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:
What happens when Stanford tackles sustainability.
Backed by a whopping $1.69 billion endowment, Stanford’s Doerr School of Sustainability — its first new school in more than 70 years — opened its doors two years ago, and what else came along with it but a new sustainability-focused accelerator specifically for the Stanford community. Seeking to move research out of the lab and into the real world, the Sustainability Accelerator provides early stage funding and a deep network of university-affiliated support to its grantees.
Now that the accelerator has staffed up, gathered insights from its first funding cohort, and given more structure to what is still a very flexibly organized program, I wanted to know more.
The basic concept sounded very Stanford-y indeed — gobs of money, a hugely valuable network, entrepreneurial vibes out the wazoo. But that’s nothing new. When I was at Stanford as an undergrad over a decade ago, The New Yorker’s Nicholas Thompson, now the CEO of the Atlantic (and a fellow Stanford alumnus), quipped that the school had come to resemble “a giant tech incubator with a football team.” This was in the early days of Snapchat and around the time when over a dozen computer science students dropped out to work on the Venmo-wannabe Clinkle, which went up in smoke soon after. Concerns about the university’s deep ties to Silicon Valley and the preponderance of potentially pointless startups coming out of it coexisted with plaudits poured on alumni founders with started-in-a-garage-now-we’re-here type stories.
I thought it was all a bit much. But now there’s a sustainability accelerator, and man, does that sound like something we could all get behind. So I talked with the accelerator’s faculty director, Yi Cui, and managing director, Jeff Brown, about the accelerator’s goals, what sets it apart from the infinite other funding avenues in Silicon Valley, and how they go about deciding what concepts have the potential for widespread adoption, either in the commercial or the policy space.
Brown himself is a Stanford alum with a deep background as a Silicon Valley engineer and founder — in other words, he can talk the talk as well as he walks the walk. Prior to his current role at the sustainability accelerator, he was founder and CEO of Novvi, which makes plant-based oils for use in the lubricants industry. He told me that one of the primary elements that sets Stanford’s accelerator apart from other incubators or venture capital funds is that it’s not just focused on technical solutions to climate and sustainability problems.
“There’s a lot of challenges beyond technology,” Brown told me. “This is market development, this is frameworks that need to be globally aligned, this is policy that leads to new legislation in a global scenario. And so at the accelerator, we’re thinking about these things at that scale, and working in a very interdisciplinary manner across all those spaces.”
Thirty-one projects were selected to join the accelerator’s initial cohort in the summer of 2022, their teams generally comprised of researchers with deep subject area expertise — mostly professors partnering with other professors, faculty members or postdocs. Topics spanned the gamut from highly technical ideas like electrifying steam cracking reactors for industrial chemical production to policy projects such as reforming California’s approach to wildfire management or partnering with stakeholders to support the energy transition in Southeast Asia.
“We are interested in water, food. We are interested in climate adaptation,” Cui, a Stanford professor in both the Materials Science & Engineering department as well as the Energy Science & Engineering Department, told me. “We are also interested in new approaches that could be highly scalable for sustainability — for example, synthetic biology.” He also cited grid decarbonization and industrial decarbonization as focus areas.
And yet Brown also told me it’s vital that all teams, even policy-focused ones, demonstrate that they have potential backers outside the Stanford bubble. For legislative solutions, “you have to go out into the community and find that people agree and are willing to adopt that and move forward with you.” And for technical solutions, Brown said, “you've got to show that customers are willing to receive it, and there are other funding sources that buy into that, as you're going to need increasing capital to scale.”
For the accelerator’s first cohort, projects were organized into one of three categories based on their level of maturity — planning, mid-range, and large-scale, which dictated the amount of funding they were eligible to receive. Brown didn’t want to disclose how much money Stanford is pouring into these projects (although he did say they have a “large budget” to work with) but a 2022 request for proposals indicates that Level 1 projects could secure up to $100,000, Level 2 up to $400,000, and Level 3 up to $1,000,000. It also noted that project teams can specify their own timelines, ranging from three months up to a year, with the option for follow-on funding based on a project’s progress.
Going forward, cohorts will be organized around particular climate themes, a.k.a. “flagship destinations,” which will include key metrics for scalability and speed. The first focus area for the 2024 group is greenhouse gas removal, for which 16 projects were chosen based on their potential to remove a gigaton (that’s a billion tons, folks) of greenhouse gas from the atmosphere by 2050, either by technical or policy means. Examples include transforming rocks and mining waste into efficient CO2 sponges, and developing a monitoring, reporting, and verification framework for ocean-based carbon removal.
Brown emphasized the importance of MRV particularly, the Achilles’ heel of many well-intentioned carbon removal efforts. Reforestation, for example, “is not a technology problem,” he told me. “It's a framework problem around the MRV challenge, and getting the legislation in place, and getting community alignment around the world on how to execute this properly.”
Some in the Stanford community worry, however, that the choice of greenhouse gas removal as a focus area was influenced by the university’s fossil fuel connections, as big oil and gas companies often tout carbon capture as a solution that would allow them to continue producing fossil fuels. The Doerr School does accept research funding from fossil fuel companies, and three years ago, Stanford’s Precourt Institute for Energy collaborated with Shell, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies to host a workshop on carbon management. The Doerr School itself cited the meeting as one of two events that led to the focus on greenhouse gas removal.
Cui, though, has downplayed the meeting’s influence on the accelerator. In an interview with the Stanford Daily, he said that “greenhouse gas removal has always been incredibly important to everybody. It’s not because of the workshop.” It’s one of a few key climate solutions he always brings up in his talks, he added. “So it wasn’t hard at all to get to the point and say this should be the first flagship destination.”
In an effort to build the right internal partnerships, the accelerator is launching a postdoc fellowship program, in which entrepreneurial fellows will team up with faculty members to work on projects that align with flagship destinations. The inaugural class should be announced by the end of July. Cui told me the accelerator staff is also contemplating an entrepreneur-in-residence type of program and finding ways to deepen connections with the Stanford Graduate School of Business, which has already partnered with the Doerr School for its ecopreneurship programs.
The point, of course, is to leverage the full weight of the Stanford network, giving project teams access to the entrepreneurial expertise of Silicon Valley as well as the interdisciplinary skillset among the university’s different schools and departments. It’s a much higher-touch experience than teams would get at other incubators or accelerators, Cui told me.
“We actually build an ecosystem,” he explained. “We provide coaching if it [a project] needs coaching. If it needs outside partners and connections, we build that in, we help the team to do that. And if the team doesn't have an entrepreneur type of person, we might hire a person to work with the team.”
And given the university’s reputation as, well, a tech incubator with a (now bad, I hear) football team, Cui stressed that there’s a surprising amount of promising research that never sees the light of day. “There are many technologies, many solutions actually developed in Stanford faculty’s lab — they don't come out, you're not even aware of them,” he told me. But their potential in the sustainability space could be huge, Cui said. “The accelerator’s function is super important to further grow and amplify the entrepreneurial spirit on Stanford campus, and also orient the faculty into working on scalable ideas.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Climate advocates have never met a solution they couldn’t argue about.
The end of 2024 marks the end of four of the busiest years the climate and clean energy community has seen to date. I think it's safe to say the energy transition is in full swing (despite certain opinions to the contrary), even if it's not yet on a glide path to a future that would avoid devastating climate impacts.
But with progress comes a new kind of conflict: infighting. Which climate solutions are the best climate solutions? How can we implement them the right way? When should other priorities, like affordability and national security, come first, if they should at all? Are those trade-offs even real? Or are they fossil fuel propaganda?
In a fantastic piece for Heatmap last year, researcher Joshua Lappen drew attention to this increasingly combative undercurrent in the climate coalition, inflamed by the debate over whether a compromise on permitting reform would be better for the climate in the long run than no reform at all. That fight — along with the related question of whether conservationists are slowing climate action — continued into 2024. But it wasn’t the only thing climate advocates fought about. Here are four debates that dominated the discourse this year that I think will continue into 2025.
Biden ignited a firestorm of controversy in January when he paused approvals of new liquefied natural gas export terminals until the Department of Energy could re-evaluate LNG’s potential economic and environmental impacts. The move followed protests from environmental groups that had named these facilities their number one climate bogeyman, arguing that new terminals would, as Bill McKibben put it, “install our reliance on fossil fuels for decades to come.”
What followed was much back and forth about whether growing U.S. LNG exports would help or hurt efforts to stop climate change. To be sure, producing and burning natural gas releases planet-warming emissions. But past government and academic studies have found that exporting U.S. natural gas could result in lower global emissions overall by helping other countries replace dirtier fuels such as coal or natural gas from Russia, where the industry has much higher methane emissions. Environmentalists pushed back on that narrative, citing a study by Robert Howarth, a Cornell scientist, which found that producing and transporting LNG could be worse for the climate than coal. Critics then pounced on Howarth's study, accusing him of using flawed assumptions about upstream methane emissions, LNG tanker size, and shipping route distances.
Ultimately, calculating the emissions impact of increased LNG exports requires making a lot of assumptions. How can we know, for example, whether creating a cheap supply of natural gas will displace coal or deter adoption of renewables? As Arvind Ravikumar, an expert in energy emissions modeling, told my colleague Matthew Zeitlin, “There’s no right answer. It depends on who buys, what time frame, which country, and how are they using LNG.”
A week before Christmas, the Biden administration finally put out its long-awaited study. It modeled a number of different scenarios, but found that approving additional LNG exports beyond what’s already in the pipeline would likely produce at least a small increase in emissions by 2050 in all of them. The report also found that demand from U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere would be met by projects that have already been approved, making additional plants “neither sustainable nor advisable,” as Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm wrote.
The natural gas industry and its supporters were quick to question the results, and they’re about to have a much more sympathetic ear in the Trump administration. But the report gives activists a considerable weapon to use in future lawsuits if Trump tries to put LNG approvals on the fast track.
I checked my phone after dinner one evening in August to find the members of climate X (formerly known as climate Twitter) suddenly at each other's throats over a provocative essay published in Jacobin titled “Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn.” Written by the environmental sociologist Holly Buck, the essay argues that too much focus on the oil and gas industry’s disinformation campaigns risks dismissing or overlooking legitimate concerns people have about the energy transition. “Fighting disinformation becomes a cheap hack for the hard work of listening to people and learning from them,” wrote Buck. “We have to put resources into a different sort of public engagement with climate change, one that sees publics as competent and nuanced rather than as susceptible marks for memes.”
The message struck a nerve. While many praised the essay, a number of prominent climate activists and journalists with large online followings attacked it, defending the urgency of combating disinformation and accusing Buck of setting up a false dichotomy between this work and public engagement. Aaron Regunberg, a former Rhode Island state representative and lawyer for the nonprofit Public Citizen, wrote a response in Jacobin charging Buck with “arguing with a straw man” and not understanding how insidious the oil industry’s disinformation strategies are.
Buck tried to clarify her view in a followup piece, asserting that she was not denying that disinformation was a “serious obstacle to climate action,” but rather that the act of “fighting disinformation” won’t solve what she sees as underlying problems working against the energy transition: the absence of an engagement apparatus that helps regular people understand their options, and a media ecosystem that “profits from our hate and division.”
What’s clear moving forward is that with a clean energy opponent entering the White House and a mega-billionaire who, with X, literally owns a chunk of the media ecosystem standing by his side, both disinformation and the framework that supports it will stay in the spotlight.
After remaining basically flat for two decades, U.S. electricity demand is set to grow by an average of 3% per year over the next five years, according to the latest forecast from the energy policy consulting firm Grid Strategies. Domestic manufacturing will drive some of the demand, it predicts, but the majority will come from the buildout of data centers, “supercharged” by the rise of artificial intelligence.
On one hand, many of the companies building data centers have ambitious clean energy goals. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and others have signed landmark deals with advanced nuclear and geothermal power companies, helping to get first-of-a-kind deployments of these technologies financed. If those projects are successful, they could pave the way for cheaper, cleaner, 24/7 power for the rest of us.
But energy-hungry AI is already causing those tech giants to fall behind on their targets and driving major investments in fossil fuel infrastructure. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin has chronicled how electricity demand growth is making it harder to close natural gas and coal plants . In the states that data centers are flocking to, such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Texas, utilities are revising their integrated resource plans to increase the amount of natural gas generation they expect to deliver. Exxon and Chevron are gearing up to build natural gas generation “behind the meter,” i.e. serving data centers directly, so they can meet demand more quickly than if they had to hook up to the grid. The gas pipeline company Williams is also planning a Southeast expansion to serve data center demand. Energy equipment manufacturer GE Vernova is seeing orders for natural gas turbines skyrocket.
There are layers to this debate. Should policymakers require hyperscalers to bring online new sources of clean energy to power their data centers, or will that prove counterproductive and “dampen investment in new industries” — a trade-off familiar to anyone following the back-and-forth over clean hydrogen? And is it possible that all the fuss about data center demand is overblown? Is there even a business case for AI that supports this buildout?
The incoming Trump administration has promised to “unleash U.S. energy dominance” and “make America the AI capital of the world,” so it’s likely this will continue to be one of the top questions for climate hawks for the foreseeable future.
The debate over the state of electric vehicle sales didn’t start in 2024, but headlines this year continued to sow confusion over whether or not EVs are catching on in the way climate advocates — and carmakers — hoped.
Each of the big three automakers, as well as most of the remaining companies serving North America, revised down their EV production plans this year, citing a waning market. In July, General Motors CEO Mary Barra said the company wasn’t going to hit its goal of producing a million EVs per year in North America by 2025. “We’re seeing a little bit of a slowdown here,” she said on CNBC. “The market just isn’t developing. But we will get there.” Ford cancelled plans to produce an electric three-row SUV, delayed its release of an electric medium-sized pickup truck until 2027, and paused production of the F-150 Lightning, and has decided to shift its near-term focus to selling hybrids.
Among non-U.S. automakers, Stellantis delayed the release of a new EV Ram pickup truck and will put out a hybrid version instead. Volkswagen delayed the North America release of an electric sedan. Several luxury automakers, including Aston Martin and Bentley, delayed the release of their first EVs until 2027. Mercedes-Benz once strived to have EVs make up 50% of its sales in 2025 — now it’s trying to hit that mark in 2030. Tesla sales also slowed significantly in the first half of the year. CEO Elon Musk cancelled plans to build a new low-cost EV.
But while sales numbers may not have met individual automakers’ expectations, overall sales continued to grow. “For every sign of an EV slowdown, another suggests an adolescent industry on the verge of its next growth spurt,” Bloomberg reported mid-way through the year. During the third quarter, GM saw record EV sales. Honda’s debut EV, the Prologue, jumped up the charts to become one of the top-selling offerings on the market. After looking at third quarter numbers, Cox Automotive analysts opined that “a 10% [market] share is well within reach.”
We’ll have to see how Trump’s plans to eliminate consumer subsidies for EVs changes that outlook, but expect there to be plenty more fodder for debate.
With continued subsidies a big “if” going into next year, deep-pocketed purchasers will have outsized impact.
As Donald Trump prepares to take office (again), the future of the tax policy that underlies clean energy development in the United States has never been more in doubt. Will the clean energy tax credits survive? What about advanced manufacturing? Or will it just be the electric vehicle credits that get tossed aside?
In any case, one thing seems far closer to certain: Big companies, especially large technology companies, will continue to buy renewable and clean power to fulfill their own sustainability goals and keep up their massively expanding data center operations. For them, speed may be the thing that matters most, and reasonable costs and carbon abatement will have to come along with it.
From 2025 to 2028, Morgan Stanley estimates that there will be 57 gigawatts worth of demand from new data centers, with around 6 gigawatts of that currently under construction, and a substantial shortfall in available power to build everything hyperscale technology companies want. This means that there will be a huge need to buy power, no matter the tax credit situation, which would mean continued upward pressure on prices.
Even before the election, power purchase agreement prices for solar power were creeping up due to tariffs on solar equipment, according to LevelTen Energy. Those will likely be maintained and could be ramped up in the new administration.
“Repeal of the tech neutral tax credits and of the manufacturing production tax credits has the potential to increase PPA prices by almost 40%,” Nidhi Thakar, the senior vice president for policy of the Clean Energy Buyers Association, told me, referring to two of the most powerful provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. She added that repeal would “essentially have an inflationary effect.”
“We have this opportunity right now to capture that economic development if we do things right,” Thakar said. “That is going to require having critical policies in place that are going to support the deployment of more clean firm resources on the grid.”
At least so far, the prospect of repeal has not slowed energy procurement among the biggest buyers. This month, Alphabet announced a $20 billion investment plan with Intersect Power and TPG to build carbon-free power near datacenters with the hope of bringing power and data centers online more quickly. Meta, meanwhile, announced earlier in December that it would build a $10 billion data center campus in Northeast Louisiana, complete with gas and renewable power provided by Entergy, the local utility. The project will come with “at least” 1.5 gigawatts of new renewable power, Entergy said; it also filed an application with the Louisiana utilities regulator for over 2 gigawatts of new gas-fired power plants, including two plants adjacent to the data center site, according to S&P Global Commodities Insights.
While a “double digit” increase in power purchase agreement sale prices could result from tax credits vanishing, there is still “more demand for renewable energy than supply for a whole bunch of reasons,” Peter Freed, the former director of energy strategy at Meta and the founding director of the consultancy Near Horizon Group, told me.
“Obviously the tax credits are pretty central to the pricing on projects,” he said.
Freed was enthusiastic about grid technologies that could enhance capacity, but he also acknowledged “it is very likely we’re going to have a variety of compromises that have to be made over the course of next seven, eight, nine years, in terms of how we’re going to accommodate load that’s coming in the cleanest possible way.”
“That probably means we’re seeing more gas built,” he added.
A significant portion of that gas could be built on-site. Anything involving the grid — whether fossil or renewable — involves large investments of cash and time for hyperscalers and developers. “Given the increasing time required to connect to power grids, especially in the U.S., we believe there could be more upcoming ‘off grid’ approaches to powering data centers,” Morgan Stanley analyst Stephen Byrd wrote in a note to clients. “Batteries and smaller gas-fired turbines could be combined with large combined cycle natural gas turbines to provide a robust power source.”
Elon Musk’s xAI has done this the quick-and-dirty way by installing mobile natural gas generators to power its facility in Memphis. GE Vernova, the turbine manufacturer, is also “having direct conversations with hyperscalers for gas orders,” according to Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith in a note to clients, with the first order from a hyperscaler possibly coming in the second half of next year.
Gas isn’t the only answer, however — at least not on its own. A group of energy researchers from Stripe, Paces, and Scale Microgrids, wrote in a white paper published mid-December saying that solar microgrids could provide a “fast, scalable, clean, and cheap enough” option for data center power.
These “off-grid solar microgrids” could potentially be put into operation in “around two years” and would combine solar panels, batteries, and some natural gas backup. Installed across the Southwest, they would be able to power some 1,200 gigawatts of data center demand with 90% solar power, according to Scale Microgrids’ Duncan Campbell, at costs below repowering Three Mile Island. A 44% solar system would be “essentially the same cost” as off-grid gas turbines, the whitepaper said.
No matter what solution hyperscalers pursue — bringing their own power behind the grid, locating near power on the grid, or building out more clean, firm power on local grids — the question will ultimately always be how fast they can get online.
“I think people are initially thinking about colocating a large load with a project — renewable, gas, or anything else — as a fact track to getting load online, and there’s some truth to that,” Freed told me.
“My perspective as someone who is adding new load is that you should be indifferent to location for generation,” Freed said. “What you really should be caring about is when you can interconnect and turn lights on at the scale you desire.”
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, makingthe 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.