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.
Risk-averse but deep-pocked institutional investors join the party.
When the Fusion Industry Association surveyed the sector earlier this month, it found that the industry’s 56 active companies had collectively raised more than $14.2 billion over the past five years. But an ever-larger share of that money is ending up in the hands of one startup: Commonwealth Fusion Systems.
With its latest $1 billion funding round, announced today, the MIT spinout now accounts for nearly 30% of all capital in the industry. The new financing, led by a wave of institutional investors entering the sector for the first time, will support construction of the company’s first commercial power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia, which CEO Bob Mumgaard says is on track to come online in the early 2030s.
In a media briefing, Mumgaard noted that this latest raise marks “the largest single funding round among fusion energy companies since our last large round of $1.8 billion in 2021.” It brings the total capital raised by CFS to an even $4 billion as the company races to complete construction of SPARC, its demo reactor. If all goes according to plan, it should begin operating sometime next year, proving out the physics and engineering approach underpinning ARC, the planned commercial plant.
The new financing deviates from the typical venture capital round, as it brings in a broad but unnamed mix of “large pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure funds doing project finance, and industrial corporates.” These risk-averse investors would typically steer clear of expensive, first-of-a-kind facilities, demonstrating the degree to which CFS has succeeded in building confidence in an industry long critiqued for overpromising and underdelivering.
The company credits the trust it built to its extensive peer-reviewed research as well as its decision to build a tokamak — widely regarded as the most mature fusion reactor design. “I don’t think there’s any other company that’s been as transparent and open with their physics and how it actually works,” Katie Rae, CEO and managing partner at Engine Ventures, told me. Rae has participated in every one of CFS’s funding rounds, and while she says her firm has evaluated virtually every startup in the sector, the company remains its only fusion investment.
But even flush with institutional capital, Mumgaard is clear that the company will need billions more to fully finance ARC and the numerous reactors to follow. It’s unclear where exactly that money will come from, though he’s pushing for government involvement. Alongside the Fusion Industry Association, Mumgaard is advocating for a one-time, roughly $10 billion federal infusion of cash into the broader industry to expand public-private partnerships, build shared research infrastructure, and help finance first-of-a-kind plants in an effort to keep pace with China’s rapidly growing fusion program.
According to reporting from Politico, a Department of Energy official told CFS and other fusion companies that such a level of federal funding is “unrealistic in this environment.” But though insiders argue it’s what the industry needs to scale, Rae says CFS doesn’t depend on it. “I think it is the right kind of investment to make, but we didn’t count on it from an investor perspective,” she told me.
One obvious alternative is the public markets. The IPO window for climate tech has reopened, with geothermal giant Fervo and nuclear fission startup X-energy both completing successful public offerings in recent months. SPACs have also made a comeback, as numerous nuclear companies are opting for this faster, though riskier, path to the public markets. But CFS’s newly appointed CFO, Lorence Kim, said during the briefing that this latest round proves “that the private markets have a lot of capital to deploy toward our mission.” Whether an IPO is in the company’s near future remains an open question, though he cautioned against interpreting his hiring as any indication of “IPO prep in a specific way.”
For what it’s worth though, Kim has taken another high-profile, pre-revenue startup public before: Moderna. As CFO from 2014 to 2020, he helped the company scale its mRNA platform and lead its blockbuster $600 million IPO in late 2018 — the largest ever in the biotech industry at the time. Notably, this all happened before Moderna had an approved product or the Covid pandemic made its signature vaccine a household name, similar to where Commonwealth finds itself today.
“Moderna was in this moment in time where the science worked, and the strategy was focused on execution and scale and deploying capital in a way that could enable real impact on the world,” Kim explained. CFS is now at the same juncture, he said. “And so in the same way that Moderna industrialized mRNA and made it inevitable and made it ubiquitous, it was really clear to me that CFS could do the same for fusion.”
Of course, CFS is not alone in its confidence — other fusion companies are equally bullish on their own approach. Take Inertia Enterprises, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory spinout, which last week unveiled its own commercial roadmap for a laser-driven fusion reactor. The company emphasized it’s the only one to have definitively demonstrated the viability of its underlying physics in a real-world experiment, rather than through theoretical work or simulations.
Or take Helion, which has raised $1.5 billion and secured a highly ambitious power purchase agreement with Microsoft to supply electricity to the tech giant by 2028. Or Pacific Fusion, which netted a staggering $900 million Series A to be doled out in milestone-based tranches. There are dozens of others — many with hundreds of millions in funding — pursuing a range of approaches that some of the field’s brightest minds consider technically feasible.
But when I mused to Rae about how exciting it is that institutional investors now appear willing to back an industry once viewed as bordering on science fiction, she was quick to correct me.
“They’re willing to bet on Commonwealth Fusion — that’s what you mean.”
At least one hyperscaler’s big bets seem to be paying off.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Good evening. Let’s start with the news. Meta and Microsoft released their most recent quarterly earnings this evening, and Wall Street was watching to figure out if their enormous AI spending plans are paying off. We were watching because those proposals are shaping one of the most important energy stories today: the data center boom and the sharp return of electricity demand.
The returns were … mixed. Meta missed analysts’ estimates, and its profit fell 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. It increased the lower bound of how much it plans to spend on capital expenditures such as data centers this year, from $125 billion to $130 billion, but left the upper bound of $145 billion unchanged.
Microsoft, meanwhile, said its AI investments are starting to pay off. Revenue at its cloud business, which uses its data center space, increased by 43%, more than analysts expected. It spent $41 billion on capital expenses in the three months ending in June.
Meta’s stock was down 7% in after-hours trading, while Microsoft is up 8%. When Heatmap surveyed climate insiders last year, they ranked Microsoft as among the most decarbonization-friendly hyperscaler and Meta as among the worst.
Permitting odds up — thanks to Shift Key?
I do not regularly follow such things, but this afternoon I was told that the Kalshi market for “Will permitting reform become law this year?” surged to 77% today after trading for days around 50%:
I have no idea why it budged today, but perhaps what moved the market was our new episode of the Shift Key podcast (Apple, Spotify). On today’s show, I spoke with Daniel Palken, a former Capitol Hill policy staffer now at Arnold Ventures, about the current state of permitting reform negotiations in Congress. While we don’t know the exact shape of a deal yet, permitting reform is likely to be the biggest new policy for clean energy that we could get by the end of the year.
Daniel is a fantastic guide to the negotiations, and if you’re curious about the policy at all, I recommend that you listen. Here are few of my takeaways from the conversation:
1. A permitting reform deal will probably have six buckets.
They are (1) changes to the National Environmental Policy Act and the judicial review process that environmental studies face after completion; (2) reforms to the transmission process; (3) changes to the Clean Water Act; (4) a deal to make it harder for presidents to yank permits from approved projects; (5) changes to the National Historic Preservation Act, and (6) “everything else,” a grab bag of smaller fixes including to geothermal energy.
2. Wonky committee politics are shaping the deal.
The National Historic Preservation Act, for instance, is an archeological law that hasn’t been in the mix for previous reform proposals. It’s up for discussion now because Senator Mike Lee of Utah chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee — and the NHPA is the major environmental bill under his jurisdiction. Likewise, observers think that a permitting deal has a much better shot of passing during this Congress (as compared to next year) because of an expected series of changes to committee chairs.
3. It’s way, way better to hook data centers to the power grid than run them off behind-the-meter power plants — even if they run off 100% natural gas.
Any permitting reform proposal will seek to expand the transmission system. That could have big benefits for the emissions intensity of data centers. Why? I’ll let Daniel explain:
If you look at the data centers that are hooking up off grid — when they’re not using repurposed jet engines, they’re using 20% thermally efficient gas plants. Whereas if you’re hooked up to the grid, there’s really two types of gas plants that live on the grid. There’s like 60% efficient combined-cycle gas turbines, which are most of the gas power that’s generated, and then there’s peaker [plants], which have low efficiency, but are run at capacity factors of like 5% — so from an emissions perspective, they don’t matter all that much.
So even if solar and wind didn’t exist at all, and nuclear didn’t exist, and hydro didn’t exist, it would still be a much, much cleaner option [to connect data centers to the power grid]. Like we’re talking factors of three in efficiency to connect your data center to the grid if it was purely powered by gas, which is, I think, an important point to understand.
I thought that was an interesting point, and while I’d seen some of those ideas in isolation, I’d never seen them laid out in one place. (And even if grid-scale gas plants are much more efficient than behind-the-meter plants, it’s still even better to power data centers with solar, batteries, and other clean firm power plants — which is also easier when they’re hooked up to the grid.)
I’ll stop glossing the episode and just link to it one more time. Thanks for reading.
On nuclear waste, a Nevada solar farm, and lithium-harvesting nanorobots
Current conditions: France just ordered 4,000 more people to evacuate the wildfires that have now displaced a third of a million people across southwestern Europe • The heat dome in the southwestern United States is driving temperatures in Phoenix up to 113 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the week • Temperatures in Tuscany are topping 100 degrees this week as Europe’s latest heat wave takes hold.
Just yesterday, I told you that China’s dominance over the manufacturing of the inverters needed to patch solar panels and batteries onto the grid and into data centers had peaked two years ago as Europe’s factories began booming. Hours after the newsletter landed in your inbox, the Trump administration unveiled plans to ban imports of Chinese power inverters in a bid to protect the U.S. buildout of artificial intelligence from sabotage and competition. On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission told CNBC its new restrictions aimed to safeguard the AI supply chain “from Chinese threats of disruption, data threat, and cyber attacks.” The measures also bar imports of Chinese-made humanoid and quadruped robots. As you may recall, Reuters broke news in May 2025 that the U.S. government had discovered rogue communications devices in the Chinese-made inverters. The story came out just a month after a frequency problem that stemmed from Spain’s struggle to sufficiently patch all of its solar generation on the grid triggered a blackout across Iberia, highlighting the sort of scenario a compromised “killswitch” device could set off in a bid to attack energy systems.
The ban is good news for America’s beleaguered solar manufacturing industry, which the Trump administration has championed with tariffs but hobbled by axing key federal tax credits that included bonuses for projects using domestically produced panels. T1 Energy, shares of which nosedived this week after the latest quarterly earnings showed losses far outpacing revenue, just spent another $135 million on patents from a rival in Singapore in a bid to vertically integrate production of a more efficient type of photovoltaic technology. Tesla, meanwhile, is promising to “multiply” American solar production by “an order of magnitude.” Yet Elon Musk’s behemoth is cutting long-term deals to buy other people’s solar power. The company just inked an agreement with a KKR-backed solar and battery project in Arizona to buy 90% of its output.

Reasonable people debate just how much electricity is needed to satisfy the demands of the data center boom — and the bears are likely to get a boost amid this week’s selloff of AI stocks. But the latest projections from the Rhodium Group forecast U.S. electricity demand growth to accelerate over the next 15 years, “growing faster than it has since the turn of the century.” Data centers will account for between 62% and 77% of the growth in 2030, and between 59% and 66% in 2040, ultimately reaching 17% of total electricity demand that year. Electric vehicles will make up the second-largest source of new demand growth in the low- and mid-emissions scenarios the consultancy outlined through 2040. In the high-emissions scenario, heavy industry will account for a quarter of the demand growth between 2025 and 2040. Overall, the findings show divergent pathways in the 2030s. By 2040, the U.S. will either reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 41% below 2005 levels — or just 27%. Across all three scenarios, the “historic influx of renewables” coming online between now and 2030 keeps emissions declining. After 2030, however, the grid’s trajectory either continues to deploy nearly 53 gigawatts of renewables per year through 2040 in a low-emissions scenario or drops to 3 gigawatts per year in a high-emissions scenario where cheap natural gas dominates.
For months now, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the nonprofit behind a voluntary but widely used corporate standard for carbon accounting rules, has been revising its approach. Last year, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo explained the stakes of the revision process as an “obscure philosophical battle that could reshape the clean energy economy. In April, she broke news from whistleblowers that the changes underway were drumming up controversy. This morning she’s out with a new story on Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s plans to marry its standard to those by the International Organization for Standardization. The short of it is this: the changes are getting a lot of pushback, and credibility of the forthcoming new standard remains an open question.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
For decades, the U.S. plan to deal with nuclear waste has focused on building a highly controversial repository in the Nevada desert. But that effort, as I explained yesterday, was put on indefinite hiatus in 2010 when the Obama administration canceled funding on behalf of then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. In the meantime, states such as Texas and New Mexico have demonstrated that both Republican and Democratic governments are still willing to fight efforts to build intermediate-term storage facilities for nuclear waste in their states. On Tuesday, five states officially stepped up and made bids to host what the Department of Energy is calling its Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, which will house startups that recycle spent nuclear waste into fresh fuel and medical isotopes. The Energy Department named Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho as finalists for the facilities. “I’m pleased to announce that after reviewing 28 applications from 26 states, the Energy Department has selected five initial contenders to further explore building Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement. “These campuses will be massive generators of economic growth, create thousands of high-paying jobs, and be crucial to unleashing America’s nuclear renaissance.”
Just last week, the Energy Department opened the door to nuclear projects sited on floating offshore platforms. It’s a novel idea for the U.S., but Russia launched its Akademik Lomonosov, a floating nuclear station, in 2019 in what is widely recognized as the world’s first real small modular reactor and only operating non-land nuclear plant. A new peer-reviewed study the World Nuclear Association conducted on the Rosatom-owned plant ranked it “on par with Russia’s top units,” World Nuclear News reported.
Trump’s permitting freeze for renewables projects started to thaw for solar in particular earlier this year as the administration faced mounting pressure to stop thwarting the fastest-growing source of power in a country increasingly starved for new and swiftly available sources of electricity. The easing, as my colleague Jael Holzman wrote, was also part of a legal strategy. Regardless of the reasoning, the thaw is continuing — and not just because of the literal heat dome pushing temperatures in the Southwest into the triple digits. On Tuesday, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management announced plans to advance a solar project in the Nevada desert. The Mosey solar farm, which would produce enough power at maximum output for 200,000 homes, is now under evaluation at the agency’s Nevada office, the agency notified the Federal Register. The regulator plans to conduct an environmental analysis and a resource management plan tweak needed for a project in a utility corridor. E&E News credited the administration’s shift on this particular project to lobbying by the state’s Republican governor, Joe Lombardo.
The project is part of developer Clearway’s larger efforts in Nevada. Separately, the company has volunteered to scrap one of its other solar projects in favor of building a gas plant, Jael reported this week.
Yesterday, I told you the board of PJM Interconnection had scheduled an emergency auction to drum up 7 gigawatts of additional capacity to supply the electricity demand from data centers starting in 2028. It’s just one incremental way the nation’s largest grid system is “lurching toward reforms,” as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote. It’s also inching toward more actual power infrastructure. On Wednesday, the developer Eolian Energy started construction on Flint Grid, a 1 gigawatt-hour storage project outside Columbus, Ohio. Located near a hub of data center and industrial power users, the Flint Grid project is “the first large-scale battery energy storage system to qualify for the PJM capacity market.” If it comes online in spring 2027 as promised on the project’s new website, it will represent more than half the new battery storage capacity in PJM’s line up for 2027 to 2028. The project is also the first grid-scale battery project permitted by the Ohio Power Siting Board and the largest in the PJM territory to date.
“There’s growing consternation about how the US can rapidly scale infrastructure to support America’s growing electricity demand, but not nearly enough conversation about how to use existing technology to unlock the wasted capacity that already exists on the grid,” Eolian founder and CEO Aaron Zubaty said in a statement. “This project requires hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, and we committed the necessary capital and resources years before today’s demand forecasts became headline news. As policymakers consider changes to competitive electricity markets, it’s critical that they avoid undermining the long-term investments already.”
Lithium production typically involves either mining hard rocks or extracting salts through brines. Both are water intensive processes with considerable environmental tolls. Scientists at Texas A&M University are now developing a new approach involving the deployment of tiny, fish-like swimming nanorobots that capture lithium ions from seawater. Backed by a $1 million Energy Department grant, it’s among more than a dozen projects the agency is supporting in a bid to bolster domestic critical mineral supplies. “Unlike traditional mining that digs up land or pumps brine from underground and requires massive amounts of energy, these autonomous micro/nanorobots move freely through seawater to harvest lithium with virtually zero infrastructure footprint,” Jingjing Qiu, one of the mechanical engineers leading the research, said in a statement.