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:
The most interesting things I haven’t written about yet.

My inbox and calendar have been filled all year with press releases and requests to chat about new carbon removal technologies, artificial intelligence and its attendant energy demand, novel battery designs, advances in fission and fusion, and investors’ ever-present concerns about how to get all of this to market in time to make a real dent in the climate crisis (and also, you know, a profit).
I wrote about a lot of it — but not all of it, and much of the stuff that got left out is no less worthy of your attention than the stuff that made it. So here I present a roundup of the climate technologies that you might not have read about in Heatmap this year, but that have investors, academics, and the climate world at large buzzing as we look toward 2025.
This fall when I spoke with Amy Duffuor, a co-founder and partner at the venture capital firm Azolla Ventures, she told me that her firm, which is focused on “overlooked and neglected” climate solutions, has been fascinated by the shipping industry. Because while aviation and shipping each account for about 3% of global emissions, decarbonizing flight seems to get the bulk of the attention. “Sometimes it’s hard for people to imagine what they don’t see or what they’re not interacting with on a day to day basis,” Duffuor told me.
This fall, the firm co-led a $4.5 million seed round of investment in clean fuels producer Oxylus Energy, which converts carbon dioxide into green methanol for use in shipping and other transportation fuels. The tech relies on renewable-powered electrolyzers similar to those used to make green hydrogen, but the company’s secret sauce is a special catalyst that can convert carbon dioxide into methanol at low temperature and pressure, making the whole process more efficient and more economical than ever before.
Duffuor told me that green methanol has a leg up on other clean fuels such as green hydrogen, which has a low energy density, or green ammonia, which is highly toxic and corrosive. While supply of all of these is still limited and costly, Duffuor said that retrofitting an engine to run on green methanol is much simpler than adapting to other alternative fuels, which is why it’s already being done on a small scale today. Indeed, shipping giant Maersk has a number of green methanol boats in its fleet, one of which completed the world’s first green methanol-powered voyage last fall.
Long considered “one of climate science’s biggest taboos,” according to Heatmap’s own Robinson Meyer, geoengineering had a big 2024, and it looks poised to be taken increasingly seriously. In fact, one investor I spoke with this month, Lee Larson of Piva Capital, which focuses on decarbonizing heavy industry, told me he foresees a splashy but undeniably controversial funding announcement coming in the near future. “I don’t think it’s going to be Piva, but someone is going to take a bet on this, and there’s going to be a big funding round for a startup in this space,” he predicted. “Because there’s enough interested people with deep pockets that have been thinking about this space for someone to raise money off of it.”
But if nothing else, this year proved that the backlash would be swift. In June, the city council in the small town of Alameda, California, shut down testing of a solar geoengineering device that could one day be used for “marine cloud brightening” — that is, spraying aerosols into the sky to enable clouds to reflect more sunlight away from Earth — and Harvard University abandoned another solar geoengineering project, which aimed to study how aerosol plumes behave in the stratosphere. At the same time, though, the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund announced that it would fund research into solar geoengineering to help inform policymakers should it one day become regulated, and the UK also committed to supporting research into various solar geoengineering pathways, including conducting outdoor experiments.
“There’s a growing understanding that, on a per unit of warming avoidance basis, this is just way cheaper than carbon dioxide removal solutions,” Larson told me. From his perspective, the world needs to support this type of research lest a layperson, a billionaire, or a small nation choose to go rogue. “Just given how cheap it is, given how little we know about it, that’s a poor combination — because the chance of someone doing something with a lot of unintended consequences goes up and up.”
The idea is pretty straightforward — install solar panels that can float on the surface of reservoirs, canals, lakes, and the like — but this year it really began to pick up steam. There are myriad benefits to this solution: eliminating land use controversies, built-in temperature regulation (water keeps the panels cool, thus increasing their efficiency), and reducing evaporation from the water bodies. A paper published in Nature this June found that floating solar could meet, on average, 16% of countries’ total energy needs.
And countries big and small are taking note. While there aren’t a lot of specialized floating solar startups seeking VC funding, governments as well as traditional solar manufacturers and project developers are stepping up. The U.S. Department of the Interior announced in April that it’s investing $19 million to install panels over irrigation canals in California, Oregon, and Utah. Zimbabwe recently secured $250 million from the African Export-Import Bank to install floating solar on the world’s largest man-made lake, while China turned on the largest offshore solar farm in the world in November. Taiwan and India have also already deployed large installations, and have plans for more.
I spoke with the lead author of the Nature paper, Dr. Iestyn Woolway of the UK-based Bangor University, way back in June about floating solar’s decarbonization potential. Even he was “quite surprised with the number of countries that could meet a sizable fraction of the energy demands by [floating photovoltaics],” he told me. His modeling shows that Bolivia, for example, could meet about 80% of its energy demand with floating solar, while Ethiopia could meet 100% of its demand, with extra energy to spare.
The next step, he said, is gaining a deeper understanding of the ecological impacts of this technology. “Even if you do cover a water body by something small, like 10%, we don’t know what knock-on effect that would have,” he said.
Soils are some of the world’s most effective carbon sinks, and sustainable farming techniques can enhance soil’s natural carbon sequestration potential. Thus, soil carbon sequestration plays at the intersection of the fuzzy and buzzy regenerative agriculture space and the increasingly scientifically rigorous carbon dioxide removal sector, with its carbon crediting schemes and verification requirements. One investor I spoke with, Amy Francetic of Buoyant Ventures, is eager to find and back a company that can merge these two worlds. “If you could figure out how to sink carbon in a farm and do that in a way that is easy to measure and validate, we don’t have a good solution for that today,” she told me.
As of now, Francetic said, startups are going about this problem by doing labor intensive and expensive soil sampling and “marrying that with geospatial data to try to measure what climate benefits there are of changing certain agricultural practices, doing different row crops, changing the crop rotation, the amount of inputs you put into the crops.” Many have pitched Buoyant on their methodologies for bridging satellite data with soil sampling data, but thus far she’s passed. “None of them have, I think, met the standard of reliability that the financial industry would back from a carbon credit standpoint,” she explained. “That might be one of these holy grail things. If somebody could really do that, it could be very impactful.”
I’ll be honest, before this year I didn’t know what parametric insurance was. But since it came up time and again in conversations with investors about extreme weather and the necessity of climate resilience and adaptation measures, I decided to dig in. Here’s what parametric insurance is: an insurance product that automatically provides rapid payouts to customers in the case of natural disasters or weather events, assuming these events exceed a predefined limit. For example, a policyholder might be paid if the rainfall, wind speed, or temperature of a particular weather event is above or below a certain threshold, with the amount tied to how much the measurement deviates from the limit, not the damages incurred.
With extreme weather events getting more frequent and more intense due to climate change, this has given rise to a crop of startups that can leverage sensors, satellites, and artificial intelligence to quickly and accurately measure the extent of these events, thus enabling parametric insurance for a host of new customers. To name a few companies that have taken advantage: There’s Floodbase and FloodFlash (both focusing on flood insurance, naturally), which have each raised over $10 million in Series A financing; FloodFlash made a series of rapid payouts this year following storms in the UK, getting policyholders their money in as little as 10 hours after the water level exceeded its threshold. There’s Arbol, which protects against a host of weather events from drought to heat waves and cold snaps, and raised a $40 million Series B round this year. And there’s Pula, which helps provide parametric insurance to small-holder farmers in emerging markets, and raised a $20 million Series B round this year.
“This is affecting everybody,” Clea Kolster of Lowercarbon Capital, which led Floodbase’s Series A round, told me when we met at this year’s San Francisco Climate Week. “So how do you actually make sure that people have coverage for it and can continue to have as close to livable lives as possible, even when they’re subject to more frequent extreme weather events?” Investors know the storms are going to keep coming, so this category of adaptation tech is only set to grow.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
According to a new analysis shared exclusively with Heatmap, coal’s equipment-related outage rate is about twice as high as wind’s.
The Trump administration wants “beautiful clean coal” to return to its place of pride on the electric grid because, it says, wind and solar are just too unreliable. “If we want to keep the lights on and prevent blackouts from happening, then we need to keep our coal plants running. Affordable, reliable and secure energy sources are common sense,” Chris Wright said on X in July, in what has become a steady drumbeat from the administration that has sought to subsidize coal and put a regulatory straitjacket around solar and (especially) wind.
This has meant real money spent in support of existing coal plants. The administration’s emergency order to keep Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant open (“to secure grid reliability”), for example, has cost ratepayers served by Michigan utility Consumers Energy some $80 million all on its own.
But … how reliable is coal, actually? According to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund of data from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a nonprofit that oversees reliability standards for the grid, coal has the highest “equipment-related outage rate” — essentially, the percentage of time a generator isn’t working because of some kind of mechanical or other issue related to its physical structure — among coal, hydropower, natural gas, nuclear, and wind. Coal’s outage rate was over 12%. Wind’s was about 6.6%.
“When EDF’s team isolated just equipment-related outages, wind energy proved far more reliable than coal, which had the highest outage rate of any source NERC tracks,” EDF told me in an emailed statement.
Coal’s reliability has, in fact, been decreasing, Oliver Chapman, a research analyst at EDF, told me.
NERC has attributed this falling reliability to the changing role of coal in the energy system. Reliability “negatively correlates most strongly to capacity factor,” or how often the plant is running compared to its peak capacity. The data also “aligns with industry statements indicating that reduced investment in maintenance and abnormal cycling that are being adopted primarily in response to rapid changes in the resource mix are negatively impacting baseload coal unit performance.” In other words, coal is struggling to keep up with its changing role in the energy system. That’s due not just to the growth of solar and wind energy, which are inherently (but predictably) variable, but also to natural gas’s increasing prominence on the grid.
“When coal plants are having to be a bit more varied in their generation, we're seeing that wear and tear of those plants is increasing,” Chapman said. “The assumption is that that's only going to go up in future years.”
The issue for any plan to revitalize the coal industry, Chapman told me, is that the forces driving coal into this secondary role — namely the economics of running aging plants compared to natural gas and renewables — do not seem likely to reverse themselves any time soon.
Coal has been “sort of continuously pushed a bit more to the sidelines by renewables and natural gas being cheaper sources for utilities to generate their power. This increased marginalization is going to continue to lead to greater wear and tear on these plants,” Chapman said.
But with electricity demand increasing across the country, coal is being forced into a role that it might not be able to easily — or affordably — play, all while leading to more emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, mercury, and, of course, carbon dioxide.
The coal system has been beset by a number of high-profile outages recently, including at the largest new coal plant in the country, Sandy Creek in Texas, which could be offline until early 2027, according to the Texas energy market ERCOT and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
In at least one case, coal’s reliability issues were cited as a reason to keep another coal generating unit open past its planned retirement date.
Last month, Colorado Representative Will Hurd wrote a letter to the Department of Energy asking for emergency action to keep Unit 2 of the Comanche coal plant in Pueblo, Colorado open past its scheduled retirement at the end of his year. Hurd cited “mechanical and regulatory constraints” for the larger Unit 3 as a justification for keeping Unit 2 open, to fill in the generation gap left by the larger unit. In a filing by Xcel and several Colorado state energy officials also requesting delaying the retirement of Unit 2, they disclosed that the larger Unit 3 “experienced an unplanned outage and is offline through at least June 2026.”
Reliability issues aside, high electricity demand may turn into short-term profits at all levels of the coal industry, from the miners to the power plants.
At the same time the Trump administration is pushing coal plants to stay open past their scheduled retirement, the Energy Information Administration is forecasting that natural gas prices will continue to rise, which could lead to increased use of coal for electricity generation. The EIA forecasts that the 2025 average price of natural gas for power plants will rise 37% from 2024 levels.
Analysts at S&P Global Commodity Insights project “a continued rebound in thermal coal consumption throughout 2026 as thermal coal prices remain competitive with short-term natural gas prices encouraging gas-to-coal switching,” S&P coal analyst Wendy Schallom told me in an email.
“Stronger power demand, rising natural gas prices, delayed coal retirements, stockpiles trending lower, and strong thermal coal exports are vital to U.S. coal revival in 2025 and 2026.”
And we’re all going to be paying the price.
Rural Marylanders have asked for the president’s help to oppose the data center-related development — but so far they haven’t gotten it.
A transmission line in Maryland is pitting rural conservatives against Big Tech in a way that highlights the growing political sensitivities of the data center backlash. Opponents of the project want President Trump to intervene, but they’re worried he’ll ignore them — or even side with the data center developers.
The Piedmont Reliability Project would connect the Peach Bottom nuclear plant in southern Pennsylvania to electricity customers in northern Virginia, i.e.data centers, most likely. To get from A to B, the power line would have to criss-cross agricultural lands between Baltimore, Maryland and the Washington D.C. area.
As we chronicle time and time again in The Fight, residents in farming communities are fighting back aggressively – protesting, petitioning, suing and yelling loudly. Things have gotten so tense that some are refusing to let representatives for Piedmont’s developer, PSEG, onto their properties, and a court battle is currently underway over giving the company federal marshal protection amid threats from landowners.
Exacerbating the situation is a quirk we don’t often deal with in The Fight. Unlike energy generation projects, which are usually subject to local review, transmission sits entirely under the purview of Maryland’s Public Service Commission, a five-member board consisting entirely of Democrats appointed by current Governor Wes Moore – a rumored candidate for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. It’s going to be months before the PSC formally considers the Piedmont project, and it likely won’t issue a decision until 2027 – a date convenient for Moore, as it’s right after he’s up for re-election. Moore last month expressed “concerns” about the project’s development process, but has brushed aside calls to take a personal position on whether it should ultimately be built.
Enter a potential Trump card that could force Moore’s hand. In early October, commissioners and state legislators representing Carroll County – one of the farm-heavy counties in Piedmont’s path – sent Trump a letter requesting that he intervene in the case before the commission. The letter followed previous examples of Trump coming in to kill planned projects, including the Grain Belt Express transmission line and a Tennessee Valley Authority gas plant in Tennessee that was relocated after lobbying from a country rock musician.
One of the letter’s lead signatories was Kenneth Kiler, president of the Carroll County Board of Commissioners, who told me this lobbying effort will soon expand beyond Trump to the Agriculture and Energy Departments. He’s hoping regulators weigh in before PJM, the regional grid operator overseeing Mid-Atlantic states. “We’re hoping they go to PJM and say, ‘You’re supposed to be managing the grid, and if you were properly managing the grid you wouldn’t need to build a transmission line through a state you’re not giving power to.’”
Part of the reason why these efforts are expanding, though, is that it’s been more than a month since they sent their letter, and they’ve heard nothing but radio silence from the White House.
“My worry is that I think President Trump likes and sees the need for data centers. They take a lot of water and a lot of electric [power],” Kiler, a Republican, told me in an interview. “He’s conservative, he values property rights, but I’m not sure that he’s not wanting data centers so badly that he feels this request is justified.”
Kiler told me the plan to kill the transmission line centers hinges on delaying development long enough that interest rates, inflation and rising demand for electricity make it too painful and inconvenient to build it through his resentful community. It’s easy to believe the federal government flexing its muscle here would help with that, either by drawing out the decision-making or employing some other as yet unforeseen stall tactic. “That’s why we’re doing this second letter to the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy asking them for help. I think they may be more sympathetic than the president,” Kiler said.
At the moment, Kiler thinks the odds of Piedmont’s construction come down to a coin flip – 50-50. “They’re running straight through us for data centers. We want this project stopped, and we’ll fight as well as we can, but it just seems like ultimately they’re going to do it,” he confessed to me.
Thus is the predicament of the rural Marylander. On the one hand, Kiler’s situation represents a great opportunity for a GOP president to come in and stand with his base against a would-be presidential candidate. On the other, data center development and artificial intelligence represent one of the president’s few economic bright spots, and he has dedicated copious policy attention to expanding growth in this precise avenue of the tech sector. It’s hard to imagine something less “energy dominance” than killing a transmission line.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Plus more of the week’s most important fights around renewable energy.
1. Wayne County, Nebraska – The Trump administration fined Orsted during the government shutdown for allegedly killing bald eagles at two of its wind projects, the first indications of financial penalties for energy companies under Trump’s wind industry crackdown.
2. Ocean County, New Jersey – Speaking of wind, I broke news earlier this week that one of the nation’s largest renewable energy projects is now deceased: the Leading Light offshore wind project.
3. Dane County, Wisconsin – The fight over a ginormous data center development out here is turning into perhaps one of the nation’s most important local conflicts over AI and land use.
4. Hardeman County, Texas – It’s not all bad news today for renewable energy – because it never really is.