You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
The Democratic Senate candidate from Maine told Heatmap that any ban on construction must be paired with policymaking.

We’re about to find out whether progressive energy populism can flip control of Congress.
Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Maine, released an energy plan on Friday calling for a “national electricity rate freeze” to deal with high power prices, which many fear is in no small part from the scramble to build out new generation to meet new demand from data centers. Notably, however, the plan did not address data centers themselves.
In an interview the next day, the candidate revealed more of his views about the controversial technology, and told me his campaign is working on an artificial intelligence and data center-specific policy plan.
“I am extremely worried about, one, just AI as a general concept — the impact it’s going to have on the labor force, its impact on things like mass surveillance and manipulation of people and markets. Those things terrify me,” Platner told me. “We are dealing with a technology and a reality that we have done absolutely no regulatory preparation for, and that is utterly terrifying with something that seems to be as big and expensive and impactful as AI and the infrastructure necessary to power it.”
While he was careful in our conversation not to explicitly back a nationwide data center moratorium, he has previously given the idea his full-throated support. During a March 6 interview with environmental activists considering whether to endorse the candidate, Platner was asked whether he supports a “halt” to the fast-paced buildout of data centers. He was also queried on whether he would cosponsor legislation authored by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that would temporarily ban new data center projects. (The interview occurred before the bill was introduced.)
“Yes and yes. That’s probably the easiest question I’m going to get asked today,” Platner replied, according to a recording of the internal conversation shared with me by Food and Water Action. FWA was one of the four organizations involved in the call, all of which endorsed his campaign Tuesday morning. Platner’s camp declined to comment on the video.
The stakes of Platner’s campaign couldn’t be higher for Democrats. The seat is one of a handful that will determine control of the U.S. Senate. Platner, a 41-year-old oyster farmer and first-time politician, is fighting against 73-year-old five-term incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins. While Maine voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 by about seven points and early polls indicate a competitive race that Platner could win, Collins has lasted this long in office for a reason.
Maine is a frontline battleground for modern energy politics in many ways. The northernmost New England state suffers some of the highest electricity rates in the country. The state has also seen some of the country’s steepest yearly cost increases; bills there have risen at least 8.3% just in the past year, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. And prices are only expected to go higher.
Though the state has seen far less data center development than, say, Virginia or Indiana, the facilities have nevertheless become a hot issue for Mainers. Multiple towns have rejected large AI infrastructure projects over the past year. Earlier this year, the Democratically-controlled state legislature passed a statewide moratorium on new data center development. Governor Janet Mills — who was at the time vying with Platner for the Senate nomination — vetoed the moratorium, arguing for protections so one former mill town could still build a data center. She suspended her campaign soon after, conspicuous timing she blamed on dwindling finances.
“Her veto of the bill that was going to put stringent limits on AI centers was something that bothered a lot of people in the Democratic Party,” Jim Melcher, a political science professor at the University of Maine at Farmington, told me.
Meanwhile, Platner supporters “are the kind of people that are nervous about the effects on the environment from data centers, particularly electricity usage and the water usage,” he said. “It’s something Susan Collins hasn’t made much of.”
In addition to the activist groups, leading climate and labor organizations have also endorsed Platner, including Sierra Club’s Maine chapter and the AFL-CIO. (LCV Action Fund, the campaign finance arm of the League of Conservation Voters, told me it hasn’t formally endorsed Platner but is “working with his campaign” and “excited about the opportunity to elect a clean energy champion in Maine this year.”)
Some of the policies in the energy plan were table-stakes bipartisan stuff, like repealing the gas tax to deal with higher gas prices from the Iran War — something Trump says he wants to do, too. Other ideas were quintessential Maine, like a “strategic marine fuel reserve” to quell price increases during fishing season. Unsurprisingly for a Democrat, Platner supports permitting reform for renewable energy projects including solar and offshore wind.
But one big proposal caught my eye — a so-called “national electricity rate freeze.” According to the plan, a combination of “repurposed” fossil fuel funding and a new oil industry “windfall tax” would fund “low-cost energy infrastructure financing to any state that freezes or lowers electricity rates for four years.”
“Not only would this relieve Americans of the burden of Trump’s war,” the document stated, “but it would also reduce the political impetus on the part of Big Oil to continue to push America into costly Middle East interventions that just so happen to reap them billions in profit.”
Though it did not mention data centers explicitly, the proposal echoed a similar policy from New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, whose campaign pledge last year to freeze electricity rates was a direct response to data center impacts.
A moratorium on data center development would be a step far beyond taking action on electricity prices. When I asked about the Sanders proposal in our interview, Platner told me he supports “anything” that would slow down data center development. But on the general idea of temporarily banning these projects, he clarified, it “can’t be a moratorium for the sake of being a moratorium.”
“If we’re just slowing it down to assuage people’s fears but we’re not also building legislation at the exact same time, that kind of defeats the point,” he said. “What might be — I’m still a little skeptical — but what might be the single most transformational technology around productivity of our time, the idea that’s just going to happen and we don’t have any regulatory structures around it and we’re not even having the time to have the conversation while it gets built and utilized? That’s insane. Except that’s exactly what’s happening right now.”
Platner’s plainclothes populism came through when I asked why he thinks energy prices are going up. On the one hand, he said, “People need more energy and we’re not producing enough of it.” But he added: “It’s that, connected with corporate consolidation and greed. These two things together [are] what’s primarily driving how expensive energy is.”
Collins, meanwhile, has started sketching her own approach to energy in campaign season — promoting domestic natural gas. Speaking at a manufacturing business summit on Friday, Collins countermessaged with support for new pipeline infrastructure to carry gas from Pennsylvania up north to increase supply and hopefully lower prices. “We have the highest dependence in the country on home heating oil for our homes. Natural gas is cleaner, it’s cheaper, and it should be more available in our state,” she told reporters.
Collins has pursued her own reform efforts around AI, including a call to ban AI-generated depictions of candidates in election ads. Mainers haven’t gotten much from Collins about data centers, though. Neither her campaign nor her Senate office responded to requests for comment. “She really hasn't talked much about it,” Melcher said of Collins’ approach to energy and data centers.
Prior to releasing his energy plan, Platner took a Zohran Mamdani-like approach to climate and energy, focusing primarily on cost of living issues.
When he did speak on those subjects, it was with the same unapologetically anti-corporate approach that leads him to say companies like Google and Palantir “shouldn’t exist.” In a clip posted to YouTube in February, Platner outlines his position on fossil fuels, arguing that the federal government must “pull back” on financing for the industry in order to “buy us the future we need to deal with the problems of climate change.” The responsibility for addressing climate change rests not at the feet of individual citizens, he says, but rather with “the structures and the corporations that have made an immense amount of money out of destroying the planet.”
It remains to be seen whether Platner’s populist pugilism will prove successful for Democrats in a crucial race. Collins has a powerful perch atop the Senate Appropriations Committee, which allows her to argue on the trail that she’ll bring Mainers home more bacon.
Both Melcher and Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine, told me they’re confident Platner is relying on the support of voters who want him to support a blanket data center ban. They each told me Collins’ relative silence on this topic is something Platner could use to his advantage, especially as energy prices continue to rise.
“They’ll probably both try to stake out a position that says we're clearly concerned about environmental issues and the cost of electricity,” Brewer said. “I don’t know if it’ll be at the top of the agenda, but at some point in this campaign, we’ll all be talking about AI data centers.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the name of Food and Water Action.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Advanced nuclear will take a decade or more to hit commercial scale. Meanwhile, the hyperscalers need power now. Enter the uprate.
When America’s tech titans started plowing money into nuclear technology to power data centers in 2024, companies such as Google and Amazon opted to invest first in next-generation reactor startups. But electricity demand is soaring today, and those projects are still years away — at least — from generating power at reasonable commercial rates.
So the industry is hedging by betting on existing nuclear plants to pump out more electricity in the near term. Uprates — renovations that allow nuclear operators to produce more power from existing reactors — are all the rage this year.
In February, the Department of Energy issued its largest-ever loan to Southern Company to fund up to 6 gigawatts of uprates across the utility’s nuclear fleet. Last week, Amazon signed a deal with Constellation Energy, the nation’s largest operator of nuclear reactors, to uprate the Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland to generate another 190 megawatts on top of its current 1.8-gigawatt output. Soon after, the Energy Department offered nuclear operator Vistra a $4 billion loan to uprate plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Then on Tuesday, Google inked its own deal with Constellation aimed at wringing out 890 megawatts of new power from 11 reactors across PJM Interconnection, the nation’s second-biggest and arguably most overworked grid system.
“Everyone loves nuclear, but it takes a really long time to build,” Raiford Smith, Google’s head of power and energy for the cloud, told me yesterday. “The fastest way to get it is via uprates. It’s real megawatts, but the quicker, shorter-term approach.”
Building new reactors, he said, “is the intermediate term plan, and we see fusion as the longer term bet.” Given that “new data centers are coming on at a gigawatt a clip, that means even with all the uprates, there’s still more to come,” he added.
The investments into existing nuclear stations deliver a win for Constellation, whose chief executive, Joe Dominguez, has been among the more vocal C-suite skeptics of what my colleague Matthew Zeitlin described as utility executives’ “load growth mania” over the past two years. But the deals say as much about the shifting lines in the debate over how to expand the nuclear power fleet in this country — what size reactors are better, how to finance projects — as the disagreement over how much new generation is needed to supply the artificial intelligence boom.
The deal “is a win-win,” Emmet Penney, the director of energy and infrastructure at the think tank Foundation for American Innovation, told me. “Constellation and Google are revealing just how essential our nuclear fleet is to maintaining our energy dominance.”
America’s last attempt at a nuclear buildout ended in a series of financial boondoggles. The problems traced back to numerous factors: Decades without any nuclear construction atrophied the workforce. Electricity market reforms aimed at breaking up monopoly utilities left the industry with few players equipped with large enough balance sheets to take on megaprojects that would take years to build and billions of dollars of upfront capital. Increased competition from cheap natural gas.
The only two new reactors that made it over the finish line, Southern’s pair of Westinghouse AP1000s at the Alvin W. Vogtle Generating Station in eastern Georgia, came in billions of dollars over budget, in part because the developers erred in choosing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing pathway that required long stops and costly delays every time the builders tweaked the design. Since those were the first AP1000s constructed in the U.S., there were plenty of last-minute design kinks to iron out.
In the meantime, the industry rallied behind the idea of small modular reactors. By making individual reactors roughly a third or less powerful than large-scale units such as the AP1000, the thinking went, developers would need to buy more, helping the technology slide down the cost curve through repeated construction and assembly-line manufacturing of components.
While Google and Amazon both backed fourth-generation startups whose designs use coolants other than water, such as liquid sodium or helium gas, the only such reactor operating in the world is in China, and America’s track record of running similar plants is poor. As such, government-owned utilities such as Canada’s Ontario Power Generation and America’s Tennessee Valley Authority have thrown their weight behind third-generation SMRs that essentially just shrink down existing water-cooled technology. The first of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s BWRX-300s, a 300-megawatt design based on the boiling water reactors that make up about a third of the U.S. fleet, is now underway at OPG’s Darlington plant. In the U.S., meanwhile, the NRC just issued a construction license for the TVA’s first BRWX-300.
But the completion of the second AP1000 at Plant Vogtle demonstrated an uncomfortable reality proposed by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: That the next, cheapest reactor to build in the U.S. would be another of Westinghouse’s flagship design. Vogtle Unit 4 came online in 2024 roughly 30% cheaper and faster than its slightly older twin, Vogtle Unit 3.
If that reduction seemed to justify the approach SMR companies were pursuing, a report by an economist and former antinuclear researcher raises new questions. The study by Charles Komanoff, which I covered here last month, suggests that the number of reactors required to achieve major cost reduction through “economies of duplication” pales in comparison to the price drop achieved through “economies of scale.” In other words, the nuclear industry’s time-tested approach to making reactors more economical — making them bigger — is still the best bet.
The Trump administration certainly agrees. The Energy Department laid plans for at least 10 new AP1000s last year, and put up another nearly $20 billion loan package for utilities that form joint ventures with Westinghouse to build one of the 1,100-megawatt reactors. South Korea is currently working out the fine print on a deal to help finance and build as many as six AP1000s and two APR1400s, the Korean rival to the Westinghouse reactor.
Whether any American utilities step up to help build any of those AP1000s remains an open question.
“There’s no way any utilities could consider building a large AP1000 because doing so could bankrupt the whole operation, and they don’t have enough confidence,” Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at the consultancy BloombergNEF, told me.
The workforce that constructed the two AP1000s at Vogtle, he said, are now out building data centers. Unlike the Chinese, whose state-owned nuclear companies reverse engineered the AP1000 and made it relatively cheap to build by constructing as many as half a dozen at a time at one location, “we don’t have the wherewithal or sites in this country to build six reactors at once,” Gadomski said. “You’re lucky to build two at one site in this country.”
So fusion and next-generation fission remain years away. Current-generation SMRs come with big questions. And the leading large-scale design, the AP1000, is proving a hard sell to utilities. That leaves two options: Restarting decommissioned plants and uprating current reactors. The Energy Department has pumped billions in loans into projects to restart at least three permanently closed reactors: Holtec’s Palisades plant in Michigan, NextEra’s Duane Arnold facility in Iowa, and Constellation’s Crane Clean Energy Center, née Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania. The consensus among industry experts is that those are the only three that remain intact enough to start back up; every other shuttered plant is at too advanced a stage of demolition.
That leaves uprates.
There are limits to how much power can be drawn from existing plants, said Jeff Jenkins, the founder and managing partner of Bernhard Capital Partners, an investment firm whose portfolio includes Allied Power, a contractor that has worked with Constellation on past uprates. “There’s still a few gigawatts out there,” he said. “And a gigawatt is a lot.”
But ultimately, the U.S. nuclear buildout needs options.
“It’s very much a hedge,” Gadomski said. “They’re spreading their bets. That’s a strength of Google’s strategy. They’re willing to place bets on advanced reactors, fusion, and still try to double down on the capacity of existing plants.”
On methane rules, British wind, and the Israeli electricity market
Current conditions: Singapore’s air is the worst in the world as wildfire smoke from Indonesia chokes the city state and neighboring Malaysia • Following a summer-like heat wave, temperatures in the American West are set to drop by as much as 50 degrees Fahrenheit as a cold snap moves in • In the Gulf of Mexico, Tropical Storm Isaias officially strengthened into the first Atlantic hurricane of the season this morning.
With its offshore oil fields booming in Guyana and its opportunities opening in Venezuela, Exxon Mobil is eyeing the next location for the Americas’ oil and gas: Trinidad and Tobago. In an interview with the Financial Times this week, the company’s exploration chief said the island nation’s existing oil and gas industry could expand to tap the same basin east of Venezuela that has transformed Guyana from one of the hemisphere’s poorest nations to one of its richest in terms of per capita gross domestic product. “A lot of people ask, ‘well, where’s the next Guyana?’” John Ardill, Exxon Mobil’s vice-president and head of global exploration, told the newspaper. “In Trinidad, we moved in as a play extension to Guyana.” The agreement between Exxon Mobil and the Trinidadian government took “about half as long as it usually takes on a good day,” delivering a pact in “record time.”
America’s oil majors are also looking outside the hemisphere. As you may recall from August, I told you that Exxon Mobil was also considering a big investment in Africa, with Mozambique drawing particular attention. Brazil’s state-owned Petrobras, meanwhile, is expanding its own grasp on the Americas’ oil boom. On Wednesday, Upstream reported, the company bid $590 million for control of an ultra-deepwater concession.
The European Union is pausing implementation of its new rules requiring oil and gas exporters to more scrupulously track data on methane emissions. The U.S., on the other hand, is planning a straight-up rollback. At an oil industry conference in Santa Fe on Wednesday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin teased out plans to gut core parts of the methane regulations finalized in 2024. “This proposal takes on many of the problems American producers and operators have raised with us,” Zeldin said, according to Argus Media. “That includes the burden on marginal wells and oil and gas operators in general, the super emitter program, associated gas and control device requirements.”
Record wind power generation may have slashed how much natural gas Britain needed to burn last month for electricity, but it “wasn’t enough to shield the country from surging prices triggered by the war in Iran,” Bloomberg reported. Wind turbines pumped out 6.6 terawatt-hours of electricity in September, a record for the month and 4% more than a year earlier. As a result, gas-fired generation plunged to its lowest level on record for that month. But day-ahead power rates still doubled from a year earlier.
The world’s capacity of floating offshore wind, the subset of the sector that could vastly expand the areas of shoreline dotted with turbines, has reached 382 megawatts, a 38% surge over the past 12 months, according to a Renewables Now writeup of the latest report from the trade group RenewableUK. Meanwhile, Poland has now constructed all 76 of the standard turbines built into the seabed of the Baltic Sea for its first offshore wind farm. One-third of the turbines are now generating power, according to offshoreWIND.biz.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
South Korea plans to speed up its shift away from fossil fuels with a new goal of 100 gigawatts of low-carbon energy additions by 2030 and roughly $747 billion in government-led investment over the next decade. The plan, part of the Korean Green Transformation program, “seeks to make Korea one of the world’s top three green manufacturing powers by developing industries such as hydrogen-reduction steelmaking, next-generation solar cells, and all-solid-state batteries,” according to The Korea Times, an English-language daily. New nuclear reactors are also part of the strategy.
The move comes as Seoul advances construction of as many as eight nuclear reactors in the U.S., including six of America’s Westinghouse AP1000 and two of its own APR1400s, as I told you last week.
The utility megamerger of the century so far is “not in the best interest of Virginians.” That’s the judgment the state’s lieutenant governor, Ghazala Hasmi, rendered this week following a five-city public listening tour. The statement came ahead of the State Corporation Commission’s first local hearing on the deal, and marks what Utility Dive called “the most formal expression of opposition from Virginia’s executive branch so far.” Governor Abigail Spanberger, a fellow Democrat, has not yet taken a definitive position on the merger.
But the deal follows some clear market logic. Among the benefits: It would create, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote in May, “a storage juggernaut.”

Israel’s booming tech sector and soaring stock market are just two ways its economy has dramatically changed from the socialism that defined the early decades after the country’s founding in 1948. Now that shift also includes the electricity market. Since market reforms allowed private actors into the grid at the start of last year, more than 2 million citizens, representing more than 500,244 private and business customers, have switched from the Israel Electric Corporation to private providers, according to The Jerusalem Post. Ratepayers buying electricity from private suppliers enjoy discounted rates ranging from 7% to 20%, “thanks to the lower generation costs in the private market.” Another 23,286 households and businesses submitted requests to switch suppliers just last month. OPC Energy, an independent power provider based in Tel Aviv, raised $200 million in bond issuances in August.
The announcement follows a Series A round that included investment from the Department of Defense.
The U.S. wants to make more of its own rare-earth magnets, which are critical to everything from guided missiles to aerospace systems and electric vehicle motors. But doing so will require a domestic source of high-purity iron, the main material in these magnets and one the U.S. imports almost entirely from China. Hertha Metals is betting it can fill that gap while helping decarbonize the ironmaking process, too. After raising a more than $133 million Series A, which the company announced last week, the Texas-based startup is promising to supply domestic magnet and steel manufacturers with 10,000 metric tons per year of lower-carbon, high-purity iron. That will come from its first commercial facility near Houston, where the company broke ground on Thursday.
Steel customers, including automakers and other equipment manufacturers, have already expressed interest in Hertha’s tech. But the startup’s most important customer might be the federal government. Defense manufacturers depend on rare-earth magnets — which require 99.95% high-purity iron — for things like aerospace platforms and radar systems. That explains why the Department of Defense invested $65 million in Hertha’s Series A through its Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program. The investment comes in partnership with the Economic Defense Unit, a new Pentagon division established under Trump that makes grants, loans, equity investments and purchase commitments into defense and dual-use sectors like critical minerals.
Hertha’s CEO and founder Laureen Meroueh called the new facility — sited next to its operational demonstration plant — the nation’s “first domestic iron and steel innovation complex” when I spoke with her in April to learn more about the company’s technology. She expects the plant to be operational by the end of next year.
That’s thanks to a new proprietary process that Meroueh, a mechanical engineer and materials scientist by training, pioneered. “We find ourselves in the year of 2026 making steel out of the same furnace that was developed in 1850. That’s insanity,” Meroueh told me. Today, most iron is produced by stripping oxygen from ore in a furnace that operates at over 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Called a blast furnace, this towering steel-and-brick shaft is fueled by coke made from metallurgical coal. The resulting molten iron then enters a basic oxygen furnace, where it’s refined into steel. Producing the higher-purity iron needed for rare earth magnets requires additional refining steps to remove impurities.
While lower-emissions alternatives do exist, they come with their own limitations. Direct iron reduction, for example, uses hot gas to strip oxygen from ore, then melts the resulting solid iron in an electric arc furnace. But the process typically requires higher-grade ores to begin with, and thus remains a small share of global production. Electric arc furnaces can also recycle steel scrap — indeed most domestic steel is produced this way — but supply is finite. Meanwhile, ore quality is decreasing over time, limiting the grades of steel it can ultimately produce.
Enter Hertha, which says it can turn low-grade iron ores into high-purity iron in a single furnace. Meroueh explained that Hertha uses either natural gas or hydrogen to strip oxygen from molten ore in an electric arc furnace, with no separate reduction step beforehand. Because the furnace melts down the ore and its impurities from the outset, it can accept low-grade ore in many forms, including fines, the powdery particles left over from mining and processing. When everything is molten, the lighter impurities separate from the denser iron and form a layer of slag that operators can then drain from the furnace. The resulting iron needs only minimal additional refining to go into rare earth magnets.
“This is a continuous reactor, so you continuously feed it and semi-continuously tap out your slag and product,” Meroueh explained. Melting iron made from ore produces far more slag than standard electric arc furnaces are designed to handle, and would thus require frequent interruptions in operations. But Hertha’s proprietary process doesn’t need to do that. “This continuity in operations is what makes it economically viable for us to generate large amounts of slag while maintaining production and throughput.”
The startup also says it can make steel using the same process by adding a controlled amount of carbon to its single furnace. While Hertha hasn’t provided an estimate of avoided emissions for this plant specifically, it says a third-party modeler has projected that its subsequent 500,000-metric-ton facility will emit up to 50% less than conventional blast furnace steel production when running on natural gas, and 98% less when running on green hydrogen.
Hertha also expects its process will cut costs by 25% compared with blast furnaces, and says its system can make full-cycle steel plants as small as 500,000 metric tons per year economically viable. Most steel mills that use a blast furnace to convert raw materials into finished steel produce 3 million metric tons or more annually, making this future plant the size of a so-called “mini mill,” which recycles scrap metal in an electric arc furnace rather than starting with the iron ore.
The 10,000-metric-ton facility the company is currently building will start by running on natural gas, which is still far cheaper than green hydrogen. But Meroueh told me that once green hydrogen falls below $5 a kilogram — and ideally below $3 — she expects it will make economic sense for Hertha to start blending hydrogen with natural gas, potentially in the early 2030s.
Outside the U.S., Hertha could reach ultra-low carbon production even sooner. “So with the really attractive renewable power prices in the Middle East, it makes it a lot more digestible to produce green hydrogen,” Meroueh told me in April. “And the best use case of that green hydrogen is to make steel. Moving hydrogen around in pipelines, not attractive. Converting it to ammonia and then back to hydrogen is not very attractive. Just make the steel right there.”