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:
Hikers plan and climate change laughs.

Mini Chimi was taking a nero with her tramily when she replied to my email. “I believe there is a lot of fear out there associated with the high snow year on the [Pacific Crest Trail],” she told me. “I want to be a positive voice out here.”
Mini didn’t need to worry about coming across as anything else; her writing on The Trek, a blogging platform for long-distance, end-to-end “thru-hikers,” is punctuated by joyous clumps of exclamation points.
“WE ARE DOING IT!!!!” celebrates one post. “COWBOY CAMPING IS SO FUN!!!!!” she raves further on, about sleeping without a tent. Even “snow around mile 35!!!” — a section of high desert just north of the Mexican border — warrants Mini Chimi’s excitement, although it is snow that most hikers of the Pacific Crest Trail, or PCT, are dreading the sight of this year.
In the little more than a decade since Cheryl Strayed published her bestselling memoir about hiking the PCT, Wild (adapted into a movie starring Reese Witherspoon in 2014), interest in thru-hiking the 2,650-mile Mexico-to-Canada trail in a single season has skyrocketed. But in the same span of time, the Pacific Crest Trail Association (PCTA) — the nonprofit stewards of the trail — has grown increasingly worried that thru-hiking as we know it is on the verge of going extinct. Wildfires now regularly close vast sections of the trail in the late summer, and water sources in the desert and high Sierras are drying up, making remote regions virtually impassable. Hiking the trail end-to-end in one year, a bucket-list item for many long-distance backpackers, is now “almost impossible” due to climate change.
Though Mini Chimi is keeping her chin up, 2023 thru-hikers — who’ve quit jobs, bought one-way international flights, and sunk thousands of dollars into new gear — are already watching their odds of completing the trail this year evaporate, some before they’ve even begun (northbound hikers continue to start their trips through the end of May). But ironically, it isn’t extreme heat or wildfires that are scuttling plans. It’s the snow.
“This time of year, there is always snow on the trail,” Scott Wilkinson, the content development director of the PCTA, explained to me. “But this year, obviously, we’re talking about an order of magnitude much, much bigger.”
Due to the parade of atmospheric rivers that slammed the West Coast this winter, California remains buried under once-in-a-generation levels of snow. Ski areas are promising to stay open until “AT LEAST July,” and the Sierra Nevada might not melt out until well into August. This has caused a number of problems that aren’t typical of the trail, which has otherwise trended hotter and drier: A recent post in the Class of 2023 PCT Facebook group, which is administered by the PCTA, suggested that the precipitation this winter has resulted in a lush desert underbrush that is making it harder to spot rattlesnakes, increasing the likelihood of bites. The trail will likely get insufferably buggy this summer, and the West Coast superbloom is also expected to dry into fodder for wildfires.
But fires, one of the most foreboding late-season obstacles on the trail, still seem a world away. In parts of the southern Sierra Nevada, which hikers usually aim to hit around mid-June, the snowpack is still 300% above normal levels. “Right now, about 660 miles of the PCT in the Sierra Nevada are under snow,” Wilkinson told me last week. “That, at a normal trail hiking pace of 20 to 30 miles a day — I mean, that’s a month’s worth of hiking. In snow, it’s likely to be considerably slower than that.” He noted that while there are “a few people that are leading the pack” who have experience in snow conditions, for the most part, that level of snow is “pretty much a nonstarter.”
Firefly is one such hiker who is hoping to push through the Sierras (thru-hikers traditionally refer to each other by their trail names, which I’m honoring here). A retired San Diego Fire Department fire captain, Firefly left the trail in March at mile 151, just south of the San Jacintos, the first major mountain range that hikers encounter headed north. With a high point of over 9,000 feet (or 10,804 feet, if one detours off trail to bag Mt. San Jacinto), the San Jacintos will mark the highest elevation many of the less experienced thru-hikers will have ever stood at, and the steep, bare slopes are “nerve-racking under normal conditions, and downright treacherous if it’s icy,” as they are now, the Fatmap PCT guide cautions.
Part of the reason Firefly left trail was to take a snow travel class offered by the Sierra Mountain Center, which she'd signed up for in October 2022, before even knowing how bad this season was going to be. In the class, she learned how to use crampons, traverse steep snow slopes, and, critically, how to self-arrest using an ice ax. “It feels that a lot of hikers have already decided to skip the Sierra without even setting up to try it,” she wrote to me. “And that’s totally fine for them because it really looks overwhelming. It just feels like an opportunity for me to do something amazing, scary, challenging, and hard.”
Refill, a thru-hiker from northern Germany, managed to make it through the San Jacintos “as probably the third or fourth group,” by his estimate. He’s reflected in a Trek journal entry that “since the start of my planning, San Jac was the mountain range that scared me the most” — a sentiment that is common among PCT hikers, especially after a thru-hiker slipped on a patch of ice on Apache Peak and slid to his death in 2020. In the Class of 2023 PCT group, hikers have been busy exchanging beta about the conditions; one offered up a handy flowchart titled “So You’re Considering the Apache-Onward Section??” with the most common outcome being: Skip it! The local search-and-rescue group is getting to the point even quicker, urging hikers to entirely bypass the 60-odd miles through the San Jacintos, while the PCTA has posted sternly-worded reminders on Facebook that spots on the trail “will require mountaineering skills” and pose avalanche dangers: “Do not assume it will be okay or easy.”
Refill, for his part, is planning to take the skills he practiced with his tramily — that is, his “trail family” — in the San Jacintos and use them in the Sierra Nevada. “All in all, this sketchy and steep mountain range was very good training; we will probably start hiking at 3 a.m. every night in the Sierras,” he told me, describing a mountaineering technique that ensures traversing hard, firm, and more navigable snow during colder hours. “I WAS nervous about San Jacinto, as this range is known to be deadly and steep,” he went on. “I AM nervous about the river crossings in the Sierras.”
The water crossings are also what is keeping Firefly up at night. Outdoor educator Andrew Skurka lists over 30 PCT “High Sierra creek hazards” that still lay ahead of hikers on his website, some with ominous notes like “PCT hiker died here in 2017.” Already, a “critical backcountry bridge” in a section of trail about a month ahead of the lead thru-hikers “has been badly damaged [by snow] and will almost certainly mean long-distance hikers will have to reroute their trips around one of the most picturesque stretches of the High Sierra this summer,” the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The news isn’t encouraging from the PCTA, either: “Without a bridge, crossing the river is not possible anywhere in the general vicinity during high water,” a blog post from the organization warns. “The record-breaking snowpack this year essentially guarantees that high water conditions will exist into August, if not longer.” (White water rafters, meanwhile, are thrilled).
Serendipity is an experienced thru-hiker who completed the Appalachian Trail in 2022; her plans look more like the typical 2023 thru-hiker’s. “My tramily and I are planning to skip the Sierra and possibly come back later in the year, depending on conditions,” she wrote to me from a water cache on the trail just short of the 100-mile mark last week. “We are taking a cautious approach.” It’s not that she doesn’t want to thru-hike — “if the conditions were passable, we would have” — but “I am keeping a take-it-as-it-comes attitude, and [planning] accordingly as we get information,” she went on. “I don’t feel any pressure to attempt to take on unsafe conditions.”
Firefly was staying realistic too: “If there is significant warming or rain before the end of May or while I am in the Sierra, and the river crossings are gnarly or too difficult, then I will bail out, skip up to Northern California, and return in August to finish the Sierra,” she said, describing, like Serendipity, a strategy known as “flip-flopping” — skipping temporarily impassible or challenging trail conditions and returning to complete the sections when they’ve cleared up. Mini Chimi said she has already reworked her plans in this way: “We are ... having to skip around [in order to] avoid large amounts of dangerous snow,” she wrote to me during her “nero,” a “near-zero” mileage rest day. “We will be going back when the conditions are better to complete these sections.”
One day, even elaborate flip-flopping likely won’t allow hikers to complete all the PCT sections in a single season — such as if the Sierra has a snowless year, as is anticipated — but Wilkinson said the hikers I spoke to all have the right mindset. “A lot of hikers are rolling with it; they’re getting creative,” he told me. “They’re beginning to let go of this continuous journey concept in their minds.”
Among those who are on trail, though, letting go can still be easier said than done. “Last year on my [Appalachian Trail] thru-hike, I felt a certain ‘do it now!’ urgency, in part due to my age,” Serendipity said. “I feel a similar ‘do it now’ urgency on the PCT because of my age and also how the uncertainty of extreme weather conditions will affect the PCT.” Those not on trail feel this anxiety too: Thru-hiking the PCT has long been a dream of mine, one that I may now never realistically be able to complete — at least, not in the way I’d envisioned it. Losing that possibility is sad: I’ve alternated between denial (maybe I could still get lucky and pull it off?) and anger that this is our reality.
But like Mini Chimi, Wilkinson remains almost impossibly upbeat about the future of the PCT. “None of this spells the end of the trail,” he said. “This isn’t necessarily gloom-and-doom. It’s change, right? And change is never easy, especially when it’s as difficult to predict as what we’re experiencing now.”
The PCT is nothing if not a patient teacher of change: on the journey, spring turns to summer turns to fall; the trail weaves through six of the country’s seven eco-zones; and sometimes, years-in-the-making plans have to be reworked due to hydroclimatic events, a washed out bridge, or a dry lightning storm. The only way anyone ever gets from one border to the other is by surrendering to whatever the unknowable mile ahead may bring. Mini Chimi is right; you might as well be positive about each step, in that case. None of them can be taken for granted; every one of them, each year, becomes a more precious gift.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Jack Klein talks about how to protect New York City’s most vulnerable transit customers, why subway air conditioning has made platform heat worse.
You might already know Jack Klein. Last summer, he went viral on TikTok for his videos documenting the heat on various New York City subway platforms, including recording a whopping “feels like” temperature of 130 degrees Fahrenheit at the 6th Avenue/14th Street L train station.
“No one had collected subterranean data within the New York subway system,” he told me. The results of his unsanctioned citizen science project — which covered seven highly-trafficked stations up and down Manhattan — attracted the attention of The Weather Company, Google Public Sector, and the New York Post (which called it a “quirky art project.”) Building on the success of his weird videos, Klein formally founded New York Lab last fall. There, he works to bring together engineers, scientists, and public health experts to lobby the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — a state agency, believe it or not, which holds the ultimate decision-making powers — to do more for the populations hit worse by extreme temperatures during their commutes.
After many rejections and setbacks, it appears that someone is finally listening to Klein. On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that the MTA is launching a feasibility study for the development of a thermal energy network at the Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall and Chambers Street station complex, funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Essentially, the city and state want to know whether the stations are hot enough that the thermal energy could be captured — via 500-foot-deep boreholes that cool the platforms in the process — and used to warm nearby municipal buildings like City Hall in the winter.
I caught up with Klein to learn what he thinks about the project and what else the transit agency could do to bring relief to straphangers in the short term. Our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
What do you think about the location the city chose for this study?
I thought it was interesting they chose those stations. It seems like it’s a good place to test geothermal solutions because it sounds like there is a part of the tracks that isn’t being used, so they don’t have to stop service. That’s one of the challenges of these large infrastructure projects: The trains run 24/7, so you can’t really shut down the stations. [Editor’s note: The city also recently announced a multi-million-dollar restoration project for the Chambers Street station, funded by congestion pricing.]
Logistically it makes more sense because these other stations [I looked at] are really high in foot traffic — which I'm sure Chambers is, too — but because they're able to do the construction without disrupting traffic, they avoid a major roadblock. I feel like for a pilot, you don’t necessarily have to do it at the hottest station; the question is, what’s a hot station we can feasibly do this at?
Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall wasn’t a platform you monitored during your project last year, but the mayor’s office says it’s one of the hottest in the system, reaching 96 degrees Fahrenheit last summer. How does that compare with what you recorded?
I focused on the heat index, or the “feels like” temperature. They must be measuring the actual temperature of the station, but I don’t really ever go down there, so I don’t actually know. Of the stations I measured, 14th Street-Union Square and Times Square were in the 120s and 130s near the platform when the trains were in the station. So I imagine it’s quite similar.
Why was humidity important for you to factor in?
I remember two years ago, I had a digital thermometer, and I was pointing it at, like, a wet floor sign or the walls and floors of Union Square. There’s a shock value there, but it actually means nothing in terms of what my whole project is based around, which is that this is a health issue — especially for people in the most vulnerable populations, like the elderly, people with disabilities, pregnant people. So how do we measure what it actually feels like to stand waiting for a train? And we live in a subtropical environment, so humidity is a major factor. I mean, I’m literally sweating through my shirt in a [Brooklyn] school right now. There’s no AC, and it’s not even that hot; it’s just so humid.
And air-conditioned trains actually make the stations hotter, right?
It seems like one of the largest contributors to extreme heat in the stations during the summer is the AC onboard the trains. When a train pulls in, all the excess heat gets pushed onto the platform. You can feel that when you’re waiting for trains; when they pull in, it’s like an inferno of hot air on your face.
It’s a double-edged sword: They’re cooling the trains to be extremely cold, which is nice, but sometimes it’s a bit extreme, and it’s only making the stations hotter. I know there has been talk about not cooling them to such an insane degree, making them a bit warmer, so it wouldn’t heat the stations quite as much. But it’s a sort of paradoxical thing. There’s no right or wrong; it’s just the reality of having AC on trains. It makes the tunnels hotter and the stations hotter.
Did the possibility of a thermal energy network ever come up when you were talking with experts and the MTA about ways to deal with the subway heat?
Last summer, in September of 2025, the MTA issued a request for information on geothermal cooling technologies — specifically for the 168th Street 1 Station and the 181st 1 Station — because both are very deep, and there’s potential for Columbia and New York Presbyterian to use the heat during the winter. Some scientists and I, along with a geothermal engineering company I did this pro bono for, filled out a 14-question feasibility analysis. That was the RFI. Basically, it wasn’t a full analysis, but it was like, “If you were to pay us to do this, here’s what we could answer. Here’s a very quick explanation of how you could use boreholes. What other assets does the MTA already have that could be useful? How much money could you make off it?”
But now, we haven’t heard from the MTA in a year since our RFI. And I understand how RFIs work, which is that you don’t often hear back, but it does make me curious. What is the process for contracting out the pilot? Who gets chosen? Will we hear back? Because we did throw our hat in the ring a year ago, and now we’re hearing about it, and it’s obviously a direct result of those RFIs. So it’s exciting, but I’m also selfishly a bit like, Okay, well, are we going to be involved at all?
So you think there’s something to this idea, then.
I was relying on the engineers and scientists I partnered with to actually understand the technical side of these questions, but they are excited. They’re very confident in it.
The MTA put out another RFI in 2023 for geothermal, and though that didn’t go anywhere, there’s been talk about this for a while. That’s why this is exciting. But again, they announced the pilot, but it has to happen at one station, and there are all the financial and political hurdles still to come. So it’s cool that Mamdani is announcing it, but who knows what’s going to happen? Still, I think it’s the farthest the idea has gotten. And if they actually test it out, that’d be monumental.
What else could the MTA do to cool the stations down and keep people safe?
There’s another pilot right now [at the East Broadway Station] using radiant cooling technology, which runs pipes of water on the ceiling to soak up the heat. I’m focused right now on promoting access to water underground, more seating, and better ventilation — shorter-term, more adaptable, more realistic solutions. Because who knows how long these projects will take to actually implement in hundreds of stations?
Money is pouring into small modular and microreactor startups. But there can only be so many winners.
Investment in smaller, next-generation nuclear reactor designs is booming, with a flood of capital pouring into scaled-down models known as small modular reactors — or, if they’re extra tiny, microreactors. In just the past few weeks, Valar Atomics announced a $1 billion Series B, while Antares Nuclear closed its $470 million Series C. The two companies are attempting to serve different customers — Valar is targeting hyperscale data centers, while Antares is building for off-grid military applications — but both are betting on the same premise: that smaller, factory-built reactors can deliver reliable, carbon-free power far more quickly, flexibly, and cheaply than traditional large-scale nuclear plants.
Venture capital is eating it up. In addition to Valar and Antares’ raises this year, SMR startup X-Energy went public in April, raising over $1 billion at a $9.1 billion valuation. Last year alone, SMR companies TerraPower, Last Energy, Radiant Industries, Aalo Atomics, Arc Clean Technology, and Stellaria all raised rounds.
It seems like every week brings another announcement about an SMR company hitting a new milestone or a microreactor raising a new round. But some industry experts aren’t buying the hype. One 2024 report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis summarizes it neatly with the title, “Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow and too risky.” One of the report’s co-authors, Dennis Wamsted, thinks this blunt analysis has held up remarkably well.
“I still think that’s one of the best-titled reports we ever wrote,” he told me, arguing that nothing in the past two years has changed his fundamental analysis of the sector. “I think it’s just as overhyped as it was a few years ago. There is a shiny new object mentality to SMRs. They’re going to work perfectly right out of the box.” Instead, the report argues, borrowing a phrase from NextEra Energy CEO John Ketchum, SMRs are “an opportunity to lose money in smaller batches.”
The report came out about six months after NuScale — still the only SMR company with a design certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission — canceled its inaugural project in Idaho before construction even began. It’s been a wild ride ever since: Buoyed by investor excitement over an artificial intelligence-driven nuclear renaissance, NuScale’s stock soared last year before losing most of its value once again as the company posted major losses.
The AI boom has driven much of the surge in SMR interest, as hyperscalers scramble to procure power for a rapidly expanding fleet of new data centers. Google, Amazon, and Meta have signed agreements with SMR developers Kairos Power, X-energy, and TerraPower and Oklo, respectively. At the same time, bipartisan support for nuclear is growing. Recent Gallup polls show that 46% of Americans believe the U.S. should put a greater emphasis on nuclear power and that 61% support the technology overall. Other surveys suggest SMRs in particular enjoy even higher levels of favorability.
The Trump administration has gone all in too, signing executive orders directing the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to prioritize deploying small reactors at domestic military bases and spinning up the Reactor Pilot Program to expedite testing of 11 new advanced reactor designs outside the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The program aimed to have three reach criticality — the point at which a nuclear reaction becomes self-sustaining — by this July 4th. Four microreactor companies ended up beating the deadline: Antares, Valar, Deployable Energy, and Aalo Atomics, while the Sam Altman-backed SMR company Oklo achieved criticality last week.
“Say I was an advisor to the Department of Energy,” Wamsted’s co-auther David Schlissel, formerly director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, posited to me. “Even with the risk, the smart way to go is, let’s pick two or three designs and go out and build them. Build one of each. See which ones work and which ones don’t. But what’s happening is the exact opposite of that.”
Whether federal policy is creating a durable new industry or not, there are still plenty of situations where customers need clean, firm power and today’s options fall short. Solar-plus-storage is broadly useful, but matching nuclear’s 24/7 availability can require significant overbuilding. And when it comes to large-scale nuclear, a customer may need power sooner than when a project that big could feasibly come online.
Many customers are also simply unwilling to take on the risk of a multibillion-dollar, decade-long nuclear megaproject, which tend to run over time and budget. The only new reactors built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 — two huge Westinghouse AP1000 units capable of generating 1.1 gigawatts of power apiece — have become poster children for this risk. Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electricity Generating Plant in Georgia came online in 2023 and 2024, respectively, roughly seven years late and tens of billions of dollars over budget. Georgia Power customers will be paying off Vogtle well into the 2050s.
This has left many SMR entrepreneurs and industry boosters convinced there simply must be a better way. "The only customers capable of buying a reactor that large are either nation-state governments or essentially state-backed utilities,” Jordan Bramble, Antares’ co-founder and CEO, told me.
In part because of this, Bramble rejects the idea that small reactors are even competing with large-scale nuclear in the first place, explaining that the either/or framing overlooks the fact that these designs attract distinct pools of capital. “What a venture capitalist in private equity is going to invest in versus a municipal bond investor or a utility investor is going to invest in are two totally different things,” he told me.
And while SMRs may eventually seek institutional capital too, Bramble points to recent funding rounds by Anthropic, OpenAI, and Commonwealth Fusion Systems as evidence of just how much money companies can attract in today's private market even before their tech has come down the cost curve. “I think when the upside equation is there, there’s near limitless money in venture and growth equity right now,” he told me.
True? Largely. Indicative of a bubble? Possibly.
One lesson many developers took from NuScale seems to be about customer selection. While NuScale intended to serve a coalition of small, price-sensitive municipal utilities, today’s SMR startups are targeting early adopters with more room in their budgets: AI hyperscalers, of course, but also military and defense customers and industrial companies such as chemicals and metals producers that can put both nuclear’s heat and electricity to use. Modular, factory-based production is central to many of their strategies, along with even smaller reactor designs. While NuScale sought to build 77-megawatt reactors, Valar is targeting 5 megawatts while Antares is building in the 100-kilowatt to 1-gigawatt range.
But utility analyst Bill Tilles argues that scaling down further isn’t the answer. The fundamental issue with SMRs, he told me, is that they suffer from a "reverse economy of scale." That is, shrink the size of the reactor and the cost per watt of electricity produced goes up, not down. Add in a market crowded with dozens of these companies pursuing different reactor designs and fuel types but chasing the same data center, defense, and industrial customers, and it becomes difficult to see how any single one can attract the critical mass of customers needed to scale up a manufacturing line and become relatively cost-effective.
Of course, every SMR company says it’s uniquely positioned to emerge as a winner in what even Bramble acknowledges is an overcrowded field likely to see consolidation in the coming years through either mergers and acquisitions or outright failures. Still, he’s feeling confident in Antares’ decision to pursue the Department of Defense as a beachhead customer: In April, the Air Force selected the company to build a 500-kilowatt microreactor at a military base in San Antonio, set to come online in 2028.
“[Nuclear] actually was always a defense-first technology that eventually became commercial, and that’s how rocket propulsion worked. It’s how GPS worked. It’s how semiconductors worked. It’s even how the internet developed,” he told me. Bramble said he thinks Antares can follow a similar trajectory, riding the cost curve down before eventually bringing a grid-scale product to market.
While SMR skeptics may not be convinced this grid-scale goal is truly feasible, many do acknowledge that remote military bases offer a compelling, if niche, market for SMRs and microreactors. The military has operated nuclear-powered submarines for decades, so the concept of using small reactors in situations where conventional refueling is costly and dangerous is not without precedent. “You have these unique, price insensitive buyers that the government will try to encourage,” Tilles told me of remote deployments. “But one should not confuse that with anything resembling a commercial technology.”
That may be where the real debate lies — whether there are enough price insensitive customers for multiple companies to commercialize small reactors at scale and drive costs down.
There’s also the question of what the market will look like by the time these companies are ready to scale production — a milestone experts peg around the mid-2030s. Ultra-long-duration energy storage company Form Energy and advanced geothermal developer Fervo are already building out and turning on their first commercial projects, while multiple fusion companies are similarly targeting the mid-2030s for commercialization. If any or all of these technologies take off, they could reshape the market for clean, firm power — and thus the options available to SMRs’ potential customers.
But Benton Arnett, senior director at the industry group Nuclear Energy Institute, argues that multi-billion-dollar energy customers would be unwise to put all their eggs in one technological basket, betting that ultra-long duration storage or fusion alone will meet all their future energy needs. “You’ve got to have a diversity of investments and a diversity of plays so you can capture what’s going to be most available over the next 10 years, which can be really hard to predict,” he told me. He’s obviously betting SMRs will be among those technologies of the future. “I think everyone’s building right now not based on hype, but based on real dollars that are changing hands, building out this kind of new data center ecosystem.”
Bramble, for his part, thinks the hype cycle might be real. He just doesn’t see the exuberance as a negative for Antares or the industry at large. “Some of the most generational, economically transformational companies get built during a hype cycle,” he told me. “That was true of Google and Amazon in the dot-com bubble. This was true of the railroads. The best ones emerged during a period of mass overbuilding and overinvestment.”
So the question may not be whether the SMR boom will produce any winners, but how many — and how much capital investors and startups will burn in the process. Because while the Google of small nuclear may still be waiting to emerge, history suggests there will be plenty of nuclear equivalents of Pets.coms, Kozmo.coms, and Webvans along the way.
Current conditions: The devastating 7.4-magnitude earthquake that struck Colombia has left at least 111 dead • Severe thunderstorms once again caused ground stops at New York City’s airports, stranding your correspondent at Chicago O’Hare for the entire afternoon • Tropical Storm Chan-Hom is battering Tokyo.
The United States sweltered through its hottest month in more than 130 years of analysis, breaking records set during the 1930s Dust Bowl. The average temperatures in the lower 48 states in July came out to 76.89 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.12 degrees above the value from July 1936. “Those who deny or dismiss U.S. climate change have hit a Waterloo moment of sorts,” wrote Yale Climate Connections.
The water levels in Lake Mead, meanwhile, have dropped to a record low as drought parches the American West. “This is a significant wake-up call,” J.B. Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California and the state’s lead negotiator, told The New York Times. “We need to have long-term solutions that are going to get us away from the precipice.”
For years, the world’s great powers have jockeyed for control of the Arctic as climate change thawed sea ice enough to open new shipping routes across the frigid polar region. Now China is poised to launch its first regular container shipping service through the frigid North. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that Sea Legend, a Chinese cargo vessel that delivers to ports in Turkey and North Africa, will begin weekly service through the Arctic with a route following Russia’s northern coastline. Beijing is calling the approach its “Ice Silk Road.”
The Trump administration, meanwhile, told researchers Monday that it would stop funding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's lead report on how climate change is affecting the Arctic, Politico reported.
The Trump administration won federal approval to reconsider the environmental review for the stalled Atlantic Shores offshore wind project off Atlantic City, New Jersey. Previously a joint venture between the French energy giant EDF and the oil behemoth Shell until the latter company pulled out following Trump’s reelection, the remaining developer had argued in court that the approval process completed under the Biden administration could not be reopened. While the company “points to various ways that it believes that Congress has limited” the Department of the Interior’s authority to reconsider a review, “none speak with the exquisite specificity to undercut” the government’s right to remand the approval, according to court documents Heatmap obtained last night. Acknowledging the potential for the White House to bog down the procedure in bureaucracy, the court said it will require the Trump administration to provide a status report for why a 120-day deadline for revisiting the review would not be possible. My colleague Jael Holzman had put the project on death watch last year.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
If you listened to any of Tesla’s recent earnings calls, you know that Elon Musk has a lot of big plans for the company that don’t involve luxury electric vehicles with large in-dash homescreens. The company wants to mass produce humanoid robots. It’s promised to basically double America’s output of solar panels. And it’s aiming to build a $16.8 billion chip factory to rival Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. Yet that facility won’t be powered by Tesla’s solar. Instead, Musk said that his other company, SpaceX, will set up batteries and natural gas to keep the lights on for the plant. “The plant sits on the site of a former coal-fired power plant, and SpaceX plans to power it with newly built natural gas plants and batteries,” Electrek reporter Fred Lambert wrote. “So the compute future gets built on the same fossil ground as the past. Just swap coal for gas.”
At the start of the Iran War, a four-dimensional chess interpretation of President Donald Trump’s motivations posited that the conflict was actually about asserting control over China’s supply of hydrocarbons. Six months into the war, The Economist has declared China “the world’s great oil power.” Despite relatively limited domestic supplies, the People’s Republic managed to seize control over its energy fate through stockpiling, restricting exports, and curbing domestic demand by, for example, encouraging city dwellers to take mass transit and or cycle over driving. Among the other ways Beijing is limiting demand, as I have written previously: It’s pouring money into green hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol.

Puerto Rico’s blackouts got worse last year without extreme weather bringing on the outages. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that the island’s beleaguered ratepayers suffered an average of 36 hours of power interrupts that were not caused by major events such as hurricanes. That’s 19% more than in 2024. Between 2021 and 2025, Puerto Ricans experienced a combined average of 29 hours of power loss each year.