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:
Why thermal energy storage is poised for a breakout year.
One of the oldest ways to store up energy is in hot rocks. Egyptians built adobe homes millennia ago that absorbed heat during the day and released it at night, and wood-fired ovens with bricks that radiate residual heat have been around since the Middle Ages.
Now, this ancient form of heating is poised for a breakout year as one of the hottest things in climate tech: thermal batteries. These aren’t the kinds of batteries you’d find in a laptop or electric vehicle. Instead, these stationary, shipping container-sized units can provide the high temperatures necessary to power hard-to-decarbonize industrial processes like smelting or chemical manufacturing. And thanks to the changing economics of clean energy and a generous tax credit in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, investors are increasingly bullish about the technology, helping Silicon Valley startups Antora Energy and Rondo Energy dramatically scale up production with new gigafactories.
The underlying technology is fairly basic. Using essentially the same technology as a toaster, electricity from renewable energy is converted into heat and then stored in thermally conductive rocks or bricks. That heat is then delivered directly as hot air or steam to the industrial facilities that the stationary batteries are sited on. Rondo says it can supply continuous heat at full capacity — that’s over 1,000° Celsius — for 16 to 18 hours, and Antora’s system is rated at 25 hours, helping fill the gaps when sun and wind resources are scarce.
Rondo’s thermal battery at an ethanol plant in California.Courtesy of Rondo Energy.
The climate benefits of this process are clear — and potentially huge. Heat alone comprises half of the world’s total energy consumption, and about 10% of global CO2 emissions come from burning fossil fuels to generate the high temperatures necessary for industrial processes like steel and cement production, chemicals manufacturing, and minerals smelting and refining. These industries are notoriously hard to decarbonize because burning gas or coal has been much cheaper than using electricity to generate high heat.
That’s also why we haven’t traditionally heard a lot about thermal batteries. Before renewables became ubiquitous, the tech just wouldn’t have been very clean or very cheap.
But thanks to the rapidly falling cost of wind and solar, its economics are looking increasingly promising. “There’s this glut of cheap, clean power that is just waiting to be used,” Justin Briggs, Antora’s co-founder and COO, told me. “It’s just going to waste in a lot of cases already.”
John O’Donnell, the co-founder and CEO of Rondo, concurred.“This industrial decarbonization is going to start out absolutely absorbing those negative and zero prices,” he told me. “But it is also going to drive massive new construction of new renewables specifically for its own purpose.”
Of course thermal batteries aren’t the only technology trying to solve industrial heat emissions. Concentrating solar thermal power systems can store the sun’s heat in molten salts, carbon capture and storage systems can pull the emissions from natural gas combustion at the source, and green hydrogen can be combusted for heat delivery.
Indeed, the same forces making thermal energy more attractive are also benefiting green hydrogen in particular. Cheap renewables and lucrative hydrogen subsidies in the IRA mean green hydrogen is also poised to rapidly fall in price. But proponents of thermal batteries argue their technology is much more efficient.
Electrical resistance heating (i.e. turning electricity into heat like a toaster) is already a 100% efficient process. And after storing that heat in rocks for hours or days, you still can get over 90% of it back out. But producing green hydrogen through electrolysis and subsequently combusting it for heat is generally only about 50-66% efficient overall, says Nathan Iyer, a senior associate at the think tank RMI. Although emerging electrolyzer technologies like solid oxide fuel cells can push efficiencies over 80%, in part by recycling waste heat, many green hydrogen production methods could require around 1.5 to two times the amount of renewable electricity as thermal batteries to generate the same amount of heat.
“Pretty much all of the major models are saying thermal batteries are winning when they run all of their optimizations,” Iyer said. “They’re finding a huge chunk of industrial heat is unlocked by these thermal batteries.”
However, when it comes to the most heat-intensive industries, such as steel and cement production, combusting green hydrogen directly where it’s needed could prove much easier than generating and transporting the heat from thermal batteries. As Iyer told me, “At a certain level of heat, the materials that can actually handle the heat and move the heat around the facility are very, very rare.”
Iyer says these challenges begin around 600° or 700° Celsius. But the lion’s share of industrial processes take place below this temperature range, for use cases that thermal batteries appear well-equipped to handle.
And now, the gigafactories are on their way. Rondo has partnered with one of its investors, Thailand-based Siam Cement Group, to scale production of its heat battery from 2.4 gigawatt-hours per year to 90 GWh per year, which will equal about 200-300 battery units. This expanded facility would be the largest battery manufacturing plant in the world today — about 2.5 times the size of Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada.
Rondo, which has raised $82 million to date, says it can scale rapidly because its tech is already so well understood. It relies on the same type of refractory brick that’s found in Cowper stoves, a centuries old technology used to recycle heat from blast furnaces.
In Rondo’s case, renewable electricity is used to heat the bricks instead. Then, air is blown through the bricks and superheated to over 1,000° Celsius before being delivered to the end customer as either heat through a short high-temperature duct or as steam through a standard boiler tube.
“We’re using exactly the same heating element material that’s in your toaster, exactly the same brick material that’s in all those steel mills, exactly the same boiler design and boiler materials so that we have as little to prove as possible,” O’Donnell says.
Currently, Rondo operates one small, 2 megawatt-hour commercial facility at a Calgren ethanol plant in California. The company hopes to expand its U.S. footprint, something the IRA will help catalyze. Last month’s guidelines from the IRS clarify that thermal batteries are eligible for a $45 per kilowatt-hour tax credit, which will help them compete with cheap natural gas in the U.S.
Antora is already planning to produce batteries domestically, recently launching its new manufacturing facility in San Jose, California. The company has raised $80 million to date, and operates a pilot plant in Fresno, California. Similar to Rondo, Antora’s tech relies on common materials, in this case low-grade carbon blocks. “It’s an extremely low-cost material. It’s produced at vast scales already,” says Briggs.
Antora’s carbon blocks.Courtesy of Antora Energy
When heated with renewable electricity, these blocks emit an intense glow. Much like the sun, that thermal glow can then be released as a beam of 1,500° Celsius heat and light through a shutter on the box.
“And you can do one of two things with that beam of light. One, you can let that deliver thermal energy to an industrial process,” says Briggs. Or Antora’s specialized thermophotovoltaic panels can convert that hot light back into electricity for a variety of end uses.
It’s all very promising, but ultimately unproven at scale, and the companies wouldn’t disclose early customers or projects. But they have some big names behind them. Both Antora and Rondo are backed by the Bill Gates-funded Breakthrough Energy Ventures. Antora also receives funding from Lowercarbon Capital, Shell Ventures, and BHP Ventures, indicating that the oil, gas, petrochemical, and mining industries are taking note.
Along with funding from Energy Impact Partners, Rondo has a plethora of industry backers too, including Siam Cement Group, TITAN Cement Group, mining giant Rio Tinto, Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund, Saudi chemicals company SABIC, and oil company Saudi Aramco.
“The investors that just joined us have giant needs,” O’Donnell says of the company’s decision to massively ramp up manufacturing. “Rio Tinto has announced 50% decarbonization by 2030. Microsoft is buying 24-hour time-matched energy in all kinds of places. SABIC and Aramco have enormous steam needs that they want to decarbonize.”
Primary uses of this tech will likely include chemical manufacturing, mineral refining, food processing and paper and biofuel production. Industries like these, which require heat below 1,000° Celsius (and often much less), account for 68% of all industrial emissions. While steel and cement production are two of industry’s biggest emitters, their heat needs can exceed 1,500° Celsius, temperatures that Rondo and Antora admit are more technically challenging to achieve.
In any case, 2024 is the year when hot rocks could start making a dent in decarbonization. The IRA’s tax credits mean this emergent tech could become competitive in more markets, beyond areas with excess renewable power or substantial carbon taxes. This is the year that Antora says they’ll begin mass production, and Rondo’s first commercial projects are expected to come online.
As O’Donnell says, “This is not 10 years away. It’s not five years away. It’s right now.”
Editor’s note: This article was updated after publication to account for emerging electrolyzer technologies.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Bosnia’s capital of Sarajevo is blanketed in a layer of toxic smog • Temperatures in Perth, in Western Australia, could hit 106 degrees Fahrenheit this weekend • It is cloudy in Washington, D.C., where lawmakers are scrambling to prevent a government shutdown.
The weather has gotten so weird that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is holding internal talks about how to adjust its models to produce more accurate forecasts, the Financial Timesreported. Current models are based on temperature swings observed over one part of the Pacific Ocean that have for years correlated consistently with specific weather phenomena across the globe, but climate change seems to be disrupting that cause and effect pattern, making it harder to predict things like La Niña and El Niño. Many forecasters had expected La Niña to appear by now and help cool things down, but that has yet to happen. “It’s concerning when this region we’ve studied and written all these papers on is not related to all the impacts you’d see with [La Niña],” NOAA’s Michelle L’Heureux told the FT. “That’s when you start going ‘uh-oh’ there may be an issue here we need to resolve.”
There is quite a lot of news coming out of the Department of Energy as the year (and the Biden administration) comes to an end. A few recent updates:
Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, does not expect to meet its 2025 or 2030 emissions targets, and is putting the blame on policy, infrastructure, and technology limitations. The company previously pledged to cut its emissions by 35% by next year, and 65% by the end of the decade. Emissions in 2023 were up 4% year-over-year.
Walmart
“While we continue to work toward our aspirational target of zero operational emissions by 2040, progress will not be linear … and depends not only on our own initiatives but also on factors beyond our control,” Walmart’s statement said. “These factors include energy policy and infrastructure in Walmart markets around the world, availability of more cost-effective low-GWP refrigeration and HVAC solutions, and timely emergence of cost-effective technologies for low-carbon heavy tractor transportation (which does not appear likely until the 2030s).”
BlackRock yesterday said it is writing down the value of its Global Renewable Power Fund III following the failure of Northvolt and SolarZero, two companies the fund had invested in. Its net internal rate of return was -0.3% at the end of the third quarter, way down from 11.5% in the second quarter, according toBloomberg. Sectors like EV charging, transmission, and renewable energy generation and storage have been “particularly challenged,” executives said, and some other renewables companies in the portfolio have yet to get in the black, meaning their valuations may be “more subjective and sensitive to evolving dynamics in the industry.”
Flies may be more vulnerable to climate change than bees are, according to a new study published in the Journal of Melittology. The fly haters among us might shrug at the finding, but the researchers insist flies are essential pollinators that help bolster ecosystem biodiversity and agriculture. “It’s time we gave flies some more recognition for their role as pollinators,” said lead author Margarita López-Uribe, who is the Lorenzo Langstroth Early Career Associate Professor of Entomology at Penn State. The study found bees can tolerate higher temperatures than flies, so flies are at greater risk of decline as global temperatures rise. “In alpine and subarctic environments, flies are the primary pollinator,” López-Uribe said. “This study shows us that we have entire regions that could lose their primary pollinator as the climate warms, which could be catastrophic for those ecosystems.”
“No one goes to the movies because they want to be scolded.” –Heatmap’s Jeva Lange writes about the challenges facing climate cinema, and why 2024 might be the year the climate movie grew up.
Whether you agree probably depends on how you define “climate movie” to begin with.
Climate change is the greatest story of our time — but our time doesn’t seem to invent many great stories about climate change. Maybe it’s due to the enormity and urgency of the subject matter: Climate is “important,” and therefore conscripted to the humorless realms of journalism and documentary. Or maybe it’s because of a misunderstanding on the part of producers and storytellers, rooted in an outdated belief that climate change still needs to be explained to an audience, when in reality they don’t need convincing. Maybe there’s just not a great way to have a character mention climate change and not have it feel super cringe.
Whatever the reason, between 2016 and 2020, less than 3% of film and TV scripts used climate-related keywords during their runtime, according to an analysis by media researchers at the University of Southern California. (The situation isn’t as bad in literature, where cli-fi has been going strong since at least 2013.) At least on the surface, this on-screen avoidance of climate change continued in 2024. One of the biggest movies of the summer, Twisters, had an extreme weather angle sitting right there, but its director, Lee Isaac Chung, went out of his way to ensure the film didn’t have a climate change “message.”
I have a slightly different take on the situation, though — that 2024 was actuallyfull of climate movies, and, I’d argue, that they’re getting much closer to the kinds of stories a climate-concerned individual should want on screen.
That’s because for the most part, when movies and TV shows have tackled the topic of climate change in the past, it’s been with the sort of “simplistic anger-stoking and pathos-wringing” that The New Yorker’s Richard Brody identified in 2022’s Don’t Look Up, the Adam McKay satire that became the primary touchpoint for scripted climate stories. At least it was kind of funny: More overt climate stories like last year’s Foe, starring Saoirse Ronan and Paul Mescal, and Extrapolations, the Apple TV+ show in which Meryl Streep voices a whale, are so self-righteous as to be unwatchable (not to mention, no fun).
But what if we widened our lens and weren’t so prescriptive? Then maybe Furiosa, this spring’s Mad Max prequel, becomes a climate change movie. The film is set during a “near future” ecological collapse, and it certainly makes you think about water scarcity and our overreliance on a finite extracted resource — but it also makes you think about how badass the Octoboss’ kite is. The same goes for Dune: Part Two, which made over $82 million in its opening weekend and is also a recognizable environmental allegory featuring some cool worms. Even Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, a flop that most people have already memory-holed, revisitedThe Day After Tomorrow’s question of, “What if New York City got really, really, really cold?”
Two 2024 animated films with climate themes could even compete against each other at the Academy Awards next year. Dreamworks Animation’s The Wild Robot, one of the centerpiece films at this fall’s inaugural Climate Film Festival, is set in a world where sea levels have risen to submerge the Golden Gate Bridge, and it impresses on its audience the importance of protecting the natural world. And in Gints Zilbalodis’ Flow, one of my favorite films of the year, a cat must band together with other animals to survive a flood.
Flow also raises the question of whether a project can unintentionally be a climate movie. Zilbalodis told me that making a point about environmental catastrophe wasn’t his intention — “I can’t really start with the message, I have to start with the character,” he said — and to him, the water is a visual metaphor in an allegory about overcoming your fears.
But watching the movie in a year when more than a thousand people worldwide have died in floods, and with images of inundated towns in North Carolina still fresh in mind, it’s actually climate change itself that makes one watch Flow as a movie about climate change. (I’m not the only one with this interpretation, either: Zilbalodis told me he’d been asked by one young audience member if the flood depicted in his film is “the future.”)
Perhaps this is how we should also consider Chung’s comments about Twisters. While nobody in the film says the words “climate change” or “global warming,” the characters note that storms are becoming exceptional — “we've never seen tornadoes like this before,” one says. Despite the director’s stated intention not to make the movie “about” climate change, it becomes a climate movie by virtue of what its audiences have experienced in their own lives.
Still, there’s that niggling question: Do movies like these, which approach climate themes slant-wise, really count? To help me decide, I turned to Sam Read, the executive director of the Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, an advocacy consortium that encourages environmental awareness both on set and on screen. He told me that to qualify something as a “climate” movie or TV show, some research groups look to see if climate change exists in the world of the story or whether the characters acknowledge it. Other groups consider climate in tiers, such as whether a project has a climate premise, theme, or simply a moment.
The Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, however, has no hard rules. “We want to make sure that we support creatives in integrating these stories in whatever way works for them,” Read told me.
Read also confirmed my belief that there seemed to be an uptick in movies this year that were “not about climate change but still deal with things that feel very climate-related, like resource extraction.” There was even more progress on this front in television, he pointed out: True Detective: Night Country wove in themes of environmentalism, pollution, mining, and Indigenous stewardship; the Max comedy Hacks featured an episode about climate change this season; and Industry involved a storyline about taking a clean energy company public, with some of the characters even attending COP. Even Doctor Odyssey, a cruise ship medical drama that airs on USA, worked climate change into its script, albeit in ridiculous ways. (Also worth mentioning: The Netflix dating show Love is Blind cast Taylor Krause, who works on decarbonizing heavy industry at RMI.)
We can certainly do more. As many critics before me have written, it’s still important to draw a connection between things like environmental catastrophes and the real-world human causes of global warming. But the difference between something being “a climate movie” and propaganda — however true its message, or however well-intentioned — is thin. Besides, no one goes to the movies because they want to be scolded; we want to be moved and distracted and entertained.
I’ve done my fair share of complaining over the past few years about how climate storytelling needs to grow up. But lately I’ve been coming around to the idea that it’s not the words “climate change” appearing in a script that we need to be so focused on. As 2024’s slate of films has proven to me — or, perhaps, as this year’s extreme weather events have thrown into relief — there are climate movies everywhere.
Keep ‘em coming.
They might not be worried now, but Democrats made the same mistake earlier this year.
Permitting reform is dead in the 118th Congress.
It died earlier this week, although you could be forgiven for missing it. On Tuesday, bipartisan talks among lawmakers fell apart over a bid to rewrite parts of the National Environmental Policy Act. The changes — pushed for by Representative Bruce Westerman, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee — would have made it harder for outside groups to sue to block energy projects under NEPA, a 1970 law that governs the country’s process for environmental decisionmaking.
When those talks died, they also killed a separate deal over permitting struck earlier this year between Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. That deal, as I detailed last week, would have loosened some federal rules around oil and gas drilling in exchange for a new, quasi-mandatory scheme to build huge amounts of long-distance transmission.
Rest in peace, I suppose. Even if lawmakers could not agree on NEPA changes, I think Republicans made a mistake by not moving forward with the Manchin-Barrasso deal. (I still believe that the standalone deal could have passed the Senate and the House if put to a vote.) At this point, I do not think we will see another shot at bipartisan permitting reform until at least late 2026, when the federal highway law will need fresh funding.
But it is difficult to get too upset about this failure because larger mistakes have since compounded the initial one. On Wednesday, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s bipartisan deal to fund the government — which is, after all, a much more fundamental task of governance than rewriting some federal permitting laws — fell apart, seemingly because Donald Trump and Elon Musk decided they didn’t like it. If I can indulge in the subjunctive for a moment: That breakdown might have likely killed any potential permitting deal, too. So even in a world where lawmakers somehow did strike a deal earlier this week, it might already be dead. (As I write this, the House GOP has reportedly reached a new deal to fund the government through March, which has weakened or removed provisions governing pharmacy benefit managers and limiting American investments in China.)
The facile reading of this situation is that Republicans now hold the advantage. The Trump administration will soon be able to implement some of the fossil fuel provisions in the Manchin-Barrasso deal through the administrative state. Trump will likely expand onshore and offshore drilling, will lease the government’s best acreage to oil and gas companies, and will approve as many liquified natural gas export terminals as possible. His administration will do so, however, without the enhanced legal protection that the deal would have provided — and while those protections are not a must-have, especially with a friendly Supreme Court, their absence will still allow environmental groups to try to run down the clock on some of Trump’s more ambitious initiatives.
Republicans believe that they will be able to get parts of permitting reform done in a partisan reconciliation bill next year. These efforts seem quite likely to run aground, at least as long as something like the current rules governing reconciliation bills hold. I have heard some crazy proposals on this topic — what if skipping a permitting fight somehow became a revenue-raiser for the federal government? — but even they do not touch the deep structure of NEPA in the way a bipartisan compromise could. As Westerman toldPolitico’s Josh Siegel: “We need 60 votes in the Senate to get real permitting reform … People are just going to have to come to an agreement on what permitting reform is.” In any case, Manchin and the Democrats already tried to reform the permitting system via a partisan reconciliation bill and found it essentially impossible.
Even if reconciliation fails, Republicans say, they will still be in a better negotiating position next year than this year because the party will control a few more Senate votes. But will they? The GOP will just have come off a difficult fight over tax reform. Twelve or 24 months from now, demands on the country’s electricity grid are likely to be higher than they are today, and the risk of blackouts will be higher than before. The lack of a robust transmission network will hinder the ability to build a massive new AI infrastructure, as some of Trump’s tech industry backers hope. But 12 or 24 months from now, too, Democrats — furious at Trump — are not going to be in a dealmaking mood, and Republicans have relatively few ways to bring them to the table.
In any case, savvy Republicans should have realized that it is important to get supply-side economic reforms done as early in a president’s four-year term as possible. Such changes take time to filter through the system and turn into real projects and real economic activity; passing the law as early as possible means that the president’s party can enjoy them and campaign on them.
All of it starts to seem more and more familiar. When Manchin and Barrasso unveiled their compromise earlier this year, Democrats didn’t act quickly on it. They felt confident that the window for a deal wouldn’t close — and they looked forward to a potential trifecta, when they would be able to get even more done (and reject some of Manchin’s fossil fuel-friendly compromises).
Democrats, I think, wound up regretting the cavalier attitude that they brought to permitting reform before Trump’s win. But now the GOP is acting the same way: It is rejecting compromises, believing that it will be able to strike a better deal on permitting issues during its forthcoming trifecta. That was a mistake when Democrats did it. I think it will be a mistake for Republicans, too.