely the sort of advocacy that Trump officials have opposed tooth-and-nail, dating back to the president’s previous term, when advocates successfully opposed his rewrite of Endangered Species Act regulations. This reason – a motivation to hippie-punch, so to speak – is a reason why I hardly expect species protection to be enough of a concern to stop solar projects in their tracks under Trump, at least for now. There’s also the whole “energy dominance” thing, though Trump has been wishy-washy on adhering to that goal.
Patrick Donnelly, great basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, agrees that this is a period of confusion but not necessarily an end to solar permitting on BLM land.
“[Solar] is moving a lot slower than it was six months ago, when it was coming at a breakneck pace,” said Patrick Donnelly of the Center for Biological Diversity. “How much of that is ideological versus 15-20% of the agencies taking early retirement and utter chaos inside the agencies? I’m not sure. But my feeling is it’s less ideological. I really don’t think Trump’s going to just start saying no to these energy projects.”