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:
Batteries aren’t the only electric vehicle accessories chock-full of critical minerals.
Whenever projections of future electric vehicle demand come up, the conversation will inevitably turn to battery recycling. And for good reason: It takes a lot of expensive, difficult-to-acquire metals and materials to make the big lithium-ion batteries that power EVs, making it environmentally and financially prudent to recover them.
But there is a lot of other infrastructure, materials, and ephemera that come with a big transition to EVs, collectively known as EV supply equipment, or EVSE. Just think of all the charging stations and charging cables that have sprung up around the world, and which will reach the end of their lives sooner than you might think.
The question of what to do with them is the subject of a new partnership between business and academia. XCharge North America, a producer of DC fast chargers, has begun to send its busted and beat-up EV chargers and modules to the recycling group Grensol, which has partnered with researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute to find better, cheaper ways to recycle materials that otherwise would have been sent to the landfill.
“EVSEs have a particularly short useful life due to constant wear and tear, so the need for a recyclable material solution is the driving force behind this partnership,” Grensol’s Rajiv Singhal told me.
EVSE leads a difficult life. The stuff inside the cable endures rapid heating and cooling cycles as electricity races through day after day. This leads to premature degradation, explains Akanksha Gupta, a postdoctoral researcher at WPI. Meanwhile, the polymer material on the outside of the cable, which insulates the electrical components within, is subject to rain, cold, being walked on and run over — whatever the outside world can throw at it.
As a result, Gupta said, EV charging cables last just five to 15 years before they need to be replaced. EV stations are more durable, since their parts are tucked inside metal housing. But even there, specific components that are subject to high stresses wear down and fail after years of heavy usage, sending the entire charging stall to the great beyond.
Some parts we already know how to deal with. The exterior housing of an EV charger is typically made of aluminum or steel, materials that recyclers can already recover in their entirety. Gupta told me there are also existing techniques to recycle cables by (mostly) separating the plastic parts from the valuable metals, like copper.
The materials that are most important to recover, however — because they’re valuable, and because there is a limited supply of them to mine from the Earth’s crust — are also the hardest to get. Gold and silver, which have excellent electrical conductivity and corrosion resistance, are used in printed circuit boards inside the power electronic modules. Tantalum and rare earth elements can be found in capacitors, while tin is used in solders on printed circuit boards.
The electronic module found inside the charging station is a particularly thorny problem, Gupta said.
“Rare earth elements and some critical materials like tantalum and silicon carbide are found in trace amounts and bonded with other metals or plastic components,” she told me. “It is hard to recover and recycle these materials without sufficient economic incentives.” (Estimates for the value of the recycled metals industry vary widely but coalesce around the hundreds of billions of dollars, currently.) “Moreover, during the separation and recovery stages, the elements present in trace amounts can get easily discarded or landfilled, lowering the recovery rate for such materials, which are often of high value.”
The researchers at WPI are investigating new techniques for separating materials and recycling the polymers present in EV charging equipment. Though neither side of the partnership was willing to put a dollar figure or a timeframe to their partnership, the work at hand is as much economic as it is scientific, if indeed it will become economically viable to recycle EVSE. Precious tantalum, for instance, can be recovered as tantalum pentoxide or tantalum chloride depending on the chemical process used, and those two materials each have different markets.
“Our aim is to compare recovery processes for an EVSE station … in terms of both economic and ecological considerations,” Gupta said. “There will be several markets for recovered materials, including the steel and aluminum industry for base metals, the semiconductor industry for silicon, tantalum, and gallium-related products, and the petrochemical industry for polymer-based products, among other industries.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On the last day of the climate summit, carbon removal tax credits, and Northvolt
Current conditions: A heat wave is baking southeast Australia, bringing temperatures that are 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the seasonal average • There have been 363 brush fires in New York City in November alone • It is 65 degrees and sunny in Baku for the last official day of the COP29 climate summit.
Another round of climate finance draft text was released this morning at COP29, this time with an actual number attached to it, but not a particularly big one. Developed countries are proposing to up the Collective Quantified Goal from $100 billion annually (agreed in 2009) to just $250 billion annually, far short of the $1 trillion or so economists have said will be necessary each year by 2030. Greenpeace’s delegation lead Jasper Inventor called the number “divorced from the reality of climate impacts and outrageously below the needs of developing countries.” The text does “call on” nations to “work together to enable the scaling up of financing” to at least $1.3 trillion a year from all sources, but the real number, for now, is $250 billion. Laurie van der Burg, Oil Change International’s global public finance manager, called the text “an absolute embarrassment.” Negotiations will continue. Today is the final official day in the COP29 schedule, but previous conferences have gone into overtime.
Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a bipartisan bill yesterday that would establish tax credits for carbon removal projects. Under the Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act, direct air capture projects would get a $250 tax credit per metric ton of carbon removed, and indirect capture projects (through biomass, for example) would get $110. So the tax credit is technology-neutral, meaning both natural and engineered projects would be eligible. But to qualify, projects must store the carbon for 1,000 years or more. “Through technology-neutral support that doesn’t pick winners, this bill creates a level playing field that will advance innovations with the biggest climate impact while supporting new jobs and maintaining U.S. leadership in the carbon removal sector,” said Christina DeConcini, Director of Government Affairs at the World Resources Institute.
Swedish battery manufacturer Northvolt has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S., and its CEO Peter Carlsson has resigned. The company launched in 2016 and there were hopes it would help cut EV makers’ reliance on Chinese batteries. It became Europe’s best-funded startup, raising $15 billion from backers and receiving more than $50 billion in orders for its batteries. But a host of issues, “from mismanagement and overspending to poor safety standards and over-reliance on Chinese machinery,” led to its collapse, according to the Financial Times. The voluntary bankruptcy filing will protect the company from creditors while it restructures in early 2025.
U.S. prosecutors this week indicted Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, chairman of the Adani Group, as well as his nephew and six others for plotting to pay Indian government officials more than $250 million in bribes in order to secure solar energy contracts and build what would be India’s largest solar power plant project. Authorities said the bribes helped the Adanis secure more than $3 billion in loans and bonds, including from U.S. investors. And as Reutersexplained, “U.S. law bars foreign companies which raise money from U.S. investors from paying bribes overseas to win business. It is also against U.S. law to raise money from investors on the basis of false statements.” The indictment “threatens Adani’s efforts to redefine himself as a clean-power champion and secure overseas financing for projects vital to the nation’s energy transition,” Bloombergreported.
A second storm was blasting the Pacific Northwest overnight, accompanied by an atmospheric river that’s bringing a lot of moisture. The strongest winds are being felt across Washington and northern Oregon, with Northern California and southwestern Oregon receiving the most rain. Cumulative rainfall from this storm, and the bomb cyclone that hit on Tuesday, could be up to 20 inches in parts of California. High elevations could see 3 feet of snow or more. And even after this second storm passes, a third is on the way for the region over the weekend. Nearly 200,000 people in Washington state remain without power. Here is a stunning satellite image of the storm that hit earlier this week:
“When they’ve had ideas for bills or policies, they went to Democrats. They haven’t built a lot of personal relationships with members of Congress on the other side of the aisle.” –Emily Domenech, a former staffer for House Speakers Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson who is now a senior vice president at Boundary Stone, a firm founded by veterans of the Obama Department of Energy. Domenech spoke to Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin about how clean energy companies are learning to speak Republican.
“If you’re a Republican with energy expertise, yeah, your stock is fairly high right now.”
Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, passed on a party line vote by the narrowest of margins — 50 Democratic votes in the Senate (with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie) and 220 in the House of Representatives. With tense tax negotiations looming next year, it will now have to survive a 53-Republican Senate and a majority-Republican House. And that means that if they want to save the IRA from being gutted, the beneficiaries of its tax credits for the production of and investment in non-carbon-emitting fuels, advanced manufacturing, hydrogen, carbon capture, and the rest will have to learn to speak Republican.
The companies that benefit from the bill are “going to keep engaging policy makers on both sides of the aisle, but particularly now Republicans,” Jason Clark, the former chief strategy officer of the American Clean Power Association and head of energy policy consulting firm Power Brief, told me.
“There’s been a very thoughtful, very considerate effort to do just that — to make sure that they know how to engage with Republicans in a way that is authentic, that isn’t just lip service,” Clark said. The industry should avoid, “Oh, my goodness, we want to be buddies all of a sudden because you’re in power.”
One way to do that is by making sure you have Republicans making your case. The American Clean Power Association has former Trump administration and American Petroleum Institute staffers on its policy and federal affairs teams, for example.
“If you’re a Republican with energy expertise, yeah, your stock is fairly high right now,” Colin Hayes, a former senior staffer on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources under Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski and founding partner of the bipartisan lobbying firm Lot Sixteen, which represents a number of green energy firms and trade groups, told me in an email. “We’ve been getting a lot of calls.”
But it’s not just hiring the right people — the industry also needs to be “learning to engage with members of Congress as constituents,” Emily Domenech, a former staffer for House Speakers Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson who is now a senior vice president at Boundary Stone, a firm founded by veterans of the Obama Department of Energy, told me.
“In the past, clean energy hasn’t focused on getting to know those representatives. When they’ve had ideas for bills or policies, they went to Democrats. They haven’t built a lot of personal relationships with members of Congress on the other side of the aisle,” Domenech said.
Her advice? “Go out there and build relationships and do the shoe leather lobbying engagement that every other company is doing.”
And what kind of arguments might would-be buddy-buddy clean energy companies make to those Republican lawmakers?
Along with some changes in vocabulary, their strategy will likely involve a combination of appeals to business and investment certainty, job creation in Republican districts, and emphasizing the regional benefits of certain incentives, like tax credits for wind energy and carbon capture in the Great Plains or manufacturing in the South.
That’s because the projects themselves have largely ended up in Republican-represented and -controlled areas, which tend to have the open space and business-friendly regulatory climate clean energy companies appreciate, even when they’re run by Democrats.
Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents a number of energy companies and other firms affected by the Inflation Reduction Act in his capacity as a leader of the government relations team at Bracewell, told me in an email that “the value proposition for a balanced energy portfolio contains many elements already of great concern to Republican leaders.”
“Significant capital has already been deployed based on clean energy incentives,” he said. “To change these incentives in midstream would create business uncertainty — in effect, it would increase taxes on these projects. Outcomes like this run counter to long-standing Republican principles.”
The industry is already starting to get the hang of the lingo. Advanced Energy United, a clean energy trade group, was early congratulating Donald Trump on his election victory. “When we talk to Republican lawmakers,” the group’s managing director, Harrison Godfrey, told me, the message is, “let’s not fundamentally change course. Investment decisions take years. We build industries with certainty.”
As several lobbyists and strategists I spoke to pointed out, the Inflation Reduction Act did not invent clean energy tax credits, and this won’t be the first battle to preserve them. Tax incentives for non-carbon-emitting “alternative” energy have been a part of the policy landscape since the late 1970s. Wind energy and biofuels have won especially ardent support from some very powerful Republicans, namely those in the Corn Belt, and particularly Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who has for decades fought for extending the production tax credit for wind.
“These are credits and industries that didn’t spring up yesterday and have literally been in existence for decades,” Godfrey told me.
The best example of an alternative energy credit that embedded itself within the Republican Party policy playbook is one many environmentalists face with some degree of chagrin: biofuels, Domenech told me.
The Renewable Fuel Standard, established by the Energy Policy Act in 2005 amid concerns about energy security, has become a bonanza for states like Iowa, which grows much of the corn that is then processed into ethanol fuel according to standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Lawmakers’ attachment to the program is so strong that it has at times run a fissure through the Republican Party. Though Trump’s first EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, was one of the administration’s chief villains in the eyes of the environmental movement, he also became a punching bag for Republican lawmakers, including Grassley, who tangled with Pruitt in 2017 over blending targets for biofuels and the waivers given to refiners to avoid buying credits to comply with the program. (When Pruitt resigned in a cloud of scandal the following year, Grassley took a rhetorical victory lap.)
Capitol Hill has maintained biofuels’ first-among-equals status ever since. The industry’s sway with lawmakers of both parties in the Midwest is why Republicans are joining with Democrats to introduce bills to extend the 45Z tax credit for so-called clean fuels “at a time when a lot of other IRA credits could be on the chopping block,” Domenech said.
Similar alliances could form around other parts of the bill, especially those with well-defined regional impacts, Domenech said. Doug Burgum, Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Interior and the head of his newly-formed National Energy Council, has backed a massive carbon capture and pipeline project in his home state of North Dakota, which some analysts have said could get billions of dollars in tax credits, Geothermal development could also maintain the support of lawmakers in the Mountain West, where most of the country’s geothermal resource is located, while incoming Senate Environment and Public Works chair Shelly Moore Capito is one of the chamber’s biggest advocates for nuclear power.
“If you ask Republicans to be for or against the IRA as a whole, they’ll be against it,” Domenech told me, “But Republicans think about energy as a regional issue. So instead of forcing this one size fits all approach, IRA advocates would be smart to give people room to support only the policies that make the most sense for their state or region.”
And what renewables can learn from it.
A sprawling multi-state carbon pipeline appears easier to permit and build than wind and solar farms in red states, despite comments the president-elect or his team may have said on the campaign trail. And the answer has to do with more than just the potential benefits for oil and gas.
The Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline network would criss-cross five states – Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas – connecting dozens of ethanol “biorefinery” plants to carbon sequestration sites for storing CO2 captured while producing the agri-fuel. On paper Summit has its work cut out for it in ways not dissimilar to the troubles facing solar and wind. Land use issues, ecological concerns, the whole lot. And its work has become controversial amongst a myriad of opposition groups I often write about like rural farmers and, of course, conspiratorial NIMBYs – chief among them Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., two members of the incoming Trump administration.
But Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.’s presence is providing cold comfort compared to the selection of North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum – a vocal supporter of the project – to be Interior Secretary.
“We’re screwed,” wrote Dawn Shepard, a North Dakotan opposed to the project, on Facebook after the selection was announced. “He will get all Carbon Capture projects approved. I thought Republicans and Trump, included, didn’t believe in climate change. Trump’s not keeping his word.”
It’s not exactly that simple, and its debatable whether Summit’ll actually help address climate change, but the premise is true: Trump’s election may just assure the pipeline’s completion, if all things go its way.
“Those appointments are definitely a big thumb on the scale of the pipeline going through,” said Mark Hefflinger of Bold Alliance, one of the activist networks fighting the pipeline project.
In my conversations with activists and the company, it doesn’t appear there’s any easy way for the Interior Department – which oversees all federal land use – to grease all of the skids for Summit, so to speak. But there are a number of factors in its favor now: the pipeline will still require Army Corps of Engineers permits for water body crossings and those tend to require environmental reviews that heavily involve Interior. At the same time, all sides expect the Interior Secretary and likely Energy Secretary Chris Wright (an oil magnate) to champion beneficial Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization in tax talks early next year.
All the while, most state-level regulators have finished or are completing approvals of the pipeline, with the exception of South Dakota where Summit on Tuesday resubmitted its permitting application to the state’s Public Utilities Commission. While I’ve been told the company didn’t substantially adjust its routing in response to the failed ballot initiative, executives certainly did change plans to elide a repeat rejection from the commission after it said no to pipeline plans last year.
“Our efforts involved spending more than a year driving county roads, knocking on doors, and having meaningful, face-to-face conversations with landowners,” Sabrina Zenor, Summit’s director of stakeholder engagement and corporate communications, told me. “These conversations guided our approach.”
There’s a lot that could still go awry for Summit. They could lose legal battles in Iowa that send them back to the drawing board in a crucial hub for corn and ethanol and where public opinion may be souring on the developer. South Dakota could be its own ball of wax, given how passionate the opposition in the state is.
Trump’s comments on the matter have been vague, indicating he’s … well, being very Trump about this. “Well, you know, we’re working on that,” Trump said when asked about the pipeline at an Iowa primary event last year. “And you know, we had a plan to totally — it’s such a ridiculous situation, isn’t it? But we had a plan, and we would have instituted that plan, and it was all ready, but we will get it — if we win, that’s going to be taken care of. That will be one of the easy things we do.”
Ultimately it may be with many issues: whoever’s in the room last with Trump could decide the pipeline’s fate.
But regardless, developers of renewables and battery storage could take away a few lessons from the pipeline network.
Walt Bones, the former head of South Dakota’s Agriculture Department, is one of the landowners currently negotiating a financial agreement for land use with Summit. He’s a farmer, and like many farmers we write about here at The Fight, he doesn’t support building stuff on or near his land if there’s going to be an impact on his crop yields. He told me that he believes the opposition in the state is largely the product of a rush to build by an over-zealous company seeking the maximum benefit from federal tax credits. And they spooked people, producing widespread skepticism of the pipeline.
“Summit did not help themselves any,” he said.
Now of course, there’s lots of concerns about CO2 pipelines’ environmental impacts and the risk of them going, well, kablooey. But unlike how some farmers skeptically view agri-voltaics (e.g. dual use solar), the thought of a pipeline beneath the earth gives Bones – a former farm regulator – no qualms. And the reasoning is simple: He doesn’t believe the pipeline, which will be buried, will impact his farming at all. And ethanol – unlike solar or wind – will feed demand for more farming.
“Basically zero impact to our land. We’ll still be able to farm over it. We’ll still be able to graze over it with our cows,” he said. “I know what the value is … [it’ll] guarantee the future viability of corn.”
So where does this leave us? It’s likely Bones doesn’t represent every farmer. But maybe there’d be a benefit in renewable developers focusing on finding ever-more ways to create a fly-wheel where solar and wind energy generation creates more business for farmers. Clearly, the sheer footprint of a utility scale solar or wind project can be more impactful than a thin pipeline crossing a property.
And I guess they should also make more politically powerful friends in the Dakotas.