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:
With its Orchard One project in Wyoming, Spiritus thinks it can capture carbon from the air for less than $100 per ton.

Pretty much every startup that’s building machines to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stash it underground has claimed it will be able to get its costs down to less than $100 per ton — eventually.
But a new contender in the race, a San Francisco-based company called Spiritus, is making a compelling case that it could get there faster. On Tuesday, Spiritus announced plans to build its first direct air capture, or “DAC” project in central Wyoming, nicknamed Orchard One. The company will start small but ultimately wants to expand the facility to capture 2 million tons of CO2 per year.
Achieving that scale at the sub-$100 price point would be game-changing for direct air capture, which is still far too expensive to be a viable climate solution. Most companies in the field are cagey about revealing their current costs, but the industry-average price is believed to be between $600 and $1,000 per ton.
So what makes Spiritus different? Here are three reasons we’ll be keeping an eye on the company.
Spiritus’ project will not look anything like the industrial-style shipping containers full of fans that have become the defining form factor for DAC plants. The company’s central innovation is a squishy white ball that founder Charles Cadieu describes as an artificial lung.
“While it looks kind of simple, it's actually a breakthrough material that has an incredible amount of surface area,” he told me over Zoom, while holding one up and squeezing it like a stress relief toy. “And it has holes all over it that allow the CO2 to go right inside.” Though it’s about the size of a tennis ball, its branch-like interior structure has a surface area equivalent to a tennis court, he said.

The ball is made of a proprietary material that selectively attracts CO2 molecules. As air wafts through it, CO2 sticks to its interior surfaces like a magnet. Spiritus will manufacture millions of these balls, lay them out on trays, and stack the trays on tree-like rigs — hence the name Orchard One. Concept images depict a small colony of cylindrical structures that will house the trays, almost like miniature Wilco towers, sprouting up amid the Wyoming sagebrush.

After a few hours exposed to the elements, the balls, which Spiritus prefers to call “fruits,” will be full of carbon. The company will then transfer them to a separate chamber and apply heat, causing them to expel the CO2. That stream of carbon will be compressed and delivered to an underground CO2 storage well, while the fruits will be returned to their towers to live the same day over and over again.
Though the concept is somewhat whimsical, the company is making serious claims about its cost and performance. The biggest expenses for direct air capture projects are materials and energy, and Spiritus has made significant improvements on both fronts. Cadieu told me they can manufacture their sorbent for a tenth of the cost of other, “state of the art sorbents that are out there today,” and that “furthermore, it’s 10 times as effective” at capturing carbon. In other words, Spiritus claims it can capture more carbon from the air at a time, using fewer, cheaper materials than other methods.
Since the capture part of the process is passive, the company doesn’t need to use energy-intensive fans to filter the air. Also, the temperature required for the second step, where heat is applied to the balls to release the CO2, is lower than 212 degrees Fahrenheit — low enough to be generated using electricity. Cadieu said Spiritus plans to procure energy from renewable sources so that the entire process has net-negative greenhouse gas emissions.
Spiritus isn’t the only company with a low-cost sorbent and passive capture method. Notably, the DAC process pioneered by Heirloom, which opened its first commercial-scale plant in California last year, shares those features, but it requires much higher temperatures — 1,650 degree Fahrenheit — to isolate the captured carbon.
Though Spiritus still has to prove this all works as promised in the real world, the company has earned an early vote of confidence from Frontier, the coalition of tech companies with a $1 billion fund to help carbon removal scale. Last year, Frontier paid Spiritus $500,000 to buy its first 713 removal credits, each of which represents a ton of carbon that will be permanently sequestered underground. (The money is more of a development grant than anything indicative of the company’s costs.)
“We look for companies that learn and iterate quickly, and we were impressed by what we saw from Spiritus when they applied,” Joanna Klitzke, the procurement and ecosystem strategy lead at Frontier, told me. “And actually, since then, the team has made really strong improvements and steady progress on both their sorbent and their process performance.”
According to the company’s application for funding from Frontier, Spiritus estimates that for the first phase of Orchard One — when the project is capturing less than 2,000 tons per year — its levelized cost per ton of carbon will be about $149, not including the cost of burying the carbon underground. By phase two, at a scale of about 500,000 tons per year, it expects to get that cost down to less than $100. And by phase three, at the full scale of 2 million tons per year, it expects to achieve sub-$75 capture.
Cadieu told me the company is already in talks with large buyers to purchase carbon removal from Orchard One for “far less” than the per-ton price Frontier paid.
Spiritus doesn’t expect to have phase one of the project up and running until 2026. But it already has a running start. The land lease is locked down, the underground pore space where the company will inject the captured carbon has been identified, and a monitoring well is already scheduled to be drilled — according to its Frontier application.
Wyoming has proved to be a relatively welcoming place for this emerging industry. Orchard One is joining another direct air capture plant already under development in the southwest part of the state called Project Bison. Cadieu gave three reasons the project landed there: There’s a local workforce with relevant experience from the oil and gas industry, the state has the ideal geology to trap the captured carbon underground, and Wyoming has been at the forefront of developing clear regulations for carbon sequestration. It was one of the first states to gain authorization from the Environmental Protection Agency to permit carbon storage wells, and as of December had already permitted three. Another advantage in Wyoming is abundant renewable energy from wind farms.
Spiritus has yet to reveal exactly where in Wyoming Orchard One will be built, but Cadieu told me he has been in close contact with officials at the town, county, and state levels, and that the reception has been enthusiastic. He said the project will create “hundreds of jobs during construction” and “many dozens of jobs” when the facility is operating, and that the company will deliver a portion of its profits back into the community.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On ‘modernizing’ coal, 2.8 degrees of warming, and Spain’s nuclear phaseout
Current conditions: Hurricane Melissa passed by Bermuda on its way northward, leaving at least 30 dead in its wake across the Caribbean • Tropical Storm Kalmaegi is strengthening as it approaches the eastern shore of the Philippines • Colombia and Venezuela are bracing for flooding from heavy rainfall up to 2 inches above average.
The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly walked back its plans to eliminate Energy Star, the popular program that costs just $32 million in annual budget but saves Americans more than $40 billion each year. In May, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that his agency would end the program. The proposal drew swift backlash from industry groups and Republicans in Congress, as I wrote in a July newsletter. Now Zeldin is reconsidering the move, four unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the agency’s plans told The New York Times. Federal records show the agency renewed four contracts with ICF, the consulting firm that helps oversee the program, including one deal that stretches through September 2030.
Calling the initial plan to eliminate Energy Star “vexing,” RE Tech Advisors’ Deb Cloutier, one of Energy Star’s original architects, told Heatmap’s Jeva Lange, “There are a lot of lobbying efforts that I’m personally aware of within the commercial real estate industry and the manufacturing industry, where folks are reaching out and doing calls to action for the House and Senate Appropriations majority members — similar activities to what we did eight years ago when Energy Star was directly under fire.” She added, “I know that there are many, many representatives, both Republican and Democrats, who support Energy Star. We’ve had 35 years of bipartisan support, and it has been earmarked in congressional law many times, through multiple George H.W. and George W. Bush administrations.”
The world is on track to warm by an average of 2.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, the Rhodium Group predicted in its latest forecast. The consultancy said its modeling showed a 67% likelihood that global temperatures will rise between 2.3 degrees and 3.4 degrees thanks to the current trajectory of planet-heating pollution. That’s a significant improvement on the dire predictions issued a decade ago. But if decarbonization doesn’t pick up pace, the probability of limiting warming to 2 degrees — the more modest target set in the Paris Agreement — is below 5%. Still, the findings don’t deviate much from Rhodium’s projections before Trump returned to office. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote this morning, “in the long run, Trump might not mean much for the climate’s trajectory.”
Nevertheless, the overshoot beyond 2 degrees is partly why Bill Gates took a more moderate stance on climate change in his latest memo, as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote last week. It’s also why, as Rob explained in a big story, private companies promising to commercialize technology to geoengineer the world’s temperature are raising large sums of money.
The Department of Energy is stepping up its efforts to keep aging coal plants online. The agency on Friday announced plans to offer up to $100 million to owners of coal-fired power stations that plan to modernize the stations with upgrades that “improve efficiency, plant lifetimes, and performance of coal and natural gas use.” In a press release, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright praised President Donald Trump for having “ended the war on American coal” and “restoring common sense energy policies that put Americans first.”
Despite Trump’s promises to revive American coal production and use, exports fell 11% in the first half of this year due to China buying less of the fuel amid ongoing trade negotiations, according to an analysis published Friday by the Energy Information Administration.
 
In the latest sign that Wall Street is heeding Trump’s calls to veer away from investment initiatives that cut out fossil fuels, lending giant State Street’s asset management arm withdrew its U.S. operations from what was once a leading climate action group for the industry. The company said “it had decided that only its units serving UK and European clients would remain part of the Net Zero Asset Managers” group, the Financial Times reported. BlackRock, Vanguard, and JP Morgan Asset Management had already left the group known as NZAM in the U.S. JP Morgan and State Street had already also quit another green investor group, Climate Action 100+, last year.
Months after Taiwan shut down its final reactors earlier this year, a plurality of voters approved a referendum calling for the last atomic plant to be turned back on. Years after Germany completely exited nuclear power, the new government has reversed Berlin’s position and has now joined France in supporting atomic energy again as it considers ways to restore its fleet. Switzerland and Belgium, meanwhile, reversed plans to shut down nuclear plants, and Italy — the first country in the world to end its nuclear power production years ago — is working on reviving its industry. That leaves only Spain still stubbornly planning to close its nuclear plants starting in 2027.
The tides may be turning. In February, a majority of lawmakers in Spain’s parliament approved a resolution condemning Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s phaseout plans. Now the board of Spain’s Centrales Nucleares Almaraz-Trillo has officially requested a three-year extension on the operating license for units one and two of the Almaraz Nuclear Power Plant. If granted, the extension would allow the reactors to stay online through 2030. The station currently supplies 7% of Spain’s electricity.
Fusion energy, the joke goes, is the energy source of tomorrow — and always will be. But recent laboratory breakthroughs have unleashed billions of dollars in private financing to commercialize fusion energy for real, with companies promising to open power plants in the next decade. There’s a big bottleneck, however: Many of the materials needed for fusion reactors are scarcely produced right now. New bipartisan legislation aims to change that by extending the 45X tax credit for clean manufacturing — one of the few parts of the Inflation Reduction Act retained in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — to producers of vanadium, deuterium, helium-3, and other materials needed for fusion power to take off.
It’s an off-off-cycle election year, but there are still a handful of key elections going on in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia.
With the Trump administration disassembling climate policy across the federal government, state elections are arguably more important to climate action than ever.
Here are the key races we’re watching where clean energy, public transit, and other climate-oriented policies are on the ballot.
There are only 10 states in the country that hold elections for a Public Service Commission, a small group of regulators who oversee utility companies, and Georgia is one of them. As Charles Hua, the executive director of the nonprofit PowerLines, recently put it, these officials are the “Supreme Court justices” of energy. They preside over what kinds of infrastructure gas and electric utilities will build, where they’ll build it, and how much rates will go up as a result.
The election in Georgia is long overdue after being held up by a lawsuit the last two election cycles. Two of the five current commissioners have served three extra years without being re-elected by voters. During that time, the commission has approved six rate increases for customers of Georgia Power, the largest utility in the state, in part to pay for major cost overruns on new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Now Georgia Power is proposing a major expansion of natural gas power — about 10 nuclear reactors’ worth — mostly to meet data center demand.
The two seats are held by Republicans Fitz Johnson and Tim Echols. They are being challenged by Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johson, who have vowed to push for Georgia Power to meet demand with clean energy.
Energy costs are at the center of the governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia this year, and Democrats and Republicans are making opposite arguments about how to lower them. In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill has vowed to freeze utility rates and clear red tape to “open the floodgates on new cheaper and cleaner energy projects,” including solar, battery storage, and nuclear. Her opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, thinks the key to lower prices is pulling out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a 13-state cap and trade program that incentivizes cleaner power generation and raises money for climate-friendly projects. He also wants to repeal the state’s electrification goals for vehicles and buildings and ban offshore wind development.
A similar fight is playing out in Virginia, although there it’s tied more to the state’s rapidly multiplying data centers. Virginia is already home to 13% of global data center capacity, with more coming online. A recent state legislative report warns that customers are looking at increases of $14 to $37 per month by 2040 as a result.
The Democratic candidate for governor, former U.S. Representative Abigail Spanberger, wants to expand solar and wind power and invest in building efficiency. She’s also advocated for data centers to “pay their fair share” of new energy infrastructure, and said she will encourage them to pilot advanced clean technologies like small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen. She’s running against Winson Earle Sears, the current lieutenant governor of Virginia, who has questioned the reliability of renewable energy, arguing for an all-of-the-above strategy that includes “clean coal.” While “beautiful clean coal,” it may be one of Trump’s favorite energy sources, the reality is, it’s still just coal.
The governor’s seat isn’t the only one that’s up for grabs in Virginia. Whoever wins will need the House of Delegates on their side. Democrats currently have a razor thin 51-seat majority, and all 100 seats are on offer. Even a blue wave in the House doesn’t guarantee strong climate action, however, according to the nonprofit advocacy group Climate Cabinet. “Which candidates win will determine whether Virginia expands on” its climate law, the Clean Economy Act, “or backslides,” the group said in a “races to watch” memo.
Voters in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the whole of Mecklenburg County, will be asked whether to increase their sales tax by 1% to fund new transportation projects. Roughly 60% of the estimated $20 billion raised by the tax will go toward the expansion of rail and bus service. Charlotte is among the fastest-growing cities in the country. During a legislative hearing this summer, State Senator Mujtaba Mohammad said an average of 130 people move to the area each day. “We are experiencing longer commutes, more car accidents, higher car insurance premiums, more pedestrian-related accidents and less revenue to address our crumbling critical infrastructure," he said.
The Charlotte Area Transit System finalized a new long-range plan this year to foster “transit-oriented communities,” by increasing bus frequency, extending service hours, adding microtransit options to underserved neighborhoods, and adding 43 miles of new rail. But the plan is only possible with funding from the sales tax.
Sales tax increases are a common way to raise money for public transit systems — legislators in California recently voted to put a sales tax increase on next year’s ballot to address a looming fiscal cliff for transit in the Bay Area. Illinois also voted last week to increase the sales tax in the Chicago area by 0.025% to raise money for its ailing transit system, among other measures.
A few smaller elections where climate is also on the ballot this year, according to Climate Cabinet:
A new report from the Rhodium Group finds that the range of likely temperature outcomes has essentially not changed since 2023.
It’s that time of year when COP, the annual United Nations climate conference, draws near, and a flood of reports assess how much progress the world has made (or not made) to limit global warming. Given the sharp reversal in U.S. climate policy under President Trump, it may seem inevitable that the future will look bleaker than before. His administration has spent the past nine months dismantling nearly every bit of domestic climate policy implemented by its predecessor, and has even managed to thwart international efforts at climate cooperation.
The annual climate outlook from the Rhodium Group, a U.S. energy and climate research firm, offers a somewhat hopeful counterpoint to that narrative, however. It finds that the range of possible climate futures has essentially not changed in the past two years.
A full decade has passed since the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change, and in that time the world has avoided the most catastrophic scientific projections. In 2015, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, projected that global average temperatures could increase by as much as 7.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century without significant shifts in policy and advancements in technology. Now, the Rhodium Group estimates that warming is highly unlikely to exceed 3.9 degrees by 2100, and could be limited to 2 degrees.
The numbers themselves are not hopeful. This is a vast range in terms of the potential impacts implied, and even 2 degrees of warming should not be considered “little.” The IPCC estimates that compared with a scenario that limits warming to 1.5 degrees, more than twice as many people would be exposed to severe heat at least once every five years in a world 2 degrees warmer; ice-free summers in the Arctic would occur 10 times more often; the number of plant, animal, and insect species that lose at least half their habitat would be two to three times larger; and crop yields and fisheries would suffer roughly twice the losses.
Putting those dire projections aside, what’s interesting is that this 2- to 3.9-degree range is about the same as what the Rhodium Group forecast when it published its first Climate Outlook report in 2023. Also relatively unchanged: a finding that global power sector emissions will peak within the next decade, and that total emissions will likely remain constant or subtly decline through 2060, but then go up again as Global South countries see more rapid economic development in the latter half of the century.
The reason the numbers haven’t changed much, despite some seemingly dramatic policy changes that have occurred in the interim, has to do with Rhodium’s unique approach to projecting the future.
Many of the reports that come out around this time, such as the UN’s annual Emissions Gap Report, try to assess where the world is headed based on currently enacted policies as well as pledges, such as the “nationally determined contributions” that countries submit to the UN. Those might include promises like, “We’ll build X quantity of renewable energy by 2030,” or “We’ll protect X amount of our forests.” The models assume that these policies and pledges are fixed. They do not contemplate future ramp-ups or potential reversals. They also use fixed assumptions about GDP and population growth, oil prices, technology costs, etc.
A recent report by Wood Mackenzie, for example, estimates that temperatures will climb to 2.6 degrees by 2060, and then models a few other potential discrete scenarios, including one that shows what it would take to limit warming to 2 degrees.
The limitation of this approach is that the trajectory for each variable these models use is deeply uncertain, Hannah Pitt, one of the authors of the Rhodium report, told me. “Even a small change in GDP growth can have really big implications for emissions — likewise for oil prices and renewable costs and all that,” she said. “We try to take into consideration the wide range of uncertainty we have in the future of those core drivers of emissions.” That requires modeling thousands of scenarios with different combinations of how those underlying drivers might evolve.
Then, rather than assuming that policies on the books today remain static, Rhodium uses data on how climate and energy policy has historically responded to economic inputs like oil prices and GDP growth, in different parts of the world to project how policy might change going forward, using a carbon price as a proxy for policy ambition.
This approach takes into account such a wide range of possibilities that the results aren’t likely to change much year to year. Both in 2023 and now, the modeling incorporated the prospect that a Trump administration or something like it could reverse some progress, and that energy demand could soar. “We are looking at the long-term evolution of policy, not the administration fluctuations,” Pitt explained. It would take a true step-change in policy or a major technological breakthrough to produce a noticeable change in the trajectory, she said.
What are those breakthroughs? At this point, they aren’t a mystery. Cheaper clean firm power — like advanced nuclear, fusion, or geothermal — would be a huge help. Solutions for decarbonizing flying and shipping are also on the list. We also need to make it affordable to produce iron, steel, cement, and petrochemicals with far fewer emissions.
On the policy side, bending the curve might mean something like stricter electric vehicle requirements. As mentioned earlier, economic development in the Global South is expected to shift emissions back upward later this century — in part because if policy evolves the way it has historically, and if more and more people around the world are buying cars, the cars may not be 100% electric, and emissions from transport will go up.
None of this is to say that the Trump administration’s actions will have no effect on warming. Recall the report’s expansive range of future warming scenarios of 2 to 3.9 degrees — it’s very possible that policies enacted today will push the world closer to one or the other. A separate recent Rhodium study that dives into the specifics of U.S. policies found that emissions in 2035 could be 0.8 to 1.2 gigatonnes higher than what the group projected in the same report last year, largely due to Trump’s policies.
It should be comforting that one administration can’t veer the world too far off course — although by that same logic, we can’t expect a single administration to shift projections in a positive direction, either. A "breakthrough" in something like decarbonized cement will likely happen over years, through a feedback loop of sustained policy support and technological development.
There is no “too late” when it comes to addressing the technology and policy gaps the report highlights, Pitt said “Of course, the sooner the better,” she said. “But the difference between a 2.8-degree future and a 2.5-degree future saves lives. So the effort to drive these technology costs down is worthwhile, even if it doesn’t happen on the timeline that we would hope.”