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:
It’s hard to make assumptions about cost more than a decade out. Just ask the nuclear startup NuScale.
Every company is, in a certain light, a kind of time machine, and every new product is a missive from the past. When a group of people get together to launch a startup, they’re making a bet that in a few months or years, people are going to want what they’re selling.
In the software industry, the past isn’t too long ago. Because it is possible to code and distribute an app somewhat quickly, a new software product might have only been conceived earlier that year or a year or two earlier.
In a mature consumer-product field — like, say, the car industry — the timeline is longer. A model year 2024 car might have first been conceived of in 2022, and it probably relies on a deeper engineering structure — a “platform” — that might date back to 2018 or earlier. Every new car contains, in essence, two-year-old technology.
But in the “hard tech” industry, the delay can be even longer. It can take more than a decade to get a new type of airplane or power plant to market. These types of technology are the biggest bet of all — because by the time the missive reaches its destination, the world may have changed.
So it was with NuScale, an Oregon-based company developing a small, modular nuclear reactor. Last week, NuScale announced that it was pulling out of a Department of Energy-backed, first-of-a-kind project in Utah.
The company had once planned to build six small, modular nuclear reactors in Utah in conjunction with the Idaho National Laboratory. But despite receiving more than $1 billion in Department of Energy subsidies, NuScale could not make the economics of its project work.
The main problem was that NuScale’s electricity was too expensive. Over the past two years, the estimated price of its project surged, rising by more than 75%. Because electricity projects have to recoup their costs from selling power, those high construction costs helped increase the estimated cost of the project’s electricity by 53%.
By the end, NuScale estimated that power from the project would cost $89 per megawatt-hour. (The average cost of residential electricity in Utah is about $20 per megawatt hour.) Of course, nuclear energy can provide benefits beyond what is captured by price — it is one of the few energy sources that can provide 24/7, zero-carbon electricity — but some costs are too high. NuScale struggled to sell its electrons to nearby towns: It simply could not compete with cheaper electricity from natural gas, solar, or other fuels.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this: NuScale’s smaller size and modular design were supposed to result in lower costs. In essence, NuScale hoped that cost savings would emerge from learning-by-doing and economies of scale — as it got better at making small, modular reactors, it would figure out how to bring down their costs.
That wasn’t a ludicrous idea. Economies of scale have brought down the cost of solar, wind, batteries, and electric vehicles over the past decade. And that idea — that as people do something more, they figure out how to do it more cheaply and efficiently — underpins American and Chinese climate policy.
But the Utah project was the first project of its kind, so NuScale hadn’t yet had the opportunity to take advantage of those economies of scale.
NuScale “shows how much customer matters for a first-of-a-kind deployment. NuScale went down a road that would have proven to be a really interesting model if successful, but it was a lot of legwork,” Ryan Norman, a nuclear analyst at the think tank Third Way, told me. Other advanced nuclear startups have more reliable customer relationships, he added.
Even worse for NuScale, the company found itself building the project amid the worst inflation in a generation. What might have once seemed like a “boring” part of a reactor’s design could create new and spiraling costs.
For instance, NuScale’s design required a lot of concrete, Farah Benahmed, a nuclear policy analyst at Breakthrough Energy, a set of climate investment and advocacy organizations founded by Bill Gates, told me. But concrete costs have risen dramatically, increasing by more than 9% over the past two years and helping to drive the company’s spiraling costs. Other advanced reactor designs don’t rely on concrete to the same degree as NuScale, Benahmed said. (Gates has invested in Terrapower, an advanced nuclear company that competes with NuScale.)
Other key inputs into NuScale’s reactors have also surged in price. From 2021 to 2023, the cost of carbon steel piping more than doubled, according to producer price index data. The cost of fabricated steel plates rose by more than 50%, and the cost of copper wiring rose by 30%.
More broadly, NuScale was founded in 2007 — which means, almost inevitably, that the company was responding to a very different energy moment than the one we have now. At the time, the world was undergoing the first wave of widespread public concern about climate change, driven by Hurricane Katrina, An Inconvenient Truth, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report. It seemed plausible that Congress might pass a bipartisan cap-and-trade law, which would benefit zero-carbon nuclear power.
Most importantly, U.S. electricity costs were rising, and experts feared they would continue to increase in the 2010s. America’s natural gas supplies seemed to be running out, and the country was preparing to import liquified natural gas in large quantities.
Then came the fracking boom. Cheap natural gas flooded the market, reshaping the domestic energy system and moderating the rise in power prices. The United States never passed a carbon price or a cap-and-trade law. And the economics of building lots of NuScale reactors to provide zero-carbon, 24/7 electricity now look seriously different.
NuScale is not the only clean energy company to run into inflation-driven problems. The offshore-wind company Orsted recently canceled two projects on the Jersey shore due to cost and supply-chain problems. Other offshore projects are also at risk.
Nuclear advocates said that despite its issues, NuScale has accomplished something that no other nuclear startup has. It is the sole nuclear startup to receive approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that must approve nuclear reactors before they can be used. “NuScale has paved the way for how to move through the NRC process. They’re a great example and paved the way for the industry,” Benahmed, the Breakthrough analyst, said.
That approval process took more than four years. It shows another way that it can take years or even decades for “hard tech” companies to get to market — to send their missive from the past to the present.
But despite that long timeline, advocates remain upbeat about the larger industry. “The investor base will do its due diligence to assess what business decisions went wrong with NuScale, but ultimately I think this development is less detrimental to the wave of support we've seen for advanced nuclear from that group,” Norman, the Third Way analyst, said. Because NuScale uses a small version of a light-water reactor — a conventional reactor technology that other advanced-nuclear startups have eschewed — investors probably won’t lose faith in the sector itself.
But they agreed that the make-or-break moment for nuclear is coming up. “The key decision point we need to wrestle with as we continue along the innovation path is: Who is going to lead?” Norma said. “Our allies are waiting. Our competitors are watching. Like it or not, now is the time for the U.S. and industry to prove itself. We've gotta have moxy.”
Editor's note: The original version of this article misidentified one of NuScale’s investors. We regret the error.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob talks to Peter Brannen, author of the new book The Story of CO2 Is the Story of Everything.
How did life first form on Earth? What does entropy have to do with the origins of mammalian life — or the creation of the modern economy? And what chemical process do people, insects, Volkswagens, and coal power plants all share?
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob chats with Peter Brannen, the author of a new history of the planet, The Story of CO2 Is the Story of Everything. The book weaves together a single narrative from the Big Bang to the Permian explosion to the oil-devouring economy of today by means of a single common thread: CO2, the same molecule now threatening our continued flourishing.
Brannen is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author of The Ends of the World, a history of mass extinctions on Earth. He is an affiliate at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder. 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. Jesse is off this week.
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: Why do we have a surplus of oxygen in the air in the first place? It was, for me, also something I did not understand at all before I read the book.
Peter Brannen: So there’s this common trope that two out of the next three breaths you have is from phytoplankton the ocean, or a quarter of it is from the Amazon alive today. And there’s a sense in which that’s true because oxygen and CO2 are being exchanged very quickly in the biosphere. But there is something like 800 times more oxygen in the air than can be produced by the entire biosphere. And all of the oxygen that’s produced by the rainforest, say — the rainforest is a living system where everything else is consuming that organic matter and feeding off of it. And it’s kind of a wash — just as much oxygen is created by the trees as is consumed by the bugs and fungi and jaguars and all the things that are living in the rainforest that are feeding off those plants and respiring that plant matter back to things like CO2 and water. So on a net scale it’s a wash.
So that gets you a planet with close to zero oxygen, and instead we have this absurd abundance of this thing that wants to react with everything. And the only way you can do that is if, say, you imagine a tree and when it dies, rather than being decomposed by fungi and beetles and on and on, that tree suddenly gets buried in sediment and falls into the crust and becomes part of the rock record, and the oxygen it made in life is not used in its own destruction. And by shielding that tree in the earth, you leave this surplus of oxygen in the air. And over all of Earth history, as a vanishingly small amount of this organic matter, things like plants and algae, do make it into the rock record, they leave an equivalent gift of oxygen in the air as a surplus.
We are more familiar with plant matter in the crust where it’s economically exploitable — we call those fossil fuels. So in a weird way, the fact that me and you can breathe — I don’t think a lot of people attribute that to the fact that there’s fossil fuels in the ground. Luckily most, you know, quote-unquote fossil fuels are very diffuse in mudstones, and they’re not economically exploitable. And we’re never going to run out of oxygen by burning fossil fuels because, you know, we worry about CO2 going up in parts per million and oxygens in whole percent. So, you know, it is true that for every molecule of CO2 we burn we’re bringing down oxygen by an equivalent amount, it’s just not that concerning.
But yeah, there is this astounding way of reframing, of looking at the world where the plant surface is breathable only because of what’s happened in the rocks beneath it.
Mentioned:
Peter’s book, The Story of CO2 Is the Story of Everything
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.
Is the “turbine crisis” coming to an end? Or at least the end of the beginning?
One of the few bright spots for renewables this year has been that their main competitor for energy generation, natural gas, has been in a manufacturing crunch. An inability (or unwillingness) to ramp up production of turbines, the core component of a gas-fired power plant, to meet rising energy demand is cited regularly by industry executives and financiers to explain why renewables are the best solution to quickly getting power. And it’s reflected in the data; planned additions to the grid are overwhelmingly solar and storage.
But now there might be more turbines coming. Mitsubishi Heavy Industry chief executive Eisaku Ito told Bloomberg over the weekend that it aims to double its capacity to build gas turbines over the next two years.
The industry is essentially an oligopoly of three suppliers: Mitsubishi, GE Vernova, and Siemens Energy. Due to the high level of capital investment necessary to build turbines, there’s little chance of the triumvirate expanding. This means it’s a seller’s market. Developers describe having to be vetted by their suppliers for a product that might get delivered in five years, instead of suppliers fiercely competing for new business. That means for the turbine crisis to be truly reversed, executives (and investors) at Mitsubishi’s two competitors will have to be convinced that large-scale capacity expansions are worth it.
Something that might help them reach that conclusion is if capacity expansion plans are met with a higher stock price. In another ominous development for the renewable energy industry, Mitsubishi’s stock price went up in response to the news. Renewable developers have enough problems on their hands without having to worry about a gas turbine industry that could supply more and more megawatts over the medium term.
Gas turbine manufacturers have been trying to navigate the tension of fulfilling orders for new gas turbines and avoiding costly investments in new capacity that might not actually be utilized should the AI boom peter out, let alone if public policy makes it much more difficult to build new fossil-powered generation.
Up until now, manufacturers — and their investors — have seemed content with heavy demand and constrained supply. Going into the weekend, the stock prices of the gas turbine industry powerhouses GE Vernova, Siemens, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry had risen 86%, 79%, and 69% so far this year.
But Mitsubishi Heavy Industry’s stock bump on Tuesday indicates that investors are not completely averse to capacity expansion. Yet at the same time, executives across the industry are careful to portray themselves as thoughtful and prudent stewards of capital.
Ito emphasized that the planned capacity expansion would not mean reckless investments, telling Bloomberg “the goal is to be as lean as possible” and that there would be work on the efficiency of the production process to address spiraling costs of turbine manufacturing.
“The executives seem keen to stress that this expansion will be lean and efficient,” Advait Arun, a climate and infrastructure analyst at the Center for Public Enterprise and the author of a much-cited Heatmap article on the turbine shortage, told me. “There’s a tension between getting over their skis by expanding overmuch while also killing the goose that’s laying their golden egg by not expanding.”
The pressure to build is immense — but so is the industry’s hard-won reticence about expansion.
Gas turbine orders are likely to hit a new record this year, according to S&P Global Commodities Insights, and the industry might be unwilling to go further.
“Past boom-and-bust cycles have made the industry cautious in its investments, and turbine demand in the early 2030s is uncertain,” S&P analysts wrote.
Siemens Energy chief executive Christian Bruch had told Morgan Stanley analysts in a note released Tuesday that the company had “no intention” of increasing capacity beyond working to expand the facilities it already has. He also said the company’s constraints are its own supply chain issues, namely the blades and vanes used in the turbines
And GE Vernova has been practically bragging about how far back they have reservations for turbines. “Our pipeline of activity for gas demand is only growing, but it is growing at even more healthy levels for 2029 deliveries, 2030, 2031,” the company’s chief executive Scott Strazik said on an earnings call in July.
And Wall Street has been happy to see developers get in line for whatever turbines can be made from the industry’s existing facilities. But what happens when the pressure to build doesn’t come from customers but from competitors?
A federal appeals court on Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to kill former President Biden’s $20 billion green bank program, which would have provided low-cost loans for solar installations, building efficiency upgrades, and other local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The three-judge panel overturned a lower court’s injunction temporarily requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to resume payments, and ruled that most of the plaintiffs’ claims were contract disputes and belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. If the case now moves to the Court of Federal Claims, the plaintiffs would only be able to sue for damages and any possibility of reinstating the grants would be gone. But they could also petition to appeal the decision.
Congress created the grants, known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as part of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. It authorized Biden’s EPA to award $20 billion to a handful of nonprofits that would then offer financing to individuals and organizations for emission-reduction projects, mostly geared toward low-income or otherwise disadvantaged communities. The agency fully obligated the funds last August to eight nonprofits that would “create a national financing network for clean energy and climate solutions across the country.”
Then Trump took office and ordered his agency heads to pause and review all funding for Inflation Reduction Act programs. EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin targeted the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for termination, making a big show of a covert recording of a former agency employee comparing Biden’s efforts to get climate money out the door after the election to “throwing gold bars off the edge” of the Titanic. Nevermind that this particular program had been fully obligated prior to the election, and recipients had already started to announce investments as early as October.
The nonprofit awardees sued the Trump administration, and the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary injunction on the EPA’s grant terminations in mid-April, mandating that the funds continue to be paid out while the case proceeded. The EPA appealed that injunction, leading to today’s ruling.
In her opinion for the majority, appeals court Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dismissed the nonprofits’ claims that the EPA’s grant terminations were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. She wrote that the dispute was “essentially contractual” and therefore did not belong in the district court to begin with. The nonprofits had also alleged that the EPA violated the constitution's separation of powers in attempting to cancel the grant agreements, as Congress had given explicit direction to the agency to award the funds by September 2024. While Judge Rao allowed that the district court had jurisdiction over this particular claim, she ruled that it was “unlikely to succeed” on the merits.
This decision, if it stands, means the case is basically over, David Super, an administrative law expert at Georgetown Law, told me. The plaintiffs could ask to have it transferred to the Court of Federal Claims if they wish to pursue monetary damages, but that’s likely a losing proposition since Judge Rao — unusually, according to Super — went on to opine that the plaintiffs would have no case there, either.
The plaintiffs could, however, ask for a rehearing by the full D.C. circuit. “Given that this is a very important case, both legally and practically, I think they would have a good chance of getting reheard,” Super said.
There was one other important point in the decision. While this case has been playing out, Congress rescinded any “unobligated” funding — money that hasn’t yet been spent or contracted out — from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as part of Trump’s tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the remaining balance in the fund was just $19 million, essentially the cost of program administration. But the Trump administration has argued in the ongoing court case that the law rescinded the full $20 billion. Judge Rao disagreed, writing that the law “did not render this appeal moot.”
This is the latest in a series of wins for the Trump administration over the termination of grant funding. Last week, the D.C. district court dismissed a challenge brought by nonprofits over the termination of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants, another Inflation Reduction Act program, on the grounds that it belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. The Supreme Court also issued a similar opinion in August regarding grant funding from the National Institutes of Health that was terminated on the grounds of a shift in agency priorities.
The evaporation of $20 billion in clean energy funding is no small loss, but Super said the consequences could also be much more systemic, threatening the viability of federal grantmaking as a tool to stimulate private capital. “If these commitments are utterly unenforceable, then no one's going to do business with the federal government,” he said.