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:
Here are six things to know about it.
If one company has set the pace for direct air capture, it’s Climeworks. The Switzerland-based business opened its — and the world’s — first commercial DAC plant in 2017, capable of capturing “several hundred tons” of carbon dioxide each year. Today, the company unveiled its newest plant, the aptly named Mammoth. Located in Iceland, Mammoth is designed to take advantage of the country’s unique geology to capture and store up to 36,000 metric tons of carbon per year — eventually. Here’s what you need to know about the new project.
Mammoth is not yet operating at full capacity, with only 12 of its planned 72 capturing and filtering units installed. When the plant is fully operational — which Climeworks says should be sometime next year — it will pull up to 36,000 metric tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere annually. For scale, that’s about 1/28,000th of a gigaton. To get to net zero emissions, we’ll have to remove multiple gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere every year.
“The engineered solutions will have to play a major — and I would say even the major part of this task,” said Climeworks CEO Jan Wurzbacher at the virtual press conference for Mammoth’s unveiling. In his opinion, nature-based solutions “will not be able to scale to the level where we need them to be.”
So in the context of where we need to go, Mammoth is almost nothing. But in the context of our current reality, it’s nine times the size of the next largest DAC facility: another Iceland-based Climeworks plant called Orca. And it’s a major stepping stone towards the company’s ultimate goal of capturing a million metric tons of CO2 yearly by 2030 and a billion by 2050.
Climeworks first broke ground on Mammoth in June 2022, and 18 months later the company announced that the “core pieces of the plant are built.” Now that the plant has started capturing CO2, Climeworks says the rest of 2024 will be devoted to installing the remaining CO2capture units and ramping toward full capacity.
Thus far in its history, Climeworks has largely avoided the construction delays that often plague first-of-its-kind projects. “They’re coming out with new projects every three to four years, which is a pretty wild timeline,” said Erin Burns, Executive Director of the nonprofit Carbon180.
Through Climework’s partnership with Icelandic geothermal company ON Power, Mammoth is powered in full by geothermal energy — although the company has long been reticent about how much energy, exactly, it needs.
At any rate, Climeworks has committed to powering the direct air capture process as well as its storage process with 100% renewables in the long run. The company cited Kenya, New Zealand, and Indonesia as other areas that would be geologically advantageous for future Climeworks facilities, as all have substantial geothermal resources.
Climeworks said it would be able to disclose an exact cost per metric ton of carbon removal figure after Mammoth has been operational for a year or two. But in the meantime, Wurzbacher said the company is “closer to the $1,000 per ton mark than we are to the $100 per ton mark.” He expects prices to drop as the company further scales, and is aiming for $300 to $350 per metric ton by 2030, and ultimately $100 per metric ton by 2050. That’s in line with the Department of Energy’s Earthshots initiative, which aims to reduce the cost of a variety of carbon dioxide removal pathways to below $100 per metric ton by 2050.
While Climeworks hasn’t divulged Mammoth’s lifetime carbon removal capacity, it said the plant is designed to operate for 25 years, and that a third of its lifetime capacity has already been sold. The remainder will be sold in the next year or two, representatives told reporters
The company has offtake agreements with more than 160 organizations including some major corporate buyers such as JPMorgan Chase, Boston Consulting Group and Microsoft. Many of these agreements span a decade or more and involve tens of thousands of tons of CO2 removal from current and future Climeworks projects. (The company also recently opened a marketplace, Climeworks Solutions, to package and sell “high quality” carbon credits from other carbon removal companies.)
The Mammoth plant was primarily financed by Climework’s own equity, said Wurzbacher. “But going forward, project financing will be vital to accelerate the scale up. And for that, such long-term offtake agreements are important.”
Now that the plant is operational, it should help drive more investment, Dana Jacobs, chief of staff at the Carbon Removal Alliance, told me. “Having carbon removal projects that you can see and reach out and touch and understand is so critical,” she said.
Climeworks said the lessons from Mammoth will help the company scale further as it enters the U.S. market through its participation in the Department of Energy-funded direct air capture hub, Project Cypress in Louisiana.
Climeworks is working on Project Cypress alongside developer Battelle and another direct air capture company, Heirloom. The project is designed to capture a million metric tons of CO2annually by 2030, and recently received an initial $50 million grant from the DOE to kickstart the project’s planning, design and community engagement processes.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated with quotes and additional information from Climeworks’ team.
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 lost federal grants represent about half the organization’s budget.
The Interstate Renewable Energy Council, a decades-old nonprofit that provides technical expertise to cities across the country building out renewable clean energy projects, issued a dramatic plea for private donations in order to stay afloat after it says federal funding was suddenly slashed by the Trump administration.
IREC’s executive director Chris Nichols said in an email to all of the organization’s supporters that it has “already been forced to lay off many of our high-performing staff members” after millions of federal dollars to three of its programs were eliminated in the Trump administration’s shutdown-related funding cuts last week. Nichols said the administration nixed the funding simply because the nonprofit’s corporation was registered in New York, and without regard for IREC’s work with countless cities and towns in Republican-led states. (Look no further than this map of local governments who receive the program’s zero-cost solar siting policy assistance to see just how politically diverse the recipients are.)
“Urgent: IREC Needs You Now,” begins Nichols’ email, which was also posted to the organization’s website in full. “I need to be blunt: IREC, our mission, and the clean energy progress we lead is under assault.”
In an interview this afternoon, Nichols told me the DOE funding added up to at least $8 million and was set to be doled out over multiple years. She said the organization laid off eight employees — roughly a third of the organization’s small staff of fewer than two-dozen people — because the money lost for this year represented about half of IREC’s budget. She said this came after the organization also lost more than $4 million in competitive grant funding for apprenticeship training from the Labor Department because the work “didn’t align with the administration’s priorities.”
Nichols said the renewable energy sector was losing the crucial “glue” that holds a lot of the energy transition together in the funding cuts. “I’m worried about the next generation,” she told me. “Electricity is going to be the new housing [shortage].”
IREC has been a leading resource for the entire solar and transmission industry since 1982, providing training assistance and independent analysis of the sector’s performance, and develops stuff like model interconnection standards and best practices for permitting energy storage deployment best practices. The organization boasts having worked on developing renewable energy and training local workforces in more than 35 states. In 2021, it absorbed another nonprofit, The Solar Foundation, which has put together the widely used annual Solar Jobs Census since 2010.
In other words, this isn’t something new facing a potentially fatal funding crisis — this is the sort of bedrock institutional know-how that will take a long time to rebuild should it disappear.
To be sure, IREC’s work has received some private financing — as demonstrated by its solar-centric sponsorships page — but it has also relied on funding from Energy Department grants, some of which were identified by congressional Democrats as included in DOE’s slash spree last week. In addition, IREC has previously received funding from the Labor Department and National Labs, the status of which is now unclear.
It would have delivered a gargantuan 6.2 gigawatts of power.
The Bureau of Land Management says the largest solar project in Nevada has been canceled amidst the Trump administration’s federal permitting freeze.
Esmeralda 7 was supposed to produce a gargantuan 6.2 gigawatts of power – equal to nearly all the power supplied to southern Nevada by the state’s primary public utility. It would do so with a sprawling web of solar panels and batteries across the western Nevada desert. Backed by NextEra Energy, Invenergy, ConnectGen and other renewables developers, the project was moving forward at a relatively smooth pace under the Biden administration, albeit with significant concerns raised by environmentalists about its impacts on wildlife and fauna. And Esmeralda 7 even received a rare procedural win in the early days of the Trump administration when the Bureau of Land Management released the draft environmental impact statement for the project.
When Esmeralda 7’s environmental review was released, BLM said the record of decision would arrive in July. But that never happened. Instead, Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Departments of the Treasury and the Interior to review their treatment of wind and solar, part of a deal with conservative hardliners in Congress to pass his tax megabill — the same bill that also effectively repealed the Inflation Reduction Act’s renewable electricity tax credits. This led to a series of subsequent orders by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that effectively froze all federal permitting decisions for solar energy.
Flash forward to today, when BLM quietly updated its website for Esmeralda 7 permitting to explicitly say the project’s status is “cancelled.” Normally when the agency says this, it means developers pulled the plug.
I’ve reached out to some of the companies behind Esmeralda 7. A NextEra spokesperson provided me a statement from the company after this story’s publication saying it is “in the early stage of development” with its portion of the Esmeralda 7 mega-project, and the company is “committed to pursuing our project’s comprehensive environmental analysis by working closely with the Bureau of Land Management.”
This article was updated after publication to include a statement from NextEra.
A judge has lifted the administration’s stop-work order against Revolution Wind.
A federal court has lifted the Trump administration’s order to halt construction on the Revolution Wind farm off the coast of New England. The decision marks the renewables industry’s first major legal victory against a federal war on offshore wind.
The Interior Department ordered Orsted — the Danish company developing Revolution Wind — to halt construction of Revolution Wind on August 22, asserting in a one-page letter that it was “seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas.”
In a two-page ruling issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found that Orsted would presumably win its legal challenge against the stop work order, and that the company is “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction,” which led him to lift the dictate from the Trump administration.
Orsted previously claimed in legal filings that delays from the stop work order could put the entire project in jeopardy by pushing its timeline beyond the terms of existing power purchase agreements, and that the company installing cable for the project only had a few months left to work on Revolution Wind before it had to move onto other client obligations through mid-2028. The company has also argued that the Trump administration is deliberately mischaracterizing discussions between the federal government and the company that took place before the project was fully approved.
It’s still unclear at this moment whether the Trump administration will appeal the decision. We’re still waiting on the outcome of a separate legal challenge brought by Democrat-controlled states against Trump’s anti-wind Day One executive order.