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:
Ice is melting — but what does that mean for climate science?
As is usually the case, one of the most basic questions in climate science has also been one of the most difficult to answer: How much energy is the Earth sending out into space? The pair of shoebox-sized satellites that comprise PREFIRE — Polar Radiant Energy in the Far-InfraRed Experiment — could very well provide the answer.
Principal investigator Tristan L’Ecuyer, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the director of the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, spoke with Heatmap about PREFIRE. Tentatively scheduled to launch in May, the project stands not only to make future climate models more accurate, but could also help shape a new generation of atmospheric exploration.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Could you tell me a little bit about your research and the work that you do?
A lot of our climate information comes from models — where I come in is trying to make sure that those predictions are rooted in actual observations of our planet. But it’s impossible to cover the whole globe with a temperature sensor or water vapor [sensor] or those sorts of things, so I’ve always focused on using satellite observations, and in particular I’ve been focusing on the exchange of energy.
Basically, what drives the climate is the incoming energy from the sun and how that’s balanced by the thermal energy that the Earth emits. One of the big influencers of that balance are clouds — they reflect the sunlight, but they also have a greenhouse effect of their own; they trap the thermal energy emitted. So I’ve spent most of my career trying to understand the effects of clouds on the climate and how that might change if the climate warms.
And what’s the goal of this particular mission?
One of the fastest changing regions on Earth right now is the polar regions — I think a lot of people are aware of that. Normally, the polar regions are very cold — they reflect a lot of sunlight just because of the ice surface. But as the ice surface melts, the ocean is a lot darker than ice, and so [the poles] can actually absorb more of the solar radiation that’s coming in.
A lot of people say, “Well, okay, but that’s the Arctic. I don’t live there.” But the way the climate works is that in order to create an equilibrium between these really, really cold polar caps and the really, really warm tropics. It’s just like heating the end of a rod — the rod is going to transfer some of the heat from the hot end to the cold end to establish an equilibrium between them. The Earth does the same thing, but the way it does that is through our weather systems. So basically, how cold the polar region is versus the equator is what’s going to govern how severe our weather is in the mid-latitudes.
What we’re trying to do is make measurements of, basically, how that thermal energy is distributed. We just have a lack of understanding right now — or it’s more that the understanding comes from isolated, individual field projects, and what we really want to do is map out the whole Arctic and understand all of the different regions and how it’s changing.
How do you expect your findings to influence our climate models? Or how significantly do you expect them to affect the climate models?
This is quite unusual for a satellite project, we actually have climate modelers as part of our team. There’s the people that take, for example, the Greenland ice sheet, and they model things like the melting of the ice, how heat transports into the ice sheet, how the water once it melts percolates through the ice and then runs off at the bottom of the glacier, or even on top of the glacier. And then I have a general climate modeling group that basically uses climate models to project future climate.
There’s two ways that's going to happen. The first is we’ve developed a tool that allows us to kind of simulate what our satellite would see if it was flying in a climate model as opposed to around the real Earth — we can simulate exactly what the climate model is suggesting the satellite should see. And then of course, we’re making the real observations with the satellite. We can compare the two and evaluate, in today’s climate, how well is that climate model reproducing what the satellites see?
The other way is we’re going to generate models of how much heat comes off of various surfaces — ice surfaces, water surfaces, snow surfaces — and that information can be used to create a new module that goes right into the climate model and improves the way it represents the surface.
So what do these satellites look like and how do they work?
Our satellite is called a CubeSat. It’s not very big at all, maybe a foot wide, a foot-and-a-half or so long. There’s a little aperture, a little hole on the end of the satellite that lets the thermal energy from the Earth go in, and then the the rest of the satellite is basically just this big box that has a radio and a transmitter. In total, I think the whole thing weighs about 15 kilograms.
Because it's relatively small and relatively inexpensive, we're actually able to have two of those instead of just having one, and what that lets us do is put them into different orbits. At some point that will cross and see the same spot on the ground — let’s say somewhere in the center of Greenland — but up to eight or nine hours apart. Let’s say it melts in between, we’ll be able to understand how that melting process affected the heat that was emitted from the surface into the atmosphere.
How big of a deal do you think this is? Or how big of a deal do you think it could be?
There’s more than a couple of aspects to this. To really segue from the last question to this one, the reason [the satellites are] inexpensive, it’s not that they’re low-quality. It’s actually because they’re very uniform sizes and shapes. You can mass produce them. And so it’s that fact, coupled with the fact that we can now do real science on this small platform. We’ve been able to miniaturize the technology. If we can keep demonstrating that these missions are viable and producing realistic science data, this could be the future of the field.
Coming back to the polar climate, we absolutely know that the poles are warming at a very alarming rate. We know that the ice sheets are melting. We know that this has implications for the weather in the lower latitudes where we live, and for sea level. But when you try to predict that 100 years from now, there’s quite a range of different answers, from very catastrophic to still pretty bad. Depending on which of those answers is correct, it really dictates what we need to do today. How quickly do we need to adapt to a rising sea level, or to stronger storms or more frequent storms? After this mission, we will be able to improve the climate models in such a way that we’ll have a narrower range of possibilities.
The other thing that’s exciting is also just the unknown. There’s always new things that you learn by measuring something for the first time. We might learn something about the tropics, we might learn something about the upper atmosphere. There are some people in mountainous areas that are quite interested in the measurements — at the top of mountains, it’s actually quite similar in climate to the Arctic. So I’m also really excited about what happens when the science community in general explores that data for the first time.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Three companies are joining forces to add at least a gigawatt of new generation by 2029. The question is whether they can actually do it.
Two of the biggest electricity markets in the country — the 13-state PJM Interconnection, which spans the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest, and ERCOT, which covers nearly all of Texas — want more natural gas. Both are projecting immense increases in electricity demand thanks to data centers and electrification. And both have had bouts of market weirdness and dysfunction, with ERCOT experiencing spiky prices and even blackouts during extreme weather and PJM making enormous payouts largely to gas and coal operators to lock in their “capacity,” i.e. their ability to provide power when most needed.
Now a trio of companies, including the independent power producer NRG, the turbine manufacturer GE Vernova, and a subsidiary of the construction firm Kiewit Corporation, are teaming up with a plan to bring gas-powered plants to PJM and ERCOT, the companies announced today.
The three companies said that the new joint venture “will work to advance four projects totaling over 5 gigawatts” of natural gas combined cycle plants to the two power markets, with over a gigawatt coming by 2029. The companies said that they could eventually build 10 to 15 gigawatts “and expand to other areas across the U.S.”
So far, PJM and Texas’ call for new gas has been more widely heard than answered. The power producer Calpine said last year that it would look into developing more gas in PJM, but actual investment announcements have been scarce, although at least one gas plant scheduled to close has said it would stay open.
So far, across the country, planned new additions to the grid are still overwhelmingly solar and battery storage, according to the Energy Information Administration, whose data shows some 63 gigawatts of planned capacity scheduled to be added this year, with more than half being solar and over 80% being storage.
Texas established a fund in 2023 to provide low-cost loans to new gas plants, but has had trouble finding viable projects. Engie pulled an 885 megawatt project from the program earlier this week, citing “equipment procurement constraints” and delays.
But PJM is working actively with a friendly administration in Washington to bring more natural gas to its grid. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently blessed a PJM plan to accelerate interconnection approvals for large generators — largely natural gas — so that it can bring them online more quickly.
But many developers and large power consumers are less than optimistic about the ability to bring new natural gas onto the grid at a pace that will keep up with demand growth, and are instead looking at “behind-the-meter” approaches to meet rising energy needs, especially from data centers. The asset manager Fortress said earlier this year that it had acquired 850 megawatts of generation capacity from APR Energy and formed a new company, fittingly named New APR Energy, which said this week that it was “deploying four mobile gas turbines providing 100MW+ of dedicated behind-the-meter power to a major U.S.-based AI hyperscaler.”
And all gas developers, whether they’re building on the grid or behind-the-meter, have to get their hands on turbines, which are in short supply. The NRG consortium called this out specifically, noting that it had secured the rights to two 7HA gas turbines by 2029. These kinds of announcements of agreements for specific turbines have become standard for companies showing their seriousness about gas development. When Chevron announced a joint venture with GE Vernova for co-located gas plants for data centers, it also noted that it had a reservation agreement for seven 7HA turbines. But until these turbines are made and installed, these announcements may all just be spin.
Featuring China, fossil fuels, and data centers.
As Republicans in Congress go hunting for ways to slash spending to carry out President Trump’s agenda, more than 100 energy businesses, trade groups, and advocacy organizations sent a letter to key House and Senate leaders on Tuesday requesting that one particular line item be spared: the hydrogen tax credit.
The tax credit “will serve as a catalyst to propel the United States to global energy dominance,” the letter argues, “while advancing American competitiveness in energy technologies that our adversaries are actively pursuing.” The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association organized the letter, which features signatures from the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Clean Energy Buyers Association, and numerous hydrogen, industrial gas, and chemical companies, among many others. Three out of the seven regional clean hydrogen hubs — the Mid-Atlantic, Heartland, and Pacific Northwest hubs — are also listed.
Out of all of the tax credits for low-carbon energy, the hydrogen subsidy, which was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, is among the most generous. It pays up to $3 per kilogram of hydrogen produced, depending on how emissions-intensive the process is. For context, a 15 ton-per-day plant in Georgia owned by hydrogen producer Plug Power has the potential to earn up to $45,000 per day in tax credits.
But the total price of the tax credit depends on how much clean hydrogen production takes off, and the industry is still in its infancy. When the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a research group at the University of Pennsylvania, estimated the fiscal impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, it placed the total cost for the hydrogen credit at $49 billion over 10 years, compared to more than $260 billion for renewable energy and nearly $400 billion for electric vehicles.
Tactically, Tuesday’s letter draws on all of the Trump administration’s favorite talking points. It warns that nixing the tax credit will mean ceding the hydrogen technology war to China, noting that the country now produces more than 60% of the global supply of electrolyzers — equipment that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. It also says that hydrogen fuel cells are already being used by tech companies to power data centers.
And even though the tax credit was designed specifically to subsidize “clean” hydrogen, the letter mostly ignores this distinction, painting hydrogen production as an extension of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas companies have the infrastructure, workforce, and supply chains to lead the global hydrogen economy, it says. It points out that hydrogen can be produced from “natural gas, biogas, biomethane, as well as any electricity source (i.e. nuclear energy),” but does not mention wind, solar, or geothermal.
Investment in the nascent hydrogen industry was essentially on hold for more than two years while companies eager to take advantage of the tax credit waited for the Biden administration to finalize eligibility rules. But even after Biden’s Treasury Department published those rules in early January, how the Trump administration will view the program remained uncertain. “Our industry is now poised to invest billions of dollars in deployments and manufacturing facilities across the country,” the letter says. “However, that private sector investment is at risk due to the uncertainty around this crucial incentive … We need to ensure that we do not miss this hydrogen moment and respectfully request that you maintain the Section 45V tax credit.”
Intense debate and controversy surrounded the development of the rules for claiming the tax credit, and while the Biden administration tried to strike a compromise, some in the industry still found the rules too strict. I asked the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association whether it wanted Congress to make any changes to the tax credit or to simply preserve it but hadn’t heard back as of publication time.
But some of the signatories have already expressed their intent to request changes. In December, the American Petroleum Institute sent a memo to the incoming Treasury Department outlining its key priorities and “asks.” It says the Biden administration’s hydrogen tax credit rules were “overly restrictive and raised concerns about qualifying pathways for natural gas.”
Core inflation is up, meaning that interest rates are unlikely to go down anytime soon.
The Fed on Wednesday issued a report showing substantial increases in the price of eggs, used cars, and auto insurance — data that could spell bad news for the renewables economy.
Though some of those factors had already been widely reported on, the overall rise in prices exceeded analysts’ expectations. With overall inflation still elevated — reaching an annual rate of 3%, while “core” inflation, stripping out food and energy, rose to 3.3%, after an unexpectedly sharp 0.4% jump in January alone — any prospect of substantial interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve has dwindled even further.
Renewable energy development is especially sensitive to higher interest rates. That’s because renewables projects, like wind turbines and solar panels, have to incur the overwhelming majority of their lifetime costs before they start operating and generating revenue. Developers then often fund much of the project through borrowed money that’s secured against an agreement to buy the resulting power. When the cost of borrowing money goes up, projects become less viable, with lower prospective returns sometimes causing investors not to go forward .
High interest rates have plagued the renewables economy for years. “As interest rates rise, all of a sudden, solar assets that are effectively bonds become less valuable,” Quinn Pasloske, a managing director at Greenbacker, a renewable investor and operating company, told me on Tuesday, describing how the stream of payments from a solar project becomes less valuable as rates rise because investors can get more from risk-free government bonds.
The new inflation data is “consistent with our call of an extended Fed pause, with only one rate cut in 2025, happening in June,” Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a note to clients. Bond traders are also projecting just a single cut for the rest of the year — but not until December.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the Senate Banking committee Tuesday, “We think our policy rate is in a good place, and we don’t see any reason to be in a hurry to reduce it further.”
The yield for the 10-year Treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of credit, is up 0.09% today, to 4.63%. While this is below where yields peaked in mid-January, it’s a level still well above where yields have been for almost all of the last year. When Treasury yields rise, the cost of credit throughout the economy goes up.
Clean energy stocks were down this morning — but so is the overall market. Because while high interest rates are especially bad for renewables, they’re not exactly great for anyone else.