You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:

As climate writers, my colleagues and I spend a lot of time telling readers that places are hot. The Arabian Peninsula? It’s hot. The Atlantic Ocean? It’s hot. The southern U.S. and northern Mexico? Hot and getting hotter.
But here’s a little secret: “Hot” doesn’t really mean … anything. The word is, of course, of critical importance when it comes to communicating that global temperatures are the highest they’ve been in 125,000 years because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or for public health officials to anticipate and prevent deaths when the environment reaches the point where human bodies start malfunctioning. But when you hear it’s “100 degrees out,” what does that really tell you?
Beyond that you’re a fellow member of the Fahrenheit cult, the answer is: not a lot. Humans can “probably avoid overheating” in temperatures of 115 degrees — but only if they’re in a dry room with 10 percent relative humidity, wearing “minimal” clothing, and not moving, The New York Times reports. On the other hand, you have a high chance of life-threatening heat stroke when it’s a mere 90 degrees out … if the humidity is at 95%. Then there are all the variables in between: if there’s a breeze, if you’re pregnant, if you’re standing in the shade or the sun, if you’re a child, if you’re running a 10K or if you’re napping on your couch in front of a swamp cooler.
In order to better specify how hot “hot” is, a number of different equations and techniques have been developed around the world. In general, this math takes into account two main variables: temperature (the one we all use, also known as “dry bulb” or “ambient air temperature,” which is typically measured five feet above the ground in the shade) and relative humidity (the percentage of air saturated with water vapor, also known as the ugly cousin of the trendier dew point; notably Canada’s heat index equivalent, the Humidex, is calculated from the dew point rather than the relative humidity).
In events like the already deadly heat dome over the southern United States and northern Mexico this week, you typically hear oohing and ahhing about the “heat index,” which is sometimes also called the “apparent temperature,” “feels like temperature,” “humiture,” or, in AccuWeather-speak, the “RealFeel® temperature.”
But what does that mean and how is it calculated?
The heat index roughly approximates how hot it “actually feels.”
This is different than the given temperature on the thermometer because the amount of humidity in the air affects how efficiently sweat evaporates from our skin and in turn keeps us cool. The more humidity there is, the less efficiently our bodies can cool themselves, and the hotter we feel; in contrast, when the air is dry, it’s easier for our bodies to keep cool. Regrettably, this indeed means that insufferable Arizonans who say “it’s a dry heat!” have a point.
The heat index, then, tells you an estimate of the temperature it would have to be for your body to be similarly stressed in “normal” humidity conditions of around 20%. In New Orleans this week, for example, the temperature on the thermometer isn’t expected to be above 100°F, but because the humidity is so high, the heat toll on the body will be as if it were actually 115°F out in normal humidity.
Importantly, the heat index number is calculated as if you were standing in the shade. If you’re exposed to the sun at all, the “feels like” is, of course, actually higher — potentially as many as 15 degrees higher. Someone standing in the New Orleans sun this week might more realistically feel like they’re in 130-degree heat.

Here’s the catch, though: The heat index is “purely theoretical since the index can’t be measured and is highly subjective,” as meteorologist Chris Robbins explains. The calculations are all made under the assumption that you are a 5’7”, 147-pound healthy white man wearing short sleeves and pants, and walking in the shade at the speed of 3.1 mph while a 6-mph wind gently ruffles your hair.
Wait, what?
I’m glad you asked.
In 1979, a physicist named R. G. Steadman published a two-part paper delightfully titled “The Assessment of Sultriness.” In it, he observed that though many approaches to measuring “sultriness,” or the combined effects of temperature and humidity, can be taken, “it is best assessed in terms of its physiological effect on humans.” He then set out, with obsessive precision, to do so.
Steadman came up with a list of approximately 19 variables that contribute to the overall “feels like” temperature, including the surface area of an average human (who is assumed to be 1.7 meters tall and weigh 67 kilograms); their clothing cover (84%) and those clothes’ resistance to heat transfer (the shirt and pants are assumed to be 20% fiber and 80% air); the person’s core temperature (a healthy 98.6°F) and sweat rate (normal); the effective wind speed (5 knots); the person’s activity level (typical walking speed); and a whole lot more.
Here’s an example of what just one of those many equations looked like:

Needless to say, Steadman’s equations and tables weren’t exactly legible for a normal person — and additionally they made a whole lot of assumptions about who a “normal person” was — but Steadman was clearly onto something. Describing how humidity and temperature affected the human body was, at the very least, interesting and useful. How, then, to make it easier?
In 1990, the National Weather Service’s Lans P. Rothfusz used multiple regression analysis to simplify Steadman’s equations into a single handy formula while at the same time acknowledging that to do so required relying on assumptions about the kind of body that was experiencing the heat and the conditions surrounding him. Rothfusz, for example, used Steadman’s now-outdated calculations for the build of an average American man, who as of 2023 is 5’9” and weighs 198 pounds. This is important because, as math educator Stan Brown notes in a blog post, if you’re heavier than the 147 pounds assumed in the traditional heat index equation, then your “personal heat index” will technically be slightly hotter.
Rothfusz’s new equation looked like this:
Heat index = -42.379 + 2.04901523T + 10.14333127R - 0.22475541TR - 6.83783x10-3T 2 - 5.481717x10-2R 2 + 1.22874x10-3T 2R + 8.5282x10-4TR2 - 1.99x10-6T 2R 2
So much easier, right?
If your eyes didn’t totally glaze over, it actually sort of is — in the equation, T stands for the dry bulb temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit) and R stands for the relative humidity, and all you have to do is plug those puppies into the formula to get your heat index number. Or not: There are lots of online calculators that make doing this math as straightforward as just typing in the two numbers.
Because Rothfusz used multiple regression analysis, the heat index that is regularly cited by the government and media has a margin of error of +/- 1.3°F relative to a slightly more accurate, albeit hypothetical, heat index. Also of note: There are a bunch of different methods of calculating the heat index, but Rothfusz’s is the one used by the NWS and the basis for its extreme heat alerts. The AccuWeather “RealFeel,” meanwhile, has its own variables that it takes into account and that give it slightly different numbers.
Midday Wednesday in New Orleans, for example, when the ambient air temperature was 98°F, the relative humidity was 47%, and the heat index hovered around 108.9°F, AccuWeather recorded a RealFeel of 111°F and a RealFeel Shade of 104°F.
You might also be wondering at this point, as I did, that if Steadman at one time factored out all these variables individually, wouldn’t it be possible to write a simple computer program that is capable of personalizing the “feel like” temperature so they are closer to your own physical specifications? The answer is yes, although as Randy Au writes in his excellent Substack post on the heat index equation, no one has seemingly actually done this yet. Math nerds, your moment is now.
Because we’re Americans, it is important that we use the weirdest possible measurements at all times. This is probably why the heat index is commonly cited by our government, media, and meteorologists when communicating how hot it is outside.
But it gets weirder. Unlike the heat index, though, the “wet-bulb globe temperature” (sometimes abbreviated “WBGT”) is specifically designed to understand “heat-related stress on the human body at work (or play) in direct sunlight,” NWS explains. In a sense, the wet-bulb globe temperature measures what we experience after we’ve been cooled by sweat.

The “bulb” we’re referring to here is the end of a mercury thermometer (not to be confused with a lightbulb or juvenile tulip). Natural wet-bulb temperature (which is slightly different from the WBGT, as I’ll explain in a moment) is measured by wrapping the bottom of a thermometer in a wet cloth and passing air over it. When the air is dry, it is by definition less saturated with water and therefore has more capacity for moisture. That means that under dry conditions, more water from the cloth around the bulb evaporates, which pulls more heat away from the bulb, dropping the temperature. This is the same reason why you feel cold when you get out of a shower or swimming pool. The drier the air, the colder the reading on the wet-bulb thermometer will be compared to the actual air temperature.
Wet bulb temperature - why & when is it used?www.youtube.com
If the air is humid, however, less water is able to evaporate from the wet cloth. When the relative humidity is at 100% — that is, the air is fully saturated with water — then the wet-bulb temperature and the normal dry-bulb temperature will be the same.
Because of this, the wet-bulb temperature is usually lower than the relative air temperature, which makes it a bit confusing when presented without context (a comfortable wet-bulb temperature at rest is around 70°F). Wet-bulb temperatures over just 80, though, can be very dangerous, especially for active people.
The WBGT is, like the heat index, an apparent temperature, or “feels like,” calculation; generally when you see wet-bulb temperatures being referred to, it is actually the WBGT that is being discussed. This is also the measurement that is preferred by the military, athletic organizations, road-race organizers, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration because it helps you understand how, well, survivable the weather is, especially if you are moving.
Our bodies regulate temperature by sweating to shed heat, but sweat stops working “once the wet-bulb temperature passes 95°F,” explains Popular Science. “That’s because, in order to maintain a normal internal temperature, your skin has to stay at 95°F degrees or below.” Exposure to wet-bulb temperatures over 95°F can be fatal within just six hours. On Wednesday, when I was doing my readings of New Orleans, the wet-bulb temperature was around 88.5°F.
The WBGT is helpful because it takes the natural wet-bulb temperature reading a step further by factoring in considerations not only of temperature and humidity, but also wind speed, sun angle, and solar radiation (basically cloud cover). Calculating the WBGT involves taking a weighted average of the ambient, wet-bulb, and globe temperature readings, which together cover all these variables.
That formula looks like:
Wet-bulb globe temperature = 0.7Tw + 0.2Tg + 0.1Td
Tw is the natural wet-bulb temperature, Tg is the globe thermometer temperature (which measures solar radiation), and Td is the dry bulb temperature. By taking into account the sun angle, cloud cover, and wind, the WBGT gives a more nuanced read of how it feels to be a body outside — but without getting into the weeds with 19 different difficult-to-calculate variables like, ahem, someone we won’t further call out here.
Thankfully, there’s a calculator for the WBGT formula, although don’t bother entering all the info if you don’t have to — the NWS reports it nationally, too.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Smoke from the raging fires in Indonesia may go down as this year’s deadliest climate tragedy.
It’s a morbid game to try to name the worst climate disaster of 2026. In Europe this summer, a series of extreme heat waves killed an estimated 50,000 people. In September, a thawing Himalayan glacier collapsed, sending a wall of water cascading through Tibet and Nepal, killing at least 1,500 people, with nearly 6,000 still missing months later. And this past January, authorities feared hundreds of migrants died while trying to cross the Mediterranean during Cyclone Harry, including 50 in one shipwreck alone.
But the disaster that will result in perhaps the greatest and longest-lasting tragedy is the one unfolding right now in Indonesia.
Wildfires in Sumatra and Kalimantan have burned more than 7 million acres in what is likely a record year for the fire-prone islands. The blazes have destroyed critical wildlife habitats, including rainforests occupied by orangutans, Sunda pangolins, and Javan leopards. But it’s not the direct human deaths from the fires, the habitat loss, or the historic acreage burned — those being the typical headline numbers for gauging how “bad” a given fire or fire season is — that best tell the story of the impacts, in this case.
Rather, it is the toxic smoke blanketing Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Timor-Leste. For months, those emissions have been in every breath taken by the region’s 12.5 million inhabitants, about 4% of the world’s population.
In Indonesia alone, authorities estimate the smoke has caused 400,000 respiratory infections. As of a few weeks ago, more than 75,000 cases had been recorded in children between birth and age 5. “Behind those numbers are worried families, parents keeping watch, and children struggling to breathe,” Herawati Supolo-Sudoyo, a trustee of the Indonesian Open Science Voice Foundation and chair of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences’ Commission on Medical Sciences, said during a recent public health webinar. “Babies certainly cannot say, ‘My chest feels tight.’ They rely on us to protect their breath.” (That’s according to an automated YouTube translation of her remarks.)

Children are especially vulnerable to wildfire smoke because their lungs are not fully developed, and they breathe in more air relative to their body weight than adults. Reports from local hospitals are harrowing. “Yesterday, in the inpatient ward, I saw three toddlers struggling to breathe,” one mother, whose 14-month-old died suddenly after experiencing shortness of breath, told BBC Indonesia (as translated by Mongabay). The Indonesian Philanthropy Association, a nonprofit, has taken to describing the children of Indonesia as the “lost generation” due to the suspected physical and cognitive toll of the relentless smoke exposure. Timor-Leste, which borders Indonesia to the west, has one of Asia’s youngest populations, with about 44% of its inhabitants under 18.
“We must not wait until these children are adults to calculate the losses,” Supolo-Sudoyo said.
There seems little doubt that the smoke is a climate-change-fueled public health crisis. A new study by World Weather Attribution, released Thursday, found that while the super El Niño is the primary cause of the severe reduction in rainfall that helped fuel the fires, Indonesia’s drought was “then exacerbated by record heat throughout the fire season, which was made possible due to human-caused climate change,” Theodore Keeping, a research associate with WWA, said during a press call about the findings. (The study, which uses peer-reviewed methods, has not yet been peer-reviewed itself.)
Indonesia’s fire season was about 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter due to climate change, compared to about a third of a degree Celsius hotter due to the current El Niño, WWA reports. “We also found that this year’s record-breaking heat would have been virtually impossible without climate change, even in a similar El Niño state,” Keeping said.

Smoke is still a relatively new way of quantifying the impact of a wildfire. Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health and creator of the school’s wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool, told me that though researchers have been studying smoke toxicity for years, the bad U.S. fire seasons in 2018 and 2020 helped accelerate interest and urgency. “Really high visibility and growing interest leads to a lot more studies that then enhance our knowledge about the details of this hazard,” he said of the recent spike in smoke-related research.
For example, new research released just last month by researchers at Harvard indicates that wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy is related to higher instances of autism in children. Separately, a study about chronic wildfire smoke exposure linked the pollution to an estimated 24,100 deaths in the lower 48 states every year — more than twice the number killed in drunk-driving accidents. Looking only at Indonesia, researchers linked smoke exposure in the womb during the region’s severe 1997 fire season to poorer health outcomes by age 17.
Still, coverage of wildfires largely focuses on how many people were killed by direct flame impacts, or how many acres or buildings burned. A “megafire,” for example, is a nonscientific term used by the media to describe how large a fire is physically, but not the thousands of miles further its smoke will travel. The National Interagency Coordination Center’s Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report, the end-of-year summary of fire season impacts in the United States, doesn’t even mention smoke exposure. Deadly and destructive fires in Maui and Los Angeles stand out in memory, but the hazardous air quality in the Midwest this season from the Canadian wildfires may turn out to cost as many or more lives. (Smoke toxicity and chronic exposure also complicate the cost-benefit analysis of a favorite tool of progressive fire managers: prescribed burns.)
In fact, research about smoke toxicity and widespread exposure to particulate pollution increasingly suggests that emissions might be the marquee impact of wildfires. While 30 people died directly from the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in L.A., one research paper estimated the loss of life was closer to 440, partially due to the deaths attributable to wildfire smoke in addition to stress, disruptions to the health-care infrastructure, and mental health impacts.

“The difficulty with all of this is that the smoke deaths are difficult to track,” Hayden told me. “They’re not, for instance, showing up on death certificates. While the smoke itself is very visible in the air and leads to nice photos, the impacts are much harder to take photos of.”
That’s certainly the case in Indonesia, where photos show people going about their lives in a cloud of yellow smoke, and in Singapore, where run clubs have moved their workouts into malls to try to avoid the pollution. But while a smoke-exacerbated heart attack isn’t a front-page image, to Hayden’s point, the pictures do reveal something else: just how ill-prepared our infrastructure and public health systems are for dramatic smoke events like these.
What can be done about wildfire smoke? You can invest in a really good air purifier — and use it correctly — which works so long as you can afford it, and if your home isn’t drafty to begin with, and if it isn’t too hot out that you need to open a window to stay cool at the same time. You can wear the right kind of mask, too, but it needs to fit properly and it won’t filter out gases or the smallest toxic particles. And while you can evacuate to protect yourself from an encroaching wildfire, outrunning the smoke might require you to travel hundreds of miles or, as is the case for those in Southeast Asia, literally leave your country.
In that sense, we are thinking about wildfire impacts wrong, too. Fires aren’t a hazard contained neatly within evacuation zones; the “wildland-urban interface” and “wildfire-prone landscape” describe an environment fires may erupt in, but not what they’re contained to. Whether you’re in Los Angeles or New York City, Minneapolis or Madrid, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur, the smoke will find you.
We need a ratepayer protection pledge for natural gas, too, argue two energy systems experts.
Everyone is talking about high energy prices, which were a major factor in the midterm elections. And it’s not just electricity: Families are paying 16% more for natural gas now than they were just two years ago. Within a few more years, the boom in electricity demand from data centers could add enough natural gas power plants to expand America’s gas power generation capacity by a third. Some back of the envelope math shows that the additional costs to regular customers from this expansion could total more than $23 billion across all retail gas and electricity prices by 2030.
Large users choosing gas will raise costs for the more than 70 million households in America paying a gas bill every month. It’s simple supply and demand. Some data center developers are working with utilities to connect to the grid, but many others are building their own off-grid power plants that would burn natural gas to power their operations. That would require a massive gas infrastructure build-out on top of the supply pressure, raising costs still further.
Earlier this year, hyperscalers and AI companies signed the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, committing to pay the full costs of their energy and infrastructure, “no matter what,” to avoid increasing energy costs for other customers. Agreeing to limit cost increases for energy is a good start, but the details of that pledge focused only on electricity customers, and it’s not enough to solve the problem. Almost nothing has been said on what that means for natural gas customers, or how data centers should help contain gas costs for families. As the 120th Congress, newly elected governors, and state legislators across the country consider the fastest ways to tackle volatile energy prices, they should consider a Gas Customer Protection Pledge to protect consumers from data centers contributing to surging natural gas bills.
All this new gas demand from data centers could increase costs for the rest of us in at least three ways. First, if history is any indication, the sheer volume of increased gas use will both raise gas prices and make them more volatile. Price volatility hurts poorer consumers more, with surprisingly high bills derived from market dynamics over which they have little control. Second, the pipelines, compressor stations, and other infrastructure needed to bring gas to these new facilities will cost money. Because the vast majority of utilities in America pass through both the cost of the fuel itself and the investments required to build and maintain infrastructure, these additional costs will be borne by all customers, not just the data centers.
And third — perhaps most importantly — during periods of peak system stress like winter storms or summer heat waves, all this additional gas going to data centers will make price shocks more severe. In the case of Winter Storm Fern last January, for example, natural gas prices from Chicago to Boston were 19 to 42 times higher than the national average price from the prior year.
So, how can government officials prevent all this from happening? A Gas Customer Protection Pledge would fill the gaps in the already agreed upon objective not to raise energy cost for average customers. Mirroring the points from the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, here’s how that might work.
To address energy affordability in the long run, finite resources are best spent moving energy systems off fossil fuels to improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the meantime, we must make efforts today to control natural gas costs. America’s energy affordability crisis needs answers today, not down the road.
Now is the time for a Gas Customer Protection Pledge that builds out the other half of the commitment already made by hyperscalers and AI companies not to increase energy bills for other customers.
X-energy is vying against CNNC and Canada’s AtkinsRéalis.
For years now, the United States has watched anxiously as its nuclear industry stagnated while those of its biggest geopolitical adversaries boomed. Russia, America’s top 20th century rival, dominated exports, securing deals to build virtually every nuclear newcomer nation’s first reactors. China, meanwhile, took the lead in domestic construction, with three dozen large-scale reactors under construction right now; Beijing even dabbled briefly in exporting its technology with a deal to build half a dozen reactors in Pakistan. It’s already made an offer to build Serbia’s first nuclear plant, and it’s expected to bid on more deals soon.
Now, for the first time, an American company is going head to head with a Chinese state-owned champion for one of Asia’s most sought-after nuclear deals.
X-energy, the Amazon-backed reactor startup based in Maryland, is one of three companies to take part in a program with Singapore to the country’s regulators in its licensing department so they can see how an atomic power project goes from planning to approval. The goal is to help train the “nuclear manpower” needed to design a reactor buildout that matches Singapore’s unique needs, according to the name of the program. By observing the process to license reactors, the regulators from Singapore’s Ministry of Energy, Trade, and Industry and its Energy Market Authority hope to lay the groundwork for the city-state to import reactor technology and build its first nuclear plant.
Singapore spans less land area than the city of Memphis, Tennessee, yet the Southeast Asian city-state has plans to expand its electricity generating capacity by more than a quarter in the coming years to around 15 gigawatts — more than four times the U.S. city’s all-time high power demand. The country’s Ministry of Energy, Trade, and Industry and its Energy Market Authority will pay the salaries of its embedded workers for the full length of the program, anywhere from six months to two years. Aside from the free labor, the host companies receive an inside track to sell reactors to Singapore if the country moves forward with a nuclear project.
“They need to pick a technology that suits their very, very specific needs and constraints,” Miriam D'Onofrio, X-energy’s senior director of international markets, told me. (While the company announced the partnership at the Singapore International Energy Week summit late last month, X-energy spoke exclusively with Heatmap about the agreement.)
“We’re proud to be the only American entity — and one that wasn’t facilitated by the U.S. government at all,” she added. “That was something that Singapore evaluated for itself and made a central decision to pursue. That’s a testament to the strength of our technology and the trust that they have in us as a company.”
Another company vying for Singapore’s business is AtkinsRéalis, the Montreal-based nuclear company behind Canada’s homegrown CANDU reactor technology. But a source with direct knowledge of the Singaporean government’s thinking told me the country is already sold on the benefits of building a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, an expensive option that promises a relatively small footprint on land and minimal risk of a meltdown. The CANDU, by contrast, is a pressurized heavy water reactor, which uses a special kind of water as a coolant to use raw uranium as a fuel and avoid enrichment altogether.
That means the real competition is between X-energy and the China National Nuclear Corporation. CNNC, the second of China’s two state nuclear companies, which currently operates the world’s only commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Located at Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant on the tip of the Shandong Peninsula that juts from northern China into the Yellow Sea, the demonstration reactor came online in December 2023. The completion of the 210-megawatt reactor, which runs on a specialized and fuel known as TRISO that’s specifically engineered for safety, vaulted China to the front of the global race for what are called fourth-generation technologies that use coolants other than water.
While the U.S., Britain, Germany, and Japan all built experimental high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (America also briefly operated a commercial plant in Colorado before shutting it down in the early 1990s due to high costs), China is the first in decades to actually pump its electricity onto the grid. Construction began earlier this month on a second such unit.
That could afford CNNC some advantages. “China has an HTGR that’s been operating,” D'Onofrio told me. “But it is demonstrably more difficult to get information out of China and on that program.”
The trouble is, countries that “are embarking on new nuclear programs want to learn and absorb themselves,” she said. “They don’t just want to buy something off the shelf,” she said. “That’s unfortunately not how nuclear works.” With the Xe-100, an 80-megawatt small modular reactor cooled with helium, D'Onofrio said, “we tried our best to optimize constructability, to optimize manufacturability, to optimize efficiencies in the core.”
X-energy is making progress. On Monday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the company a permit to begin construction on its first plant, a small facility on Texas’ Gulf coast to funnel electricity and heat to Dow’s second-largest chemical plant. X-energy has also inked at least two deals with American utilities for full-scale plants in Washington State, with Energy Northwest, and in Indiana with American Electric Power.
Though the company has yet to fully build one of its reactors, she said, “I am confident that once we do, there will be a wave that we’re excited to see of interest from industry, from data centers, and from customers all over the world.”
If China’s edge is having an actual operating reactor, the strongest argument for X-energy may be its plans to manufacture its own fuel.
Both the Chinese and the American reactors run on TRISO. Rather than slotting pellets of enriched uranium into PEZ dispenser-like fuel assemblies that go into conventional reactors, TRISO producers ball the enriched uranium into poppyseed-sized spheres coated in ceramic material. That coating absorbs the dangerous materials produced during fission and makes a meltdown physically impossible, eliminating the need for the massive steel and concrete domes that serve as containment in traditional nuclear plants.
While China fills its TRISO kernels with conventional low-enriched uranium, X-energy is manufacturing its own fuel out of a more potent type of fuel. That fuel, known as high-assay low-enriched uranium or HALEU, burns through more of the energy in the uranium, but it’s also more expensive, and the only major commercial vendor in the world today is Russia’s Rosatom.
“We have the [intellectual property] on some of the most reliable TRISO fabrication that’s ever been invented,” D'Onofrio said.
Some experts doubt that Singapore will actually commission a nuclear plant anytime soon. “The Singaporeans are treating nuclear energy as a long-term risk-monitoring exercise rather than an active engineering [project],” François Morin, the World Nuclear Association’s director in Beijing, told me in a text message. “For now, the state’s priority is maintaining a superficial, multi-directional radar so they aren’t blindsided if regional neighbors like Indonesia or Malaysia move forward with their own nuclear plans.”
While the appeal of a TRISO-fueled high-temperature gas-reactor is the absence of a multi-mile emergency planning zone like those that surround water-cooled plants, Morin said the Singaporean government is “ignoring the reality that no international regulator has universally codified a ‘zero-EPZ’ standard for a hyper-dense metropolitan area.”
X-energy said it doesn’t need to ultimately build a reactor in Singapore for the effort to be worthwhile.
“Even if Singapore doesn’t pursue an HTGR program — we’d love them to — they’re going to play a role in regional development,” D'Onofrio said. “We want to play a role in regional development, and the strength of Singaporean institutions — the ease of doing business here — makes it a really, really interesting option for us for a future footprint.”