You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
A new report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has some exciting data for anyone attempting to retrofit a multifamily building.

By now there’s plenty of evidence showing why heat pumps are such a promising solution for getting buildings off fossil fuels. But most of that research has focused on single-family homes. Larger apartment buildings with steam or hot water heating systems — i.e. most of the apartment buildings in the Northeast — are more difficult and expensive to retrofit.
A new report from the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, however, assesses a handful of new technologies designed to make that transition easier and finds they have the potential to significantly lower the cost of decarbonizing large buildings.
“Several new options make decarbonizing existing commercial and multifamily buildings much more feasible than a few years ago,” Steven Nadel, ACEEE’s executive director and one of the authors, told me. “The best option may vary from building to building, but there are some exciting new options.”
To date, big, multifamily buildings have generally had two flavors of heat pumps to consider. They can install a large central heat pump system that delivers heating and cooling throughout the structure, or they can go with a series of “mini-split” systems designed to serve each apartment individually. (Yes, there are geothermal heat pumps, too, but those are often even more expensive and complicated to install, especially in urban areas.)
While these options have proven to work, they often require a fair amount of construction work, including upgrading electrical systems, mounting equipment on interior and exterior walls, and running new refrigerant lines throughout the building. That means they cost a lot more than a simple boiler replacement, and that the retrofit process can be disruptive to residents.
In 2022, the New York City Housing Authority launched a contest to try and solve these problems by challenging manufacturers to develop heat pumps that can sit in a window just like an air conditioner. New designs from the two winners, Gradient Comfort and Midea, are just starting to come to market. But another emerging solution, central air-to-water heat pumps, also presents an appealing alternative. These systems avoid major construction because they can integrate with existing radiators or baseboard heaters in buildings that currently use hot water boilers. Instead of burning natural gas or oil to produce hot water, the heat pump warms the water using electricity.
The ACEEE report takes the cost and performance data for these emerging solutions and compares it to results from mini-splits, central heat pumps, geothermal heat pumps, packaged terminal heat pumps — all-in-one devices that sit inside a sleeve in the wall, commonly used in hotels — and traditional boilers fed by biogas or biodiesel.
While data on the newer technologies is limited, so far the results are extremely promising. The report found that window heat pumps are the most cost-effective of the bunch to fully decarbonize large apartment buildings, with an average installation cost of $9,300 per apartment. That’s significantly higher than the estimated $1,200 per apartment cost of a new boiler, but much lower than the $14,000 to $20,000 per apartment price tag of the other heat pump variations, although air-to-water heat pumps came in second. The report also found that window heat pumps could turn out to be the cheapest to operate, with a life cycle cost of about $14,500, compared to $22,000 to $30,000 for boilers using biodiesel or biogas or other heat pump options.
As someone who has followed this industry for several years with a keen interest in new solutions for boiler-heated buildings in the Northeast — where I grew up and currently reside — I was especially wowed by how well the new window heat pumps have performed. New York City installed units from both Midea and Gradient in 24 public housing apartments, placing one in each bedroom and living room, and monitored the results for a full heating season.
Preliminary data shows the units performed swimmingly on every metric.
On ease of installation: It took a total of eight days for maintenance workers to install the units in all 24 apartments, compared to about 10 days per apartment when the Housing Authority put split heat pump systems in another building.
On performance: During the winter, while other apartments in the building were baking in 90-degree Fahrenheit heat from the steam system, the window unit-heated apartments maintained a comfortable 75 to 80 degree range, even as outdoor temperatures dropped to as low as 20 degrees.
On energy and cost: The window unit-heated apartments used a whopping 87% less energy than the rest of the building’s steam-heated apartments did, cutting energy costs per household in half.
On customer satisfaction: A survey of 72 residents returned overwhelmingly positive feedback, with 93% reporting that the temperature was “just right” and 100% reporting they were either “neutral” or “satisfied” with the new units.
The Housing Authority found that the units also lowered energy used for cooling in peak summer since they were more efficient than the older window ACs residents had been using. Next, the agency plans to expand the pilot to two full buildings before deploying the units across its portfolio. The pilot was so successful that utilities in Massachusetts, Vermont, and elsewhere are purchasing units to do their own testing.
The ACEEE report looked at a handful of air-to-water heat pump projects in New York and Massachusetts, as well, only two of which have been completed. The average installation cost per apartment was around $13,500, with each of the buildings retaining a natural gas boiler as a backup, but none had published performance data yet.
Air-to-water heat pumps have only recently come to market in the U.S. after having taken off in Europe, and they don’t yet fit seamlessly into the housing stock here. Existing technology can only heat water to 130 to 140 degrees, which is hot enough for the more efficient hot water radiators common in Europe but too cold for the U.S. market, where hot water systems are designed to carry 160- to 180-degree water, or even steam.
These heat pumps can still work in U.S. buildings, but they require either new radiators to be installed or supplemental heat from a conventional boiler or electric resistance unit. The other downside to an air-to-water system is that it can’t provide cooling unless the building is already equipped with compatible air conditioning units.
One strength of these systems over the window units, however, is that they don’t push costs onto tenants in buildings where the landlord has historically paid for heat. They also may be cheaper to operate than more traditional heat pump options, although data is still extremely limited and depends on the use of supplemental heat.
It’s probably too soon to draw any major conclusions about air-to-water systems, anyway, because new, potentially more effective options are on the way. In 2023, New York State launched a contest challenging manufacturers to develop new decarbonized heating solutions for large buildings. Among the finalists announced last year, six companies were developing heat pumps that could generate higher-temperature hot water and/or steam. One of them is now installing its first demonstration system in an apartment building in Harlem, and two others have similar demonstrations in the works.
The ACEEE report also mentions a few other promising new heat pump formats, such as an all-in-one wall-mounted heat pump from Italian company Ephoca. It’s similar to the window heat pump in that it’s contained in a single device rather than split into an indoor and outdoor unit, so it doesn’t require mounting anything to the outside of the building or worrying about refrigerant lines, although it does require drilling two six-inch holes in the wall for vents. These may be a good option for those whose windows won’t accommodate a window heat pump or who don’t like the aesthetics. New York State is also funding product development for better packaged terminal heat pumps that could slot into wall cavities occupied by less-efficient packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps today.
Gradient and Midea are not yet selling their cold-climate window heat pumps directly to consumers. Gradient brought a version of its technology for more moderate climates to market in 2023, which was only suitable for heating at outdoor temperatures of 40 degrees and higher. But the company has discontinued that model and is focusing on an “all-weather” version designed for cold climates, which is the one that has been installed in the New York City apartments. Gradient told me it is currently selling that model in bulk to multi-family building owners, utilities, and schools. Midea did not respond to my inquiry.
One big takeaway is that even the new school heat pumps designed to be easier and cheaper to install have higher capital costs than buying a boiler and air conditioners — a stubborn facet of many climate solutions, even when they save money in the long run. Canary Media previously reported that the Gradient product would start at $3,800 per unit and the Midea at $3,000. Experts expect the cost to come down as adoption and demand pick up, but the ACEEE report recommends that states develop incentives and financing to help with up-front costs.
“These are not just going to happen on their own. We do need some policy support for them,” Nadel said. In addition to incentives and building decarbonization standards, Nadel raised the idea of discounted electric rates for heat pump users, an idea that has started to gain traction among climate advocates that a few utilities have piloted.
“To oversimplify,” Nadel said, “in many jurisdictions, heat pumps subsidize other customers, and that probably needs to change if this is going to be viable.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include comment from Gradient.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Smoke from the raging fires in Indonesia may go down as this year’s deadliest climate tragedy.
It’s a morbid game to try to name the worst climate disaster of 2026. In Europe this summer, a series of extreme heat waves killed an estimated 50,000 people. In September, a thawing Himalayan glacier collapsed, sending a wall of water cascading through Tibet and Nepal, killing at least 1,500 people, with nearly 6,000 still missing months later. And this past January, authorities feared hundreds of migrants died while trying to cross the Mediterranean during Cyclone Harry, including 50 in one shipwreck alone.
But the disaster that will result in perhaps the greatest and longest-lasting tragedy is the one unfolding right now in Indonesia.
Wildfires in Sumatra and Kalimantan have burned more than 7 million acres in what is likely a record year for the fire-prone islands. The blazes have destroyed critical wildlife habitats, including rainforests occupied by orangutans, Sunda pangolins, and Javan leopards. But it’s not the direct human deaths from the fires, the habitat loss, or the historic acreage burned — those being the typical headline numbers for gauging how “bad” a given fire or fire season is — that best tell the story of the impacts, in this case.
Rather, it is the toxic smoke blanketing Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Timor-Leste. For months, those emissions have been in every breath taken by the region’s 12.5 million inhabitants, about 4% of the world’s population.
In Indonesia alone, authorities estimate the smoke has caused 400,000 respiratory infections. As of a few weeks ago, more than 75,000 cases had been recorded in children between birth and age 5. “Behind those numbers are worried families, parents keeping watch, and children struggling to breathe,” Herawati Supolo-Sudoyo, a trustee of the Indonesian Open Science Voice Foundation and chair of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences’ Commission on Medical Sciences, said during a recent public health webinar. “Babies certainly cannot say, ‘My chest feels tight.’ They rely on us to protect their breath.” (That’s according to an automated YouTube translation of her remarks.)

Children are especially vulnerable to wildfire smoke because their lungs are not fully developed, and they breathe in more air relative to their body weight than adults. Reports from local hospitals are harrowing. “Yesterday, in the inpatient ward, I saw three toddlers struggling to breathe,” one mother, whose 14-month-old died suddenly after experiencing shortness of breath, told BBC Indonesia (as translated by Mongabay). The Indonesian Philanthropy Association, a nonprofit, has taken to describing the children of Indonesia as the “lost generation” due to the suspected physical and cognitive toll of the relentless smoke exposure. Timor-Leste, which borders Indonesia to the west, has one of Asia’s youngest populations, with about 44% of its inhabitants under 18.
“We must not wait until these children are adults to calculate the losses,” Supolo-Sudoyo said.
There seems little doubt that the smoke is a climate-change-fueled public health crisis. A new study by World Weather Attribution, released Thursday, found that while the super El Niño is the primary cause of the severe reduction in rainfall that helped fuel the fires, Indonesia’s drought was “then exacerbated by record heat throughout the fire season, which was made possible due to human-caused climate change,” Theodore Keeping, a research associate with WWA, said during a press call about the findings. (The study, which uses peer-reviewed methods, has not yet been peer-reviewed itself.)
Indonesia’s fire season was about 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter due to climate change, compared to about a third of a degree Celsius hotter due to the current El Niño, WWA reports. “We also found that this year’s record-breaking heat would have been virtually impossible without climate change, even in a similar El Niño state,” Keeping said.

Smoke is still a relatively new way of quantifying the impact of a wildfire. Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health and creator of the school’s wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool, told me that though researchers have been studying smoke toxicity for years, the bad U.S. fire seasons in 2018 and 2020 helped accelerate interest and urgency. “Really high visibility and growing interest leads to a lot more studies that then enhance our knowledge about the details of this hazard,” he said of the recent spike in smoke-related research.
For example, new research released just last month by researchers at Harvard indicates that wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy is related to higher instances of autism in children. Separately, a study about chronic wildfire smoke exposure linked the pollution to an estimated 24,100 deaths in the lower 48 states every year — more than twice the number killed in drunk-driving accidents. Looking only at Indonesia, researchers linked smoke exposure in the womb during the region’s severe 1997 fire season to poorer health outcomes by age 17.
Still, coverage of wildfires largely focuses on how many people were killed by direct flame impacts, or how many acres or buildings burned. A “megafire,” for example, is a nonscientific term used by the media to describe how large a fire is physically, but not the thousands of miles further its smoke will travel. The National Interagency Coordination Center’s Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report, the end-of-year summary of fire season impacts in the United States, doesn’t even mention smoke exposure. Deadly and destructive fires in Maui and Los Angeles stand out in memory, but the hazardous air quality in the Midwest this season from the Canadian wildfires may turn out to cost as many or more lives. (Smoke toxicity and chronic exposure also complicate the cost-benefit analysis of a favorite tool of progressive fire managers: prescribed burns.)
In fact, research about smoke toxicity and widespread exposure to particulate pollution increasingly suggests that emissions might be the marquee impact of wildfires. While 30 people died directly from the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in L.A., one research paper estimated the loss of life was closer to 440, partially due to the deaths attributable to wildfire smoke in addition to stress, disruptions to the health-care infrastructure, and mental health impacts.

“The difficulty with all of this is that the smoke deaths are difficult to track,” Hayden told me. “They’re not, for instance, showing up on death certificates. While the smoke itself is very visible in the air and leads to nice photos, the impacts are much harder to take photos of.”
That’s certainly the case in Indonesia, where photos show people going about their lives in a cloud of yellow smoke, and in Singapore, where run clubs have moved their workouts into malls to try to avoid the pollution. But while a smoke-exacerbated heart attack isn’t a front-page image, to Hayden’s point, the pictures do reveal something else: just how ill-prepared our infrastructure and public health systems are for dramatic smoke events like these.
What can be done about wildfire smoke? You can invest in a really good air purifier — and use it correctly — which works so long as you can afford it, and if your home isn’t drafty to begin with, and if it isn’t too hot out that you need to open a window to stay cool at the same time. You can wear the right kind of mask, too, but it needs to fit properly and it won’t filter out gases or the smallest toxic particles. And while you can evacuate to protect yourself from an encroaching wildfire, outrunning the smoke might require you to travel hundreds of miles or, as is the case for those in Southeast Asia, literally leave your country.
In that sense, we are thinking about wildfire impacts wrong, too. Fires aren’t a hazard contained neatly within evacuation zones; the “wildland-urban interface” and “wildfire-prone landscape” describe an environment fires may erupt in, but not what they’re contained to. Whether you’re in Los Angeles or New York City, Minneapolis or Madrid, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur, the smoke will find you.
We need a ratepayer protection pledge for natural gas, too, argue two energy systems experts.
Everyone is talking about high energy prices, which were a major factor in the midterm elections. And it’s not just electricity: Families are paying 16% more for natural gas now than they were just two years ago. Within a few more years, the boom in electricity demand from data centers could add enough natural gas power plants to expand America’s gas power generation capacity by a third. Some back of the envelope math shows that the additional costs to regular customers from this expansion could total more than $23 billion across all retail gas and electricity prices by 2030.
Large users choosing gas will raise costs for the more than 70 million households in America paying a gas bill every month. It’s simple supply and demand. Some data center developers are working with utilities to connect to the grid, but many others are building their own off-grid power plants that would burn natural gas to power their operations. That would require a massive gas infrastructure build-out on top of the supply pressure, raising costs still further.
Earlier this year, hyperscalers and AI companies signed the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, committing to pay the full costs of their energy and infrastructure, “no matter what,” to avoid increasing energy costs for other customers. Agreeing to limit cost increases for energy is a good start, but the details of that pledge focused only on electricity customers, and it’s not enough to solve the problem. Almost nothing has been said on what that means for natural gas customers, or how data centers should help contain gas costs for families. As the 120th Congress, newly elected governors, and state legislators across the country consider the fastest ways to tackle volatile energy prices, they should consider a Gas Customer Protection Pledge to protect consumers from data centers contributing to surging natural gas bills.
All this new gas demand from data centers could increase costs for the rest of us in at least three ways. First, if history is any indication, the sheer volume of increased gas use will both raise gas prices and make them more volatile. Price volatility hurts poorer consumers more, with surprisingly high bills derived from market dynamics over which they have little control. Second, the pipelines, compressor stations, and other infrastructure needed to bring gas to these new facilities will cost money. Because the vast majority of utilities in America pass through both the cost of the fuel itself and the investments required to build and maintain infrastructure, these additional costs will be borne by all customers, not just the data centers.
And third — perhaps most importantly — during periods of peak system stress like winter storms or summer heat waves, all this additional gas going to data centers will make price shocks more severe. In the case of Winter Storm Fern last January, for example, natural gas prices from Chicago to Boston were 19 to 42 times higher than the national average price from the prior year.
So, how can government officials prevent all this from happening? A Gas Customer Protection Pledge would fill the gaps in the already agreed upon objective not to raise energy cost for average customers. Mirroring the points from the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, here’s how that might work.
To address energy affordability in the long run, finite resources are best spent moving energy systems off fossil fuels to improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the meantime, we must make efforts today to control natural gas costs. America’s energy affordability crisis needs answers today, not down the road.
Now is the time for a Gas Customer Protection Pledge that builds out the other half of the commitment already made by hyperscalers and AI companies not to increase energy bills for other customers.
X-energy is vying against CNNC and Canada’s AtkinsRéalis.
For years now, the United States has watched anxiously as its nuclear industry stagnated while those of its biggest geopolitical adversaries boomed. Russia, America’s top 20th century rival, dominated exports, securing deals to build virtually every nuclear newcomer nation’s first reactors. China, meanwhile, took the lead in domestic construction, with three dozen large-scale reactors under construction right now; Beijing even dabbled briefly in exporting its technology with a deal to build half a dozen reactors in Pakistan. It’s already made an offer to build Serbia’s first nuclear plant, and it’s expected to bid on more deals soon.
Now, for the first time, an American company is going head to head with a Chinese state-owned champion for one of Asia’s most sought-after nuclear deals.
X-energy, the Amazon-backed reactor startup based in Maryland, is one of three companies to take part in a program with Singapore to the country’s regulators in its licensing department so they can see how an atomic power project goes from planning to approval. The goal is to help train the “nuclear manpower” needed to design a reactor buildout that matches Singapore’s unique needs, according to the name of the program. By observing the process to license reactors, the regulators from Singapore’s Ministry of Energy, Trade, and Industry and its Energy Market Authority hope to lay the groundwork for the city-state to import reactor technology and build its first nuclear plant.
Singapore spans less land area than the city of Memphis, Tennessee, yet the Southeast Asian city-state has plans to expand its electricity generating capacity by more than a quarter in the coming years to around 15 gigawatts — more than four times the U.S. city’s all-time high power demand. The country’s Ministry of Energy, Trade, and Industry and its Energy Market Authority will pay the salaries of its embedded workers for the full length of the program, anywhere from six months to two years. Aside from the free labor, the host companies receive an inside track to sell reactors to Singapore if the country moves forward with a nuclear project.
“They need to pick a technology that suits their very, very specific needs and constraints,” Miriam D'Onofrio, X-energy’s senior director of international markets, told me. (While the company announced the partnership at the Singapore International Energy Week summit late last month, X-energy spoke exclusively with Heatmap about the agreement.)
“We’re proud to be the only American entity — and one that wasn’t facilitated by the U.S. government at all,” she added. “That was something that Singapore evaluated for itself and made a central decision to pursue. That’s a testament to the strength of our technology and the trust that they have in us as a company.”
Another company vying for Singapore’s business is AtkinsRéalis, the Montreal-based nuclear company behind Canada’s homegrown CANDU reactor technology. But a source with direct knowledge of the Singaporean government’s thinking told me the country is already sold on the benefits of building a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, an expensive option that promises a relatively small footprint on land and minimal risk of a meltdown. The CANDU, by contrast, is a pressurized heavy water reactor, which uses a special kind of water as a coolant to use raw uranium as a fuel and avoid enrichment altogether.
That means the real competition is between X-energy and the China National Nuclear Corporation. CNNC, the second of China’s two state nuclear companies, which currently operates the world’s only commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Located at Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant on the tip of the Shandong Peninsula that juts from northern China into the Yellow Sea, the demonstration reactor came online in December 2023. The completion of the 210-megawatt reactor, which runs on a specialized and fuel known as TRISO that’s specifically engineered for safety, vaulted China to the front of the global race for what are called fourth-generation technologies that use coolants other than water.
While the U.S., Britain, Germany, and Japan all built experimental high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (America also briefly operated a commercial plant in Colorado before shutting it down in the early 1990s due to high costs), China is the first in decades to actually pump its electricity onto the grid. Construction began earlier this month on a second such unit.
That could afford CNNC some advantages. “China has an HTGR that’s been operating,” D'Onofrio told me. “But it is demonstrably more difficult to get information out of China and on that program.”
The trouble is, countries that “are embarking on new nuclear programs want to learn and absorb themselves,” she said. “They don’t just want to buy something off the shelf,” she said. “That’s unfortunately not how nuclear works.” With the Xe-100, an 80-megawatt small modular reactor cooled with helium, D'Onofrio said, “we tried our best to optimize constructability, to optimize manufacturability, to optimize efficiencies in the core.”
X-energy is making progress. On Monday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the company a permit to begin construction on its first plant, a small facility on Texas’ Gulf coast to funnel electricity and heat to Dow’s second-largest chemical plant. X-energy has also inked at least two deals with American utilities for full-scale plants in Washington State, with Energy Northwest, and in Indiana with American Electric Power.
Though the company has yet to fully build one of its reactors, she said, “I am confident that once we do, there will be a wave that we’re excited to see of interest from industry, from data centers, and from customers all over the world.”
If China’s edge is having an actual operating reactor, the strongest argument for X-energy may be its plans to manufacture its own fuel.
Both the Chinese and the American reactors run on TRISO. Rather than slotting pellets of enriched uranium into PEZ dispenser-like fuel assemblies that go into conventional reactors, TRISO producers ball the enriched uranium into poppyseed-sized spheres coated in ceramic material. That coating absorbs the dangerous materials produced during fission and makes a meltdown physically impossible, eliminating the need for the massive steel and concrete domes that serve as containment in traditional nuclear plants.
While China fills its TRISO kernels with conventional low-enriched uranium, X-energy is manufacturing its own fuel out of a more potent type of fuel. That fuel, known as high-assay low-enriched uranium or HALEU, burns through more of the energy in the uranium, but it’s also more expensive, and the only major commercial vendor in the world today is Russia’s Rosatom.
“We have the [intellectual property] on some of the most reliable TRISO fabrication that’s ever been invented,” D'Onofrio said.
Some experts doubt that Singapore will actually commission a nuclear plant anytime soon. “The Singaporeans are treating nuclear energy as a long-term risk-monitoring exercise rather than an active engineering [project],” François Morin, the World Nuclear Association’s director in Beijing, told me in a text message. “For now, the state’s priority is maintaining a superficial, multi-directional radar so they aren’t blindsided if regional neighbors like Indonesia or Malaysia move forward with their own nuclear plans.”
While the appeal of a TRISO-fueled high-temperature gas-reactor is the absence of a multi-mile emergency planning zone like those that surround water-cooled plants, Morin said the Singaporean government is “ignoring the reality that no international regulator has universally codified a ‘zero-EPZ’ standard for a hyper-dense metropolitan area.”
X-energy said it doesn’t need to ultimately build a reactor in Singapore for the effort to be worthwhile.
“Even if Singapore doesn’t pursue an HTGR program — we’d love them to — they’re going to play a role in regional development,” D'Onofrio said. “We want to play a role in regional development, and the strength of Singaporean institutions — the ease of doing business here — makes it a really, really interesting option for us for a future footprint.”