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:
“Do you ever think about electric cars?”

Between solar roofs, home batteries, and electric vehicles, Tesla could potentially “do more to fight climate change than any other company — perhaps any other entity — in the world,” Walter Isaacson muses in his much-anticipated biography of Elon Musk, out Tuesday.
But while the central character is at times painted as a heroic visionary (Isaacson’s previous subjects have included Steve Jobs, Einstein, and Leonardo da Vinci), the biography also makes it clear that Tesla’s mercurial CEO isn’t always the easiest to work with — or, in the blunter words of Bill Gates, he can be “super mean.” Here are some of the most surprising moments about climate and energy shared in Isaacson’s Elon Musk:
On Musk’s EV passion:
When Elon went with [Peter] Nicholson’s daughter, Christie, to a party one evening, his first question was “Do you ever think about electric cars?” As he later admitted, it was not the world’s best come-on line.
On education:
Musk also focused on electric cars. He and [his friend Robin] Ren would grab lunch from one of the food trucks and sit on the campus lawn, where Musk would read academic papers on batteries. California had just passed a requirement mandating that 10 percent of vehicles by 2003 had to be electric. “I want to go make that happen,” Musk said.
Musk also became convinced that solar power, which in 1994 was just taking off, was the best path toward sustainable energy. His senior paper was titled “The Importance of Being Solar.” He was motivated not just by the dangers of climate change but also by the fact that fossil fuel reserves would start to dwindle. “Society will soon have no option but to focus on renewable power sources,” he wrote. His final page showed a “power station of the future,” involving a satellite with mirrors that would concentrate sunlight onto solar panels and send the resulting electricity back to Earth via a microwave beam. The professor gave him a grade of 98, saying it was a “very interesting and well written paper, except the last figure that comes out of the blue.”
On investing in batteries:
Eager to keep the conversation going, [Tesla co-founder JB] Straubel changed the topic to his idea for building an electric vehicle using lithium-ion batteries. “I was looking for funding and being rather shameless,” he says. Musk expressed surprise when Straubel explained how good the batteries had become. “I was going to work on high-density energy storage at Stanford,” Musk told him. “I was trying to think of what would have the most effect on the world, and energy storage along with electric vehicles were high on my list.” His eyes lit up as he processed Straubel’s calculations. “Count me in,” he said, committing to provide $10,000 in funding.
On building the Gigafactory:
The idea that Musk proposed in 2013 was audacious: build a gigantic battery factory in the U.S. […] There was one problem, Straubel recalls. “We had no clue how to build a battery factory.”
So Musk and Straubel decided to pursue a partnership with their battery supplier, Panasonic […] Musk and Straubel were invited to Japan by Panasonic’s new young president Kazuhiro Tsuga. “It was a come-to-Jesus session where we had to make him truly commit that we were going to build the insane Gigafactory together,” Straubel says.
The dinner was a formal, multicourse affair at a traditional low-table Japanese restaurant. Straubel was fearful about how Musk would behave. “Elon can be so much hell and brimstone in meetings and just unpredictable as all get out,” he says. “But I’ve also seen him flip a switch and suddenly be this incredibly effective, charismatic, high-emotional-intelligence business person, when he has to do it.” At the Panasonic dinner, the charming Musk appeared. He sketched out his vision for moving the world to electric vehicles and why the two companies should do it together. “I was mildly shocked and impressed, because, whoa, this is not like how Elon usually was on other days,” says Straubel. “He’s a person who’s all over the map, and you don’t know what he’s going to say or do. And then, all of a sudden, he pulls it all together.”
On the origins of SolarCity:
“I want to start a new business,” Musk’s cousin Lyndon Rive said as they were driving in an RV to Burning Man, the annual art-and-tech rave in the Nevada desert, at the end of the summer of 2004. “One that can help humanity and address climate change.” “Get into the solar industry,” Musk replied. Lyndon recalls that the answer felt like “my marching orders.” With his brother Peter, he started work on creating a company that would become SolarCity. “Elon provided most of the initial funding,” Peter recalls. “He gave us one clear piece of guidance: get to a scale that would have an impact as fast as possible.”
On buying SolarCity:
When Musk announced the deal in June 2016, he called it a “no-brainer” that was “legally and morally correct.” The acquisition fit with his original “master plan” for Tesla, which he had written in 2006: “The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy.”
On hating SolarCity:
The solar roof project caused enormous friction between Musk and his cousins. In August 2016, around the time he was teasing the new product, Peter Rive invited Musk to inspect a version that the company had installed on a customer’s roof. It was a standing-seam metal roof, meaning the solar cells were embedded in sheets of metal rather than tiles. When Musk drove up, Peter and fifteen people were standing in front of the house. “But as often happened,” Peter recalled, “Elon showed up late and then sat in the car looking at his phone while we all just waited very nervously for him to get out.” When he did, it was clear that he was furious. “This is shit,” Musk explained. “Total fucking shit. Horrible. What were you thinking?”
On really, really hating SolarCity:
There were four versions [of solar roofs], including those that looked like French slate and Tuscan barrel tiles, along with a house that featured the metal roof that Musk hated. When Musk visited two days before the scheduled event and saw the metal version, he erupted. “What part of ‘I fucking hate this product’ don’t you understand?” One of the engineers pushed back, saying it looked okay to him and that it was the easiest to install. Musk pulled Peter aside and told him, “I don’t think this guy should be on the team.” Peter fired the engineer and had the metal roof removed before the public event.
On cutting solar roof installation time:
[…] Musk clambered up a ladder to the peak of the roof, where he stood precariously. He was not happy. There were too many fasteners, he said. Each had to be nailed down, adding time to the installation process. “Instead of two nails for each foot, try it with only one,” he ordered. “If the house has a hurricane, the whole neighborhood is fucked up, so who cares? One nail is going to be fine.” Someone protested that could lead to leaks. “Don’t worry about making it as waterproof as a submarine,” he said. “My house in California used to leak. Somewhere between sieve and submarine should be okay.” For a moment he laughed before returning to his dark intensity.
On talking climate with Bill Gates:
“Hey, I’d love to come see you and talk about philanthropy and climate,” Bill Gates said to Musk when they happened to be at the same meeting in early 2022. Musk’s stock sales had led him, for tax reasons, to put $5.7 billion into a charitable fund he had established. Gates, who was then spending most of his time on philanthropy, had many suggestions he wanted to make. They’d had friendly interactions a few times in the past, including when Gates brought his son Rory to SpaceX. [...] Gates argued that batteries would never be able to power large semitrucks and that solar energy would not be a major part of solving the climate problem. “I showed him the numbers,” Gates says. “It’s an area where I clearly knew something that he didn’t.” He also gave Musk a hard time on Mars. “I’m not a Mars person,” Gates later told me. “He’s overboard on Mars. I let him explain his Mars thinking to me, which is kind of bizarre thinking. It’s this crazy thing where maybe there’s a nuclear war on Earth and so the people on Mars are there and they’ll come back down and, you know, be alive after we all kill each other.”
On dismissing climate philanthropy:
At the end of the tour, [Gates and Musk’s] conversation turned to philanthropy. Musk expressed his view that most of it was “bullshit.” There was only a twenty-cent impact for every dollar put in, he estimated. He could do more good for climate change by investing in Tesla.
On Bill Gates’ betrayal:
There was one contentious issue that [Bill Gates and Elon Musk] had to address. Gates had shorted Tesla stock, placing a big bet that it would go down in value […] Short-sellers occupied [Musk’s] innermost circle of hell. Gates said he was sorry, but that did not placate Musk. “I apologized to him,” Gates says. “Once he heard I’d shorted the stock, he was super mean to me, but he’s super mean to so many people, so you can’t take it too personally.”
[...] When I asked Gates why he had shorted Tesla, he explained that he had calculated that the supply of electric cars would get ahead of demand, causing prices to fall. I nodded but still had the same question: Why had he shorted the stock? Gates looked at me as if I had not understood what he just explained and then replied as if the answer was obvious: he thought that by shorting Tesla he could make money. That way of thinking was alien to Musk. He believed in the mission of moving the world to electric vehicles, and he put all of his available money toward that goal, even when it did not seem like a safe investment. “How can someone say they are passionate about fighting climate change and then do something that reduced the overall investment in the company doing the most?” he asked me a few days after Gates’s visit. “It’s pure hypocrisy. Why make money on the failure of a sustainable energy car company?”
On rejection:
Gates followed up in mid-April, sending Musk the promised paper on philanthropy options that he had personally written [...] “Sorry,” Musk shot back instantly. “I cannot take your philanthropy on climate seriously when you have a massive short position against Tesla, the company doing the most to solve climate change.” When angry, Musk can get mean, especially on Twitter. He tweeted a picture of Gates in a golf shirt with a bulging belly that made him look almost pregnant. “In case u need to lose a boner fast,” Musk’s comment read.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Can AI help emergency managers make faster decisions when every second counts?
Meteorologists had nothing polite to say about Tropical Storm Bertha. The “weak, disorganized, and lopsided” system made initial landfall in Louisiana last week as a “hot, sheared mess,” one that forecasters doubted would reach Texas with much oomph at all. Still, the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District — the local flood mitigation and drainage management entity for the state’s most flood-prone county — had stood at the ready, posting updates on the storm’s progress to its Facebook feed in the lead-up.
There had been action behind the scenes, too. Since this spring, the county has relied on a new “AI-powered flood warning solution” pilot program to help local administrators identify the gaps in their understanding of the county’s flood risk and monitor rising water levels in real time. In a crisis, a chatbot could even advise them on when to issue an evacuation order.
“Imagine you’re an operator and you have to tell people to leave their homes because of floods coming in,” Todd Barr, the CEO of Axonis Decision Intelligence, which has partnered with the smart water-level sensor company Simplicity Integration in Texas’ Galveston County, told me. Axonis provides AI-assisted decision-making tools to clients in a number of time-sensitive industries, and in every case, “You want a paper trail of the data you used to make the decision — the reasoning and the model you used — and our platform does all of that,” Barr went on.
Issuing evacuation notices is a famously thorny business, and one that has resulted in high-profile and high-casualty failures, including in the Paradise, California, and Maui wildfires. Particularly noteworthy were the 2025 Kerr County floods that killed more than 100 people in Texas’ Hill Country after local officials took 90 minutes to send phone alerts once they became aware of the rising river.
In many cases, particularly in more rural counties, the teams making the evacuation decisions are small and lack sufficient training not only on when to make such a call, but even on how to word it. “The people who are put in the position of issuing the messages are doing 20 other things at the same time,” Jeannette Sutton, a researcher at the University at Albany’s Emergency and Risk Communication Message Testing Lab, told me when I reported on evacuation notices after the Los Angeles fires.
As for Galveston, “100%” of the buildings on the densely populated island are at flood risk, with modeling suggesting a worst-case-scenario hurricane could produce 26 feet of storm surge. Much of the city’s stormwater infrastructure additionally predates modern climate-change-intensified rainfall probabilities, with the district in the midst of a $54 million drainage project aimed at mitigating future flooding by building a pump station and enlarging sewer lines.
As part of the region’s ongoing resiliency work, the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District installed seven of Simplicity’s water-level sensors —the county’s first — at locations on the mainland. (There are no sensors currently on Galveston Island proper.) Simplicity’s Axonis-powered system, SI-Ai, also pulls in data from NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Houston’s Harris County to present residents of the entire region with a live flood-risk dashboard, complete with intuitive green-yellow-red indicators to evaluate their neighborhood hazard level in real time. Operators also have their own proprietary dashboard where they can monitor sensors and are prompted to ask questions to interpret readings and open “investigations” if something appears amiss.

“If I’m the municipality, I can say, ‘Okay, here’s what the forecast is looking like and what is potentially going to happen,” Alison Reese, the COO and co-founder of Simplicity, explained to me. “Then I could ask a question like, ‘Hey, what other locations in this watershed are at high risk for flash flooding?’”
That’s where Axonis, the artificial intelligence company, comes in. “Today you would have to be like, ‘Alright! Get the weather report, quick! What’s happening? What are the sensors saying? Okay Bill, now what’s the upstream sensor saying?’” Barr said, acting out the frantic scenario of trying to source data from multiple streams at once. “All of that is what we’re automating.” (Galveston’s Office of Emergency Management is “not the POC for the flood sensor operations,” a representative told me; the drainage district oversees the Axonis-Simplicity partnership, and did not return a request for an interview. The mayor of League City, a city 35-minutes north of Galveston that is also managed by the district, has publicly criticized the SI-Ai program as a separate sensor network that duplicates the work of the Harris County Flood Control District.)
Working from the assumption that emergency managers have to parse reams of data in short periods of time — flash floods can rise as much as 10 feet in an hour — Axonis provides what is essentially a chatbot for authorities to query potential decisions ranging from road closures to evacuation notices, based on feedback from the sensors. It stops short, however, of having a dialogue box that pops up to tell operators, EVACUATE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NOW.
When Barr demoed the program to me, he had the tool configured to create a credit risk review memo for a would-be banking client. (Axonis also has customers in the banking and defense sectors.) The dashboard essentially functioned the same as it would for Galveston County, though, and his investigation returned the kind of simplified, emoji-studded one-sheet that users of large language model-powered AI interfaces would immediately recognize. In this case, the tool identified a “🔴Risk Alert CANDIDATE” — Barr said that would be a particular sensor, in the case of Galveston — and followed it with a summary and bullet-pointed sections breaking down “⚠️Credit Risk Indicators” and “💧Liquidity Position.” (In a screenshot of an example flood report for Simplicity, shared with me, those sections were replaced by “📍Site Location” and “💧Water Level — Last 72 Hours.” I wondered what else was possible: “🌊Historic hydraulic risk”? “💀Vulnerable Populations”? )

The system then takes operators through a four-step decision-making model based on the OODA Loop, a common workflow in military contexts that involves justifying actions through evidence-based observations. “We always keep a human in the loop on these things, at least today in 2026 — though who knows in two or three years,” Barr said. He clarified in a later conversation with me, though, that “Axonis and [AI] tools should never tell you to evacuate now. It should tell you the information you need to make that decision.”
That was a point Barr stressed numerous times during our conversation: That Axonis’ chatbot is intended as a brainstorming tool or sounding board, and one that keeps a careful paper trail, “cryptographically sealing” any eventual decisions for review and attestation later. I likened it to a police body camera, and Barr didn’t dispute the similarities. “It’s an accountability tool,” he told me.
Of course, that means the burden of decision-making still falls on potentially fallible humans. I worried in particular that by sharing the responsibility with AI, human operators might get lazy or fail to properly question a decision the program might be leading them toward, particularly in an instance of hallucinated data. To the latter point, Barr told me that this is part of what Axonis is designed to address. “You can’t just take the sensor data and throw it into Claude and be like, ‘Alright, go make a decision for me.’ You need to set guard rails,” he said.
As to the former point, Barr told me the chat includes a disclaimer reminding its users that AI can make mistakes, and that the company trains its customers on how LLM technology works. “At the end of the day, it’s a tool, not a decider,” he said, although he allowed that it might be used to automatically trigger warning lights, sirens, or barriers, such as closing a flooded roadway.
I also posed the concern about complacency to Ali Mostafavi, a professor who supervises the UrbanResilience.AL Lab at Texas A&M, which researches, among other things, how artificial intelligence might be utilized in emergency contexts. Mostafavi agreed that there is always a risk in cognitive outsourcing, but that there is a “counter-argument that is also valid — that without these technologies, we have seen what can happen. We had the catastrophic floods last year in Kerr County, and if a similar technology had existed back then, an automated system could have identified the flash flood, and many young children would be alive today.”
Still, Barr told me he isn’t aware of Axonis advising in an actual evacuation order yet. While it is operational, the predictive model remains untested against its highest-stakes use case: the extremes of a climate-changed world, where formerly unthinkable outcomes may be one storm away.
“The more we can stress-test these technologies in real operational settings and use that feedback loop to improve the technologies, the better,” Mostafavi said. “But that’s easier said than done, because to have a technology implemented in an operational setting it should already be stress-tested, right?”
Bertha, though, was not that reckoning; the gusty squalls blew through Galveston last week without even disturbing the dinner reservations at the marina. But although it was already back to 90 and sunny by Monday morning on the Texas Gulf, the drainage in Galveston County, as in many places around the country, remains outdated and easily overwhelmed. One day, inevitably, the water will come. Hopefully when it does, someone or something will be watching.
The large renewables developer changes tack “in response to federal energy objectives.”
Trump’s solar freeze is now so tough that at least one renewable energy developer has asked his administration to turn their permitting application into a data center and gas-fired power plant instead.
Renew Development HoldCo – an LLC created by Clearway Energy Group – wrote the Bureau of Land Management in April asking if they could amend their 2021 application to build the Amber solar project, a 500-megawatt solar project in the Nevada desert that would require building on federal land. Their requested change? “[T]o formally remove the proposed solar facility and replace it with the development of a proposed data center and natural gas facility,” according to a copy of the letter I obtained.
“This amendment is the result of a shift in our internal development priorities and an updated assessment of project timing, in order to better align with the goals of our Administration,” reads the letter, which is dated April 3 and signed by Clearway’s chief development officer John Woody. “The data center concept is in exploratory early stages and as such has a longer and more flexible development horizon, and we believe its schedule will better align with the Bureau’s current workload and staffing plans.”
Now, this swap is somewhat shocking but shouldn’t exactly be a surprise. Companies with federal energy leases are struggling to get their renewable projects permitted by a hostile Trump administration. We’ve already seen some offshore wind developers ditch their leases in favor of payouts and commitments to build more fossil infrastructure. Clearway Energy Group is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners and TotalEnergies, the latter of which struck such a deal in March.
But this does appear to represent an aberration for Clearway, one of the nation’s largest operators of renewable energy projects and whose marketing materials primarily focus on “clean energy.” Nearly all of the company’s portfolio is carbon-free power or energy storage generation sans a handful of “flexible generation” energy projects in California, according to an online map of their project pipeline. The company did not disclose in the documents I reviewed if the gas plant itself would power the data center, provide power to the wider grid, or both.
Candidly, I’ve been watching like a hawk to see if Trump’s chokehold on solar and wind permits would lead to more gas infrastructure and data centers on federal property instead. And companies are getting data center permits when they ask to swap out their solar farm for AI infrastructure. On Friday, I reported that a joint venture involving renewables developer Arevon and energy trader Bill Perkins got permission from BLM to switch an environmental permit tied to a solar farm for one allowing a new data center. Environmentalists plan to legally challenge BLM’s determination as they say it’s a test case for the future of federal land policy.
It’s unclear if Clearway would be the one to build and construct this hypothetical data center and power plant. I for one can’t find any evidence of Clearway developing data centers before. My best guess is that if they do move forward with this, it would look like the joint venture I covered on Friday, where Arevon distanced itself from the actual day-to-day operations of the development and a new firm specializing in data centers came in. But that’s just a hunch and there’s a saying about assumptions.
Nevertheless, Clearway is clearly handling the permitting side. Attached to the Clearway letter was an application also sent to BLM for constructing utility and telecommunications facilities on federal lands, a document technically known as an SF299. The application states Clearway considered using solar energy for the data center as well as using private land, but their alternative designs weren’t selected because they had “higher environmental and stakeholder conflicts.”
Also, in a section of the document requesting Clearway provide a “statement of need for the project,” the developer said it was submitting this proposal “in response to federal energy objectives” and specifically cited Trump’s Day 1 executive order which the company said “encourage[d] development of reliable energy projects on federal lands.”
I reached out to Clearway asking for more information on the letter and application. In response, the company claimed the solar project wasn’t being killed – it simply was moved to private land. They also declined to comment on the data center and gas project. Instead, I was provided a statement attributable to an unnamed spokesperson that “while we do not comment on any individual application while it moves through federal approval processes, we are pleased to be advancing more than 4 GW of solar and battery resources in Nevada on private and public lands and expect those projects to deliver tremendous economic benefits to the communities where they’re built.”
“Clearway values its strong working partnership with the BLM, its Southern Nevada office, and also with state and local interests in Nevada. Across all of these relationships, we continuously assess how best to develop and deliver infrastructure that meets needs and aligns with local and national policies and goals.”
Current conditions: Hurricane Genevieve formed into the first major storm of the season, strengthening to Category 4 off Mexico’s Pacific Coast on Sunday but steering clear of any land for now • Hurricane Fausto, meanwhile, is weakening as it heads toward Hawaii • China evacuated hundreds of thousands of people as Typhoon Noul made landfall.

Wildfires in France and Spain forced roughly 300,000 people to evacuate their homes in what the French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez called an “unprecedented” blaze. In Spain, the central western province of Avila suffered what the broadcaster France24 described as its “worst blaze in recent history” as Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez directly linked the disaster to climate change. By Sunday evening, in France, flames had come within nine miles of the southwestern city of Bordeaux in the heart of the nation's storied winelands as President Emmanuel Macron vowed to “rebuild.” Others saw the disaster as a sign of overdue lifestyle and infrastructure changes in the face of a warming planet. In Le Monde, the newspaper of record, the philosopher Cynthia Fleury and the Socialist mayor of the town of Saint-Médard-en-Jalles, Stéphane Delpeyrat-Vincen, argued: “What is burning is not just forests, but a way of inhabiting the land that is no longer possible.” The fires come weeks after a series of historic heat waves in Europe, including the hottest June on record, which made tinderboxes of parched woodlands.
President Donald Trump last week announced a landmark deal with Saudi Arabia to help build the kingdom’s first nuclear power station, besting the Russians and the Chinese in a race to tap into one of the world’s most coveted new export markets for atomic power technology. While the White House has yet to release all the details on the geopolitically meteoric agreement with Riyadh, sources with knowledge of the deal have confirmed to me what’s been reported elsewhere — that the deal will almost certainly include new large-scale Westinghouse AP1000s. Over the weekend, The New York Times identified another element to the partnership: Trump’s family and personal friends may benefit. The newspaper pointed to ties between a firm owned by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s sons and Westinghouse; links between Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.’s investments into quantum computing and former Texas Governor Rick Perry’s Fermi America project to build AP1000s in Texas; and suggested that TAE Technologies, the fusion company merging with the corporate parent of Trump’s Truth Social platform, could see potential benefits from the Saudi deal. “There is no evidence at this point that Mr. Trump’s friends or family helped orchestrate the Saudi nuclear deal,” reporters Eric Lipton and Kate Kelly wrote. “Yet a number of the president’s allies and relatives, including members of his cabinet, stand to benefit if his big bet on nuclear power pays off. Certain investors with ties to these deals are positioned to profit, even if the delivery of large new loads of nuclear-powered electricity remains years away.”
The Trump administration is, in fact, making a real attempt at building new AP1000s at home. As my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote last month, a major Department of Energy deal would help utilities buy the parts needed to build more Westinghouse reactors.
Chip giant Nvidia is considering providing a $250 billion backstop to fund OpenAI’s data center project in southern Ohio, The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday. The deal would guarantee up to half of the capital needed to lease SoftBank’s 10-gigawatt data center to supply computing power to the ChatGPT maker.
GE Vernova’s backlog of orders for gas turbines, meanwhile, now stretches to 2031 and accounts for a cumulative 116 gigawatts of power-producing capacity. In its latest earnings call, covered in Utility Dive at the end of last week, the company posted double-digit revenue and order growth in the division that supplies equipment for gas, hydro, nuclear, and grid facilities.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Back in February, I told you that Japan was stepping up its efforts to extract rare earths from seabed minerals. On Friday, Tokyo confirmed it had discovered that medium and heavy rare earth elements accounted for about 54% of the rare earths mined from mud recovered from a remote Pacific island, Mining.com reported. The finds come after the government-backed vessel Chikyu sucked nearly 50 metric tons of mud from Minamitori Island, an uninhabited atoll located closer to Wake Island than Tokyo. Heavy rare earths, such as dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium — and medium rare earths such as samarium, europium, and gadolinium — are trickier to process. China controls the market for both categories by a wider margin than for light rare earths. That makes Japan’s discovery so exciting. Separating metals out of the mud could be an easier process than from other ores, potentially supplying the democratic world with a new source of non-Chinese minerals.
When the Biden administration tried putting rules in place for producing clean hydrogen, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo explained nicely at the time, the regulations posed a problem for efforts to make fuel through nuclear-powered electrolysis. That’s because the incentives to ensure developers built new solar and wind rather than cannibalizing existing grid resources for hydrogen production made it impossible for nuclear reactors to qualify. Companies such as Constellation Energy, which had the nation’s leading experiment in nuclear-powered hydrogen production, protested. It all turned out to be for nought, since Trump ultimately wiped out the tax credits. As with so much nuclear technology that faces political tumult in America, South Korea is moving in to try its hand at hydrogen fuel production. Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, the country’s state-owned nuclear giant, said it will launch a pilot program to produce hydrogen using heat and electricity from reactors, Hydrogen Insight reported last week.
India, meanwhile, is beefing up its plans for small modular reactors. Earlier this month, I reminded you about New Delhi’s plans to open its nuclear sector to foreign investments after years of icing out all but Russia’s state nuclear vendor. That isn’t to say India isn’t looking to continue building its own indigenously-designed units. On Friday, NucNet reported that the country plans to develop and operate at least five of its own SMR designs by 2033.
Last week, Heatmap editorial fellow Ameya Hadap broke news that Koloma, a startup seeking to spur natural production of hydrogen, had inked a deal to look for gas deposits across 817 square miles of the Philippines’ largest island, Luzon. It’s not the only subsurface search for clean energy. Last week, the country’s Economy and Development Council approved the Philippines’ first financing package to de-risk geothermal investments, Think Geo Energy reported.