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:

Everything has a cooler name when you’re on a boat. A kitchen becomes a galley. You’re not parked, you’re at berth. There is even a fun, old-timey name for cutting emissions when you’re at port by plugging into the local power grid: cold ironing.
Right now, lots of smart people are working to lower ship emissions, and for good reason: Container ships cart between 80% and 90% of global trade, yet more than 95% of them run on petroleum products (mainly an extremely dirty sludge called bunker fuel). By one estimate, a single large ship can emit as much CO2 as 70,000 cars, as much nitrogen oxide as 2 million cars, and as much fine dust and carcinogenic particles as 2.5 million cars. By another estimate, shipping pollution is responsible for 60,000 premature deaths per year. Though fully electrifying container ships remains distant and challenging for a number of reasons (albeit not for lack of trying), alternate fuel sources ranging from liquid natural gas to ammonia to hydrogen to nuclear propulsion to that oldie but goodie, wind, are all on the table.
Until that gets sorted out, though, container ships need to keep doing what they’re doing, which is moving stuff (we can all remember what happens when they don’t!). And that means the ships need to berth at ports to transfer their cargo, idling all the while with their auxiliary engines so the crew onboard has basic power for things like emergency equipment, lights, plumbing, temperature controls, and refrigeration. This is bad for all the same reasons a car idling for days on end would be bad if that car used the energy of a small town. It’s also bad for another reason that usually only gets mentioned in passing: Idling container ships are really, really loud.
The ‘Rio de Janeiro’ ship auxiliary generator noise at 30mwww.youtube.com
When you hear about container ships being loud, it’s usually in the context of distressing whales. That’s because container ships are also noisy when they’re at sea, and most marine life depends on sound and sonar that gets drowned out by human activity. But much of the sound a ship at sea makes comes from its propellors, a design issue that will require solutions regardless of what kind of energy source is powering the ship.
At berth, though, container ships continue to make a racket. “During port stay, [the diesel generator] will often be the most predominant source of noise radiating from the ship to the surroundings,” a 2010 paper on noise pollution by the Danish Ministry of the Environment found. According to a report by Signol, a U.K.-based software company that markets its product as a potential solution for inefficient idling, “in close proximity to auxiliary engines, noise levels can reach 80-120 decibels — in comparison, a chainsaw averages 110 decibels!”
It’s a given that ports are loud: Idling ship engines join a cacophony of cranes, trucks, heavy machinery, trains, horns, and the like. Historically, this was fine, since ports were usually built away from residential areas, on land zoned for industry. But as cities grow more crowded, former industrial areas are becoming residential; some 39 million Americans lived near ports according to a 2016 EPA estimate, many of them people of color. “Complaints about noise from seagoing ships at berth are increasingly becoming an environmental issue ... mainly due to the rising population in residential areas around ports, the increase in the number of residential areas being built closer to the port itself, and changing expectations from people living in these residential areas,” explained the Noise Exploration Program To Understand Noise Emitted by Seagoing ships (NEPTUNES), a now-defunct collaboration between 11 ports in Europe, Australia, and Canada.
And whales aren’t the only mammals that hate ship noise. “Research on the effects of low-frequency noise has … shown that this is a stressor that can lead to headaches, dizziness, insomnia, depression, loss of concentration, and distortion of heart rhythm” in humans, the NEPTUNES report added.
Beyond health concerns, the noise is also just ... really annoying. In 2019, residents of Port Otago, New Zealand, were terrorized by what sounded like “a V8 running in your driveway” but were in fact 10-year-old container ships idling out in the harbor.
In Vancouver, in 2022, residents offered a similar simile for their acoustic tormentors: “It’s like having a garbage truck revving at the bottom of your driveway all day long,” one local told Vancouver Is Awesome.
When a supply-chain-related backlog forced container ships to idle off Seattle in 2021, an afflicted islander complained, “We’re getting the noise, the throbbing noise at night.”
Even in the best of circumstances, container ship noise is a persistent nuisance; some have even attributed a worldwide phenomenon called “the hum” to the racket made by container ship generators.
Everyone hates how container ships sound.www.youtube.com
Addressing the problem of ship noise, though, is tricky. There isn’t an international standard for how loud ships can be, and the most NEPTUNES was ultimately able to do was produce a list of unenforceable “best practices.” Many of the recommendations would also be tricky to implement on pre-existing vessels. While boats can be built to be quieter from the get-go, container ships are in circulation for decades; it might be 20 years or more before quiet fleets take over.
Ports also don’t want to rock the boat: “A strict noise policy is ... seen as a competitive disadvantage,” noted a 2013 study by Sweden’s Transport Research Institute (TRI), noting that shipowners must obey a long list of mandatory environmental regulations that they’re loathe to follow voluntary ones.
Thankfully for anyone who’s ever had to listen to the monotonous chuckling of a ship generator, two birds can be killed with one stone. Remember cold ironing? The term harkens back to the age of coal-fired ship engines: At port, the fires didn’t need to be fed, and the ship’s iron engines were allowed to go cold. Today, cold ironing refers to when a ship turns off all its engines at berth — including the smaller auxiliary ones belching sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and CO2 over port cities — and instead plugs into onshore power (or “OSP,” in the industry lingo). “The overall emitted sound ... of a ship at berth could be reduced by up to 5 to 10 decibels by replacing the use of auxiliary engine(s) with external power suppliers,” NEPTUNES found.
In the EPA’s sexily titled “Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports — 2022 Update,” the agency reported that there are currently 10 American ports that offer OSP for container and cruise ships, including the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Brooklyn (future upgrades are planned for Miami and Galveston). By all accounts, it’s working on both the environmental and the noise pollution fronts. “Port representatives report that neighbors notice when the shore power system is non-operational and vessels are emitting at-berth, compared to times when vessels are plugged in with no emissions coming from the vessel stacks and engine noise is reduced,” the EPA wrote. Unsurprisingly, “The community is strongly in support of the shore power system at the port.”
Cold ironing doesn’t reduce all port noise, of course; you can still expect the clanging of dropped containers, the vibration of ships, and the rumble of trucks and trains. There are other considerations, too: On-shore power generation needs to be low-emission, otherwise you’re just transferring pollution from the ship to the power plant. Still, the EPA is optimistic, noting that almost anything is better than ship engine emissions and that the situation will only improve as renewables roll out in force.
The possibilities only get more exciting from there. Stillstrom, a subsidiary of the Danish shipping conglomerate Maersk, is working on creating “charging buoys” that can power idling ships before they dock via underwater cables connected to offshore wind farms or onshore renewable power sources. OSP availability is rapidly expanding in the meantime. The Port of Seattle aims to install shore power at all of its major cruise and container berths by 2030. Starting this year, California will require 90% of vessels berthing at state-regulated ports to either use shore power or an approved emissions-reducing alternative. Abroad, the Port of Rotterdam is also working toward 90% shore power usage by 2030, and other European ports are pursuing OSP, too.
The impacts will be huge. The California Air Resources Board, for example, boasts its regulations will result in a 90% reduction in pollution from ships at port — and a 55% reduction in potential cancer risk.
That is, of course, great and worthy of pursuing in and of itself. “People will live longer, healthier lives” is a pretty unbeatable top line. But let’s not forget there are other laudable upsides to plugging in container ships — like living those longer lives in blessed peace and quiet.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Where the company is trying to restart its electric car program from scratch
Two thousand miles from Detroit, just across the road from the runways of Long Beach Airport, the future of Ford is taking shape. What that shape is, however, the company isn’t quite ready to share yet.
Last week, the automaker invited some members of the car press inside the secret compound where Ford is developing its next battery-powered vehicle, an affordable midsize pickup truck due out next year. Although the actual appearance of that truck is a closely guarded secret, as is just about everything else about it, Ford wanted to show off its launchpad, the Electric Vehicle Development Center. The research and development campus, with its two white warehouses glimmering in the Southern California sun, is about more than one car. Inside, teams of engineers, coders, and designers are trying to reinvent how Ford makes vehicles in the hopes of turning around its fortunes in the electric era. As the company at large has canceled EV models and infrastructure and taken on billions of dollars in losses to transition some of its EV assets back to combustion, EVDC represents its one big chance to find a way forward in electric cars.
Ford knows it’s at an inflection point. The company’s first forays into making mainstream electric cars, such as the Mustang Mach-E and Ford F-150 Lightning, were quality vehicles that beat many established automotive rivals into the space. But Ford struggled to keep costs down and wound up losing billions as it tried to scale up an electric car business.
Something had to change. Last year, CEO Jim Farley said Ford would restart its electrification efforts through a skunkworks team, a small unit that would rethink how it builds EVs. “They're from all over the place,” Alan Clarke, the executive director of advanced EV development, said of the skunkworkers during our visit last week. “Some of them are from startup EV, some of them are from established EV. Many come from consumer electronics, startup aerospace companies, and you'll meet many of them today, but there's also many that have come from Ford. Many of them have waited decades for a moonshot like this.”
The group studied EV brands like Tesla and Rivian that simplified their electrical and computing architectures to strip miles of expensive wiring from their vehicles. They worked fast and leaned in a way meant to echo Silicon Valley more than Motor City. The result is the Universal EV platform that will underlie not only next year’s new truck, promised to start in the $30,000s, but also a variety of vehicles to come, creating manufacturing savings that will hopefully allow Ford to sell more affordable electric cars.
Even the California locale is no accident. It’s meant to call back to a time when the brand was the innovator, not the establishment , with the hope that the secret sauce of the past can propel Ford back into a race dominated by startups – and now by rivals like GM and Hyundai that beat Ford to the punch with better EV platforms. The facility itself is already 100 years old, built to expand production of the Ford Model A in the 1920s and 30s.
Inside, EVDC represents a full embrace of the frictionless workplace: no corner offices, just open rows of computers amid a makeshift garage brimming with 3D printers, spools of wiring, and racks of gear. Coders are a short stroll from the visual designers tinkering with clay models. Electrical engineers are around the corner from the “lab car,” a rectangular steel frame meant to suggest the general shape of a vehicle, with a complete mockup of the future car’s electrical system strung along the skeleton so that workers can test any part of it. This is about process; the closest thing to the shape of a car is a wooden one with test car seats inside, set up in the fabrication shop. The shepherds of our tour met any question about the specifics of the forthcoming truck with a quick you’ll find out next year, though a prototype dressed up in that zebra camouflage just happened to sneak by as we moved between building.
The point of all this is to innovate at speed, without the barriers inherent in the old-fashioned hierarchical struggle that governs an established business. Any idea that can make a car a little bit better, or cheaper, is welcome. It can come from something as simple as fabric on the seats. In the seating lab, Scott Anderson is using new algorithms to lay out the necessary shapes to be cut from a sheet of fabric with the least possible waste.
The more pressing concerns for an electric car lie in the battery, though, since that unit still makes up about 40% of the cost of an EV. On Ford’s campus, a chamber is coming together that will test cells under just about any climatic conditions, from about -40 degrees Fahrenheit to 150 degrees. Inside a thermal lab dedicated to battery development, engineers can build and test battery cells in the same location. As with every department at EVDC, the point is to be able to prototype, test, and move on to the next iteration within a couple of weeks rather than the months it might have taken before.
The lessons that emerge from Long Beach are meant to spread throughout the Ford ecosystem. For example, EVDC researchers are working on ways to build EVs from three modules that can be assembled separately and come together toward the end of the process. It’s a plan that’s meant to double as a life improvement for workers at the plant in Louisville, Kentucky, that will build Ford’s EV pickup truck — they can, for example, work on brake pedals while standing up rather than sitting awkwardly in the driver’s seat and reaching down to the footwell.
That is the eternal skunkworks challenge. It’s not enough to establish a small team charged to move fast and break things without the suits there to say no. Their innovations must really take root. Ford, at least, seems to understand the urgency at the very top. Farley, the CEO, has been especially vocal among industry bigwigs about the existential threat of cheap Chinese EVs, which lots of American drivers would buy if they could. EVDC will not magically allow Ford to compete at Chinese’s pricing level. But by restarting its EV program from scratch, Ford’s version of the Apollo program, it could follow a manufacturing path that’s competitive with the likes of Tesla and with the electric offerings of its longtime rivals. Compared to the status quo of losing billions every year on electrification, that would indeed be a giant leap.
Current conditions: Severe thunderstorms are drenching the American South from New Orleans to Virginia Beach • Mount Mayon has forced thousands to evacuate within the Philippines’ Bicol peninsula • Temperatures in Denver are poised to plunge from about 75 degrees Fahrenheit yesterday to 39 degrees today with a chance of snow.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the quasi-governmental watchdog that monitors the health of the power grids that span the United States and Canada, has issued a rare Level 3 warning. The alert, announced Monday, marks only the third time NERC has put out a notice with that degree of severity in its 58-year history. The warning comes on the heels of reports that data centers abruptly went offline in Virginia and Texas, prompting concerns of potential blackouts. “Computational loads, such as data centers, could increase exponentially in the next four years,” NERC said in a draft of the alert, adding that “significant risks” to the power network “need to be addressed through immediate industry action.” Lee Shaver, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told E&E News that NERC’s action was a “big deal.”
The California Energy Commission has issued an administrative investigative subpoena to Golden State Wind seeking documents and information related to the company’s recent deal with the U.S. Department of the Interior to take a payout in exchange for abandoning its offshore wind lease. Last week, the developer announced a deal to scrap its lease in the Morro Bay Wind Energy off the central California coast for $120 million as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to kill off an industry he failed to destroy through regulatory fiat alone. The facility was supposed to be California’s first offshore wind farm, and planned to use floating turbines to account for the steep continental shelf dropoff on the nation’s Pacific Coast. Now the administration’s latest “shady deal” is drawing scrutiny from state regulators. “The Trump Administration is recklessly spending billions of taxpayer dollars on backroom deals that would turn back the clock on innovation,” David Hochschild, the chairman of the California Energy Commission, said in a statement. “Californians deserve immediate answers about the nature of this payout. Taxpayer dollars should be used to build a sustainable energy future, not to pay to make projects disappear.”
Meanwhile, California’s grid operator has switched on a new regional electricity market as part of what E&E News called “a major milestone in the yearslong push to expand energy trading” across the American West. The California Independent System Operator launched its new Extended Day-Ahead Market early Friday morning, allowing California’s investor-owned utilities and the Northwestern giant PacifiCorp, whose coverage area spans two million customers across six states, to trade electricity on the regional market for the first time. “The West is rich with a diverse mix of renewable resources, and this market will capture their potential,” Michael Colvin, director of the California energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “Through better sharing of cheap, clean energy beyond state borders, the market will cut household bills, reduce reliance on expensive, polluting fossil plants and build a grid that's bigger than any single extreme weather event.”
For nearly as long as there have been nuclear power plants, there have been thorium bulls insisting the metal is a better fuel than uranium. In most places, the thorium dream faded long ago as ample new sources of uranium were discovered. But China revived the thorium race in 2023, when its experimental molten salt reactor powered by the metal split atoms for the first time. Now the only serious contender in the entire West looking to commercialize thorium is a Chicago-based company taking an unusual approach. Rather than creating a whole new kind of reactor to run on thorium, Clean Core Thorium Energy has designed fuel assemblies that blend thorium with a special kind of uranium fuel and work in existing reactors without any modifications. Clean Core’s technology only works, at least for now, in pressurized heavy water reactors, which make up the bulk of the fleets in Canada and India, though the U.S. has none in operation. But the key verb there is that: It works. On Tuesday, I can exclusively report for this newsletter, Clean Core plans to announce that its patented fuel completed a high burnup irradiation test at Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor. The fuel burnup represented “more than eight times the typical” output from the traditional uranium fuel used in pressurized heavy water reactors. The latest test “provides meaningful performance data” and demonstrates that Clean Core’s fuel “achieve burnup levels comparable to those seen in PWR fuels while offering improved fuel utilization, enhanced safety characteristics, inherent proliferation resistance, and meaningful reductions in long-lived nuclear spent fuel radioisotopes,” Mehul Shah, Clean Core’s chief executive, told me in a statement. “Our objective has been to introduce thorium into the nuclear fuel cycle in a practical way using existing reactors, and this milestone represents a significant step toward that goal.”
It’s the latest good news for Clean Core. Last month, as I reported for Heatmap, the company inked a deal with the Canadian National Laboratories to manufacture its first commercial fuel assemblies.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
In July 2017, South Carolina abandoned its $9 billion expansion of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, leaving ratepayers holding the bag and utility executives facing prison time for lying about the project’s viability. Now the pair of Westinghouse AP1000s planned at the site are making a comeback. On Monday, Westinghouse-owner Brookfield Asset Management formed a new joint venture with The Nuclear Company, a reactor construction manager, to work together on building more Westinghouse reactors such as the AP1000 or the smaller version, the AP300. V.C. Summer is the likely first project. “Our team was built on the field of Vogtle and on some of the most complex energy projects in the world,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer, said in a statement. “We know what it takes to deliver nuclear. What’s been missing is a model that brings together the people, the capabilities, and the capital to do it at speed and scale. That’s what this partnership creates.” The announcement comes as the Trump administration meets with utility executives to discuss funding deals to build the 10 new large-scale reactors President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Energy to facilitate construction on by 2029, as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer reported. Completing 10 AP1000s would give the U.S. economy a trillion-dollar boost, per a PricewaterhouseCoopers report Westinghouse released in March.
That’s not the only nuclear developer making deals. On Tuesday morning, Blue Energy, another startup focused on serving as a project developer for existing reactor designs, announced a partnership with GE Vernova to work on building the world’s first gas-plus-nuclear plant in Texas. The 2.5-gigawatt project would include GE Vernova’s gas turbines and its BWRX-300 small modular reactors through its joint venture with Hitachi. “Innovative projects like this one will help advance the future of nuclear power and meet the surging demand for electricity,” Scott Strazik, GE Vernova’s chief executive, said in a statement.
Steel, if you’re unfamiliar, is made in two big steps. Traditionally, iron ore is melted down in a coal-fired blast furnace, then forged into steel in a basic oxygen furnace. New plants typically run on something called direct reduced iron, which uses natural gas to turn the ore into iron, then made into steel in an electric arc furnace. The latter process is far cleaner. It can even be green, if the natural gas is swapped for green hydrogen and the electric arc furnace is powered by renewables or nuclear reactors. Nearly 40% of all global clean steel investments to date are hydrogen-powered DRI facilities. That’s according to new data from the Rhodium Group, which released its latest estimates Tuesday. Another 57% of investments are gas-powered DRI plants. While Europe has so far dominated investment into hydrogen DRI, “the region will likely see relatively little demand growth for iron over the coming decades,” the report found. In the fastest growing regions, such as India, Africa, and South America, “most new demand is being met with traditional, fossil-based ironmaking technologies, which risks locking in emissions for decades.” The consultancy’s modeling shows that clean steel supply capacity is on track to exceed demand by between 1.8 and 4.3 times by 2030, “risking a collapse of the nascent industry, where existing projects cannot find buyers and scale production to drive down costs.”
It may be time for a new New Orleans. The city has reached a “point of no return” that will see it surrounded by ocean within decades as climate change worsens. That’s the conclusion of a new paper in the journal Nature Sustainability. “In paleo-climate terms, New Orleans is gone; the question is how long it has,” Jesse Keenan, an expert in climate adaptation at Tulane University and one of the paper’s five co-authors, told The Guardian.
A ubiquitous byproduct of the oil and gas industry just got a green competitor.
The chemicals industry, which accounts for about 5% of global emissions, can seem like a black box. Fossil fuel-based feedstocks go in and out pop plastic toys or agricultural fertilizer or laundry detergent. But most of us don’t understand what happens in between. That’s the part of the supply chain where Trillium Renewable Chemicals is focused, as it scales production of bio-based acrylonitrile, a key chemical intermediate used to make products ranging from carbon fiber aircraft components to plastic Lego bricks and rubber medical gloves.
Though you might not have heard of this mouthful of a chemical, acrylonitrile’s production is a major contributor to the embedded emissions of all the products that it goes into, as it’s typically derived from propylene, a byproduct of the oil and gas industry. “When you look at the lifecycle analysis of these products, the thing that jumps off the page is acrylonitrile dominates that lifecycle,” Trillium’s CEO, Corey Tyree, told me. “It is the number one challenge.”
The startup, which spun out of a Department of Energy-funded nonprofit called the Southern Research Institute, just announced a $13 million Series B round led by HS Hyosung Advanced Materials, alongside the completion of the world’s first demonstration plant for bio-based acrylonitrile. Tyree was determined, he told me, to ensure that the work did not remain just another “research project that goes in the research closet.”
He credits much of Trillium’s progress so far to an intense focus on commercialization and the risk-tolerance inherent to a startup. After all, the underlying concept itself isn’t new — a number of companies have experimented with making acrylonitrile from bio-based glycerol, Tryee told me. “But a lot of these tries happen inside of a large company, which is not as tolerant for risk,” he explained. With Trillium’s investors lined up behind the effort, however, “It doesn’t feel to any one person that if we’re wrong, our whole career is going to go up in flames.”
But there have been technical innovations too. Southern Research had to develop a proprietary catalyst and two-step thermochemical process that converts glycerol into an intermediate molecule and then acrylonitrile. Trillium now has an exclusive license to this process. Once produced, the low-carbon acrylonitrile functions as a simple drop-in replacement for the fossil-based version of the molecule; there's nothing at all different about the downstream supply chain.
Now, the startup is focused on commissioning its newly completed demonstration plant in Texas sometime this quarter, followed by initial shipments soon after. This new capital will also help Trillium conduct the engineering design for its first commercial facility, the potential location of which Tyree would not disclose.
Though glycerol is a relatively cost-effective feedstock, Trillium’s product will still command somewhat of a green-premium, though exactly how much this impacts the final cost of the end product depends on a variety of downstream factors. At the least, Tryee said his company ought to undercut existing green acrylonitrile on the market today, which is produced from low-carbon propylene.
Overall, It’s a promising sign that despite a political environment in which talking about climate is out and affordability is in, a company like Trillium — which depends on customers paying a bit more for a cleaner product — can still raise significant new funding. Political winds aside, Tyree said he’s seen sustained customer interest in cleaning up the chemicals supply chain; there just wasn’t a viable solution for this particular piece of it before now.
“It’s really just been people waiting on somebody to figure out a way to make the product,” he said, referring to low-carbon acrylonitrile“ Now that Trillium has done so, the next question is, who will its initial buyers be, and exactly how much more will they prove willing to pay?