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:
Inside episode seven of Shift Key.

Few people have shaped Bidenomics more than Brian Deese. From 2021 to 2023, Deese led the National Economic Council at the White House, serving as President Joe Biden’s top economic aide. He’s now an Innovation Fellow at MIT, where he helps lead the new Clean Investment Monitor project.
In part two of Shift Key’s conversation with Deese, we discuss electric vehicles, the future of U.S.-China trade relations, and whether the Big Three automakers can survive.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Jesse Jenkins: I recently traveled to Australia in December. And there's a country that basically ceded its auto industry in the 1990s to early 2000. They basically said, you know what, we're done trying to compete and keep our domestic manufacturing sector alive. And as a result, now have very low tariffs for imports, everything's imported, and have embraced Chinese imports of vehicles, not just EVs, but also, you know, I was surprised to see all kinds of, you know, Chinese badged brands like SAIC and Great Walls Motors and Haval and others on the roads there.
So I guess the question, maybe just to frame it this way, you know, I have my thoughts on the answers too, but I'd love to get your direct answer is like, why don't we want Chinese cars on the roads here? Why don't we want a $16,000 EV, as opposed to in the same category as the Chevy Bolt EUV, which costs $10,000 more than that. Wouldn't that be good for American consumers, good for decarbonization? Talk through the thinking about how to balance those kinds of concerns.
Brian Deese: Yeah, so I've heard this expressed and in ways that was less thoughtful than your T up recently around, you know, damn it, we just need to decide if we like cheap electric vehicles more than we hate China and that's, you know, that's just, you know, as climate as climate forward thinkers, that question is stated as a leading question.
And I do think to really understand this, I think that that question starts from the wrong premise and then it ends up reaching the wrong conclusion implicitly in what it suggests, right? Because it starts from the premise that China's a market-based economy and a market-based actor, but more importantly, it starts from the premise that we're operating in a balanced and sustainable global trading regime and that why can't we just take the benefit of lower cost goods?
But if we step back, in terms of the global trading system, we have this enormous imbalance because China has this enormous excess savings. And what they're trying to do to try to solve the acute economic challenges that they face is to plow that into manufacturing with the explicit goal of trying to dominate, not just try to gain competitive edge, but dominate particular industries. And when they do that and then through explicit status strategies, they flood markets with cheap goods, we, the recipient countries, end up paying a lot of the cost of those Chinese subsidies and those Chinese policies.
Jenkins: What do you mean by that? Paying in what way?
Deese: We end up paying by our own industries, our own industries, our own capabilities being diminished and derogated in a way that they wouldn't have that imbalance not existed.
So I like to flip the question, right? And actually say, like China needs to decide if it loves this unsustainable, unbalanced, in many cases, illegal manufacturing strategy more than it loves the kind of, or more than it hates the kind of domestic reforms it would actually need to take to boost domestic consumption, produce more balanced growth as it becomes a more mature economy, and as it becomes a larger anchor of the global economic system.
And I don't have any illusions that China is going to engage in that, but I think some of the approach to this issue in the past has been predicated on the idea that if we in the United States operate by ignoring those realities and by trying to engage with by lowering trade barriers, that might induce China to move in that direction. And that, I think, is, that's an unsupportable hypothesis at this point.
Robinson Meyer: Where do you see this ending? Because what you're describing, I agree, is very well supported. The phenomenon you're describing where China's excess savings cause it to have all these manufactured goods that Chinese people can't buy and so therefore it has to export them to the world. That's like a flaw in the post-1945 global economy we set up, right? Because you are punished as a country if you have excess spending by your bondholders, by financial institutions. You are not punished as a country if you have excess saving. And so I think what worries people is that, well, we shut down our market to China in some regards, where does this eventually lead? Like, how do we eventually force a Chinese structural adjustment, it just starts to go quite dark places quite fast. So I guess where do you see this process that we're engaged in ending up?
Deese: I think the destination and the goal should be toward a more sustainable equilibrium, which doesn't mean a perfect equilibrium, but more sustainable equilibrium. And I think the answer to that for American policy, I think is some version of the policy mix that the Biden administration has put together: invest domestically in industrial capacity, impose costs on China where they're actually clearly in unfairly seeking to perpetuate that balance or to accelerate that balance by dominating in particular industries and also protect core technologies that are dual use and have national security implications.
That is hard, it's not easy, but it's possible to put an approach like that in place, and also to recognize that the goal of the strategy is not then to have China-free supply chains.
And when, again, President Biden's predecessor goes out and says he wants to eliminate imports from China over four years, that's utterly infeasible and shouldn't be our policy goal. It shouldn't be the way we think about what we're trying to accomplish. It shouldn't be the way we engage with the Chinese in terms of finding a more sustainable equilibrium.
But it is totally possible in the electric vehicle market for there to be a global market that is not so dominated by China that then there's no room to build competitive alternatives, right?
And we see this in the United States as well. I take your point, Jesse, about the Bolt that you made previously — $10,000 more than a BYD equivalent — but I bought my Bolt a year or two ago and it was sticker price equivalent with the ICE equivalent in the U.S. market before you take into account total cost of ownership.
You know now that particular car and the trajectory since then and we could get into we could get into company-specific decisions …
Jenkins: You can put that aside, yeah.
Deese: But you know, it's possible. I mean, Tesla as like, as a phenomenon, right? And we should be for creating the space for competition and for innovation and for the United States to maintain an important, resilient share in that. Now, that's hard.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by…
Advanced Energy United educates, engages, and advocates for policies that allow our member companies to compete to power our economy with 100% clean energy, working with decision makers and energy market regulators to achieve this goal. Together, we are united in our mission to accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy in America. Learn more at advancedenergyunited.org/heatmap
KORE Power provides the commercial, industrial, and utility markets with functional solutions that advance the clean energy transition worldwide. KORE Power's technology and manufacturing capabilities provide direct access to next generation battery cells, energy storage systems that scale to grid+, EV power & infrastructure, and intuitive asset management to unlock energy strategies across a myriad of applications. Explore more at korepower.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The fourth-generation gas-cooled reactor company ZettaJoule is setting up shop at an unnamed university.
The appeal of next-generation nuclear technology is simple. Unlike the vast majority of existing reactors that use water, so-called fourth-generation units use coolants such as molten salt, liquid metal, or gases that can withstand intense heat such as helium. That allows the machines to reach and maintain the high temperatures necessary to decarbonize industrial processes, which currently only fossil fuels are able to reach.
But the execution requirements of these advanced reactors are complex, making skepticism easy to understand. While the U.S., Germany, and other countries experimented with fourth-generation reactors in earlier decades, there is only one commercial unit in operation today. That’s in China, arguably the leader in advanced nuclear, which hooked up a demonstration model of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor to its grid two years ago, and just approved building another project in September.
Then there’s Japan, which has been operating its own high-temperature gas-cooled reactor for 27 years at a government research site in Ibaraki Prefecture, about 90 minutes north of Tokyo by train. Unlike China’s design, it’s not a commercial power reactor. Also unlike China’s design, it’s coming to America.
Heatmap has learned that ZettaJoule, an American-Japanese startup led by engineers who worked on that reactor, is now coming out of stealth and laying plans to build its first plant in Texas.
For months, the company has quietly staffed up its team of American and Japanese executives, including a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission official and a high-ranking ex-administrator from the industrial giant Mitsubishi. It’s now preparing to decamp from its initial home base in Rockville, Maryland, to the Lone Star State as it prepares to announce its debut project at an as-yet-unnamed university in Texas.
“We haven’t built a nuclear reactor in many, many decades, so you have only a handful of people who experienced the full cycle from design to operations,” Mitsuo Shimofuji, ZettaJoule’s chief executive, told me. “We need to complete this before they retire.”
That’s where the company sees its advantage over rivals in the race to build the West’s first commercial high-temperature gas reactor, such as Amazon-backed X-energy or Canada’s StarCore nuclear. ZettaJoule’s chief nuclear office, Kazuhiko Kunitomi, oversaw the construction of Japan’s research reactor in the 1990s. He’s considered Japan’s leading expert in high-temperature gas reactors.
“Our chief nuclear officer and some of our engineers are the only people in the Western world who have experience of the whole cycle from design to construction to operation of a high temperature gas reactor,” Shimofuji said.
Like X-energy’s reactor, ZettaJoule’s design is a small modular reactor. With a capacity of 30 megawatts of thermal output and 12 megawatts of electricity, the ZettaJoule reactor qualifies as a microreactor, a subcategory of SMR that includes anything 20 megawatts of electricity or less. Both companies’ reactors will also run on TRISO, a special kind of enriched uranium with cladding on each pellet that makes the fuel safer and more efficient at higher temperatures.
While X-energy’s debut project that Amazon is financing in Washington State is a nearly 1-gigawatt power station made up of at least a dozen of the American startup’s 80-megawatt reactors, ZettaJoule isn’t looking to generate electricity.
The first new reactor in Texas will be a research reactor, but the company’s focus is on producing heat. The reactor already working in Japan, which produces heat, demonstrates that the design can reach 950 degrees Celsius, roughly 25% higher than the operating temperature of China’s reactor.
The potential for use in industrial applications has begun to attract corporate partners. In a letter sent Monday to Ted Garrish, the U.S. assistant secretary of energy in charge of nuclear power — a copy of which I obtained — the U.S. subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian oil goliath Aramco urged the Trump administration to support ZettaJoule, and said that it would “consider their application to our operations” as the technology matures. ZettaJoule is in talks with at least two other multinational corporations.
The first new reactor ZettaJoule builds won’t be identical to the unit in Japan, Shimofuji said.
“We are going to modernize this reactor together with the Japanese and U.S. engineering partners,” he said. “The research reactor is robust and solid, but it’s over-engineered. What we want to do is use the safety basis but to make it more economic and competitive.”
Once ZettaJoule proves its ability to build and operate a new unit in Texas, the company will start exporting the technology back to Japan. The microreactor will be its first product line.
“But in the future, we can scale up to 20 times bigger,” Shimofuji said. “We can do 600 megawatts thermal and 300 megawatts electric.”
Another benefit ZettaJoule can tap into is the sweeping deal President Donald Trump brokered with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in October, which included hundreds of billions of dollars for new reactors of varying sizes, including the large-scale Westinghouse AP1000. That included financing to build GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s 300-megawatt BWRX-300, one of the West’s leading third-generation SMRs, which uses a traditional water-cooled design.
Unlike that unit, however, ZettaJoule’s micro-reactor is not a first-of-a-kind technology, said Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at the consultancy BloombergNEF.
“It’s operated in Japan for a long, long time,” he told me. “So that second-of-a-kind is an attractive feature. Some of these companies have never operated a reactor. This one has done that.”
A similar dynamic almost played out with large-scale reactors more than two decades ago. In the late 1990s, Japanese developers built four of GE and Hitachi’s ABWR reactor, a large-scale unit with some of the key safety features that make the AP1000 stand out compared to its first- and second-generation predecessors. In the mid 2000s, the U.S. certified the design and planned to build a pair in South Texas. But the project never materialized, and America instead put its resources into Westinghouse’s design.
But the market is different today. Electricity demand is surging in the near term from data centers and in the long term from electrification of cars and industry. The need to curb fossil fuel consumption in the face of worsening climate change is more widely accepted than ever. And China’s growing dominance over nuclear energy has rattled officials from Tokyo to Washington.
“We need to deploy this as soon as possible to not lose the experienced people in Japan and the U.S.,” Shimofuji said. “In two or three years time, we will get a construction permit ideally. We are targeting the early 2030s.”
If every company publicly holding itself to that timeline is successful, the nuclear industry will be a crowded field. But as history shows, those with the experience to actually take a reactor from paper to concrete may have an advantage.
It’s now clear that 2026 will be big for American energy, but it’s going to be incredibly tense.
Over the past 365 days, we at The Fight have closely monitored numerous conflicts over siting and permitting for renewable energy and battery storage projects. As we’ve done so, the data center boom has come into full view, igniting a tinderbox of resentment over land use, local governance and, well, lots more. The future of the U.S. economy and the energy grid may well ride on the outcomes of the very same city council and board of commissioners meetings I’ve been reporting on every day. It’s a scary yet exciting prospect.
To bring us into the new year, I wanted to try something a little different. Readers ask me all the time for advice with questions like, What should I be thinking about right now? And, How do I get this community to support my project? Or my favorite: When will people finally just shut up and let us build things? To try and answer these questions and more, I wanted to give you the top five trends in energy development (and data centers) I’ll be watching next year.
The best thing going for American renewable energy right now is the AI data center boom. But the backlash against developing these projects is spreading incredibly fast.
Do you remember last week when I told you about a national environmental group calling for data center moratoria across the country? On Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders called for a nationwide halt to data center construction until regulations are put in place. The next day, the Working Families Party – a progressive third party that fields candidates all over the country for all levels of government – called for its candidates to run in opposition to new data center construction.
On the other end of the political spectrum, major figures in the American right wing have become AI skeptics critical of the nascent data center buildout, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. These figures are clearly following the signals amidst the noise; I have watched in recent months as anti-data center fervor has spread across Facebook, with local community pages and groups once focused on solar and wind projects pivoting instead to focus on data centers in development near them.
In other words, I predicted just one month ago, an anti-data center political movement is forming across the country and quickly gaining steam (ironically aided by the internet and algorithms powered by server farms).
I often hear from the clean energy sector that the data center boom will be a boon for new projects. Renewable energy is the fastest to scale and construct, the thinking goes, and therefore will be the quickest, easiest, and most cost effective way to meet the projected spike in energy demand.
I’m not convinced yet that this line of thinking is correct. But I’m definitely sure that no matter the fuel type, we can expect a lot more transmission development, and nothing sparks a land use fight more easily than new wires.
Past is prologue here. One must look no further than the years-long fight over the Piedmont Reliability Project, a proposed line that would connect a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania to data centers in Virginia by crossing a large swathe of Maryland agricultural land. I’ve been covering it closely since we put the project in our inaugural list of the most at-risk projects, and the conflict is now a clear blueprint.
In Wisconsin, a billion-dollar transmission project is proving this thesis true. I highly recommend readers pay close attention to Port Washington, where the release of fresh transmission line routes for a massive new data center this week has aided an effort to recall the city’s mayor for supporting the project. And this isn’t even an interstate project like Piedmont.
While I may not be sure of the renewable energy sector’s longer-term benefits from data center development, I’m far more confident that this Big Tech land use backlash is hitting projects right now.
The short-term issue for renewables developers is that opponents of data centers use arguments and tactics similar to those deployed by anti-solar and anti-wind advocates. Everyone fighting data centers is talking about ending development on farmland, avoiding changes to property values, stopping excess noise and water use, and halting irreparable changes to their ways of life.
Only one factor distinguishes data center fights from renewable energy fights: building the former potentially raises energy bills, while the latter will lower energy costs.
I do fear that as data center fights intensify nationwide, communities will not ban or hyper-regulate the server farms in particular, but rather will pass general bans that also block the energy projects that could potentially power them. Rural counties are already enacting moratoria on solar and wind in tandem with data centers – this is not new. But the problem will worsen as conflicts spread, and it will be incumbent upon the myriad environmentalists boosting data center opponents to not accidentally aid those fighting zero-carbon energy.
This week, the Bureau of Land Management approved its first solar project in months: the Libra facility in Nevada. When this happened, I received a flood of enthusiastic and optimistic emails and texts from sources.
We do not yet know whether the Libra approval is a signal of a thaw inside the Trump administration. The Interior Department’s freeze on renewables permitting decisions continues mostly unabated, and I have seen nothing to indicate that more decisions like this are coming down the pike. What we do know is that ahead of a difficult midterm election, the Trump administration faces outsized pressure to do more to address “affordability,” Democrats plan to go after Republicans for effectively repealing the Inflation Reduction Act and halting permits for solar and wind projects, and there’s a grand bargain to be made in Congress over permitting reform that rides on an end to the permitting freeze.
I anticipate that ahead of the election and further permitting talks in Congress, the Trump administration will mildly ease its chokehold on solar and wind permits because that is the most logical option in front of them. I do not think this will change the circumstances for more than a small handful of projects sited on federal lands that were already deep in the permitting process when Trump took power.
It’s impossible to conclude a conversation about next year’s project fights without ending on the theme that defined 2025: battery fire fears are ablaze, and they’ll only intensify as data centers demand excess energy storage capacity.
The January Moss Landing fire incident was a defining moment for an energy sector struggling to grapple with the effects of the Internet age. Despite bearing little resemblance to the litany of BESS proposals across the country, that one hunk of burning battery wreckage in California inspired countless communities nationwide to ban new battery storage outright.
There is no sign this trend will end any time soon. I expect data centers to only accelerate these concerns, as these facilities can also catch fire in ways that are challenging to address.
Plus a resolution for Vineyard Wind and more of the week’s big renewables fights.
1. Hopkins County, Texas – A Dallas-area data center fight pitting developer Vistra against Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has exploded into a full-blown political controversy as the power company now argues the project’s developer had an improper romance with a city official for the host community.
2. La Plata County, Colorado – This county has just voted to extend its moratorium on battery energy storage facilities over fire fears.
3. Dane County, Wisconsin – The city of Madison appears poised to ban data centers for at least a year.
4. Goodhue County, Minnesota – The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, a large environmentalist organization in the state, is suing to block a data center project in the small city of Pine Island.
5. Hall County, Georgia – A data center has been stopped down South, at least for now.
6. Dukes County, Massachusetts – The fight between Vineyard Wind and the town of Nantucket seems to be over.