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:

Most climate solutions are getting smarter. Solar panels can track the sun. Electric vehicles are equipped with the equivalent of an iPad and may soon be able to drive themselves (according to some people). Startups are inventing stoves with batteries that charge when energy is cheap and heat pumps that learn how you use your home and adjust accordingly.
But when it comes to permanently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the market is pushing in a different direction. There, it seems, there’s growing excitement for the dumbest, most primitive solutions companies can come up with.
The case in point this week is a $58 million agreement between Frontier, a fund started by tech companies to help grow the carbon removal market, and Vaulted Deep, a startup that collects food waste, poop, and other wet, sludgy, organic material and stashes it away underground. It’s the biggest deal Frontier has made to date, followed closely by a $57 million contract it signed in December with Lithos Carbon, which crushes up rocks and sprinkles the dust on agricultural fields. The rock naturally reacts with carbon dioxide in the air to form bicarbonate, which can essentially lock it away permanently.
There are at least 850 startups around the world trying to figure out the most effective, scalable, low-cost approach to cleaning up the legacy carbon pollution that’s warming the planet. Some of the most promising solutions have involved building big, energy-intensive systems that extract tiny amounts of carbon dioxide from the ambient air. One company I recently wrote about is manufacturing millions of tennis ball-sized sponges that will be stacked in trays, absorb carbon from the air, and then transferred into an oven to bake off the carbon.
Is it possible the answer could be as easy as pulverizing rocks and burying waste?
I ran my observation about the growing enthusiasm for dumb ideas past Hannah Bebbington, a strategy lead at Frontier, and she agreed — “totally,” she said, though she preferred the phrase “low-tech.” Compared to some of the earlier stars of carbon removal, Vaulted Deep and Lithos don’t require as much upfront capital investment or years and years of research and development. “At the end of the day, we are really excited about getting to gigaton scale carbon removal, and it doesn’t have to be the sexiest technology.”
So far, it seems, these lower-tech companies have been able to scale quickly. Vaulted Deep, for instance, launched at the end of August last year and has already delivered more than 2,400 tons of carbon removal. By comparison, the only operating direct air capture facility in the United States is capable of removing 1,000 tons of CO2 per year.
Vaulted Deep’s first project is in Kansas, where it is intercepting “woody waste” like grass clippings and tree trimmings that was destined to be incinerated. Once upon a time, when the plants were alive, they sucked up carbon from the atmosphere. If the clipping had been burned, the carbon would have been released back into the air. By slurrifying the waste and injecting it into a deep well, hundreds of feet underground, Vaulted Deep disrupts the cycle, potentially for millennia.
One advantage of this approach is that the carbon capture work is done for free, courtesy of photosynthesis. (Trees, of course, do this too, but not permanently.) Another is that Vaulted Deep uses mature technology to turn the waste into a slurry that can be injected underground. The company was spun out of Advantek, a waste management business that pioneered slurry injection in the 1980s. Most of the substances we inject into the layers of rock underneath our feet are pure liquid or gas, Julia Reichelstein, the CEO of Vaulted Deep told me. Advantek’s technology enables the company to take solid waste and, with minimal processing and energy, get it injection-ready.
The company’s third advantage is being able to pump its waste into “class five” wells, a designation made by the Environmental Protection Agency. Class five is sort of a catch-all category, encompassing shallow wells used for stormwater drainage and septic systems, to deep wells used for geothermal power. Regulations vary by type and by state, but in general, these are much more common and easier to permit than the “class six” wells used for carbon dioxide sequestration. “There’s, you know, 20, 30 years of permit history now on best practices on how you permit a slurry injection well,” Omar Abou-Sayed, the company’s co-founder, told me. “We comply with or exceed all those regulations. So this isn’t a case of, like, move fast and break things.”
All of this allows Vaulted Deep to charge less for carbon removal than many of its peers — closer to $400 per ton, as opposed to upwards of $600. Bebbington, of Frontier, thinks there’s a promising path to bring costs down a lot further if the company can achieve economies of scale by buying the sludgy organic waste in bulk, or move its injection wells closer to where the material originates.
But any climate solution involving biomass raises a host of questions about where the material came from, and what might have been done with it otherwise. Reichelstein said the company’s internal research found that there was almost a billion tons of bio-sludge produced in the U.S. annually. If it could capture all of it, the company estimated, it could sequester more than 300 million tons of carbon away from the atmosphere each year, after taking into account the emissions involved in collecting, processing, and injecting all that waste.
And yet, “The definition of a ‘waste’ is highly contested,” Freya Chay, program lead at the nonprofit CarbonPlan, which analyzes the integrity of different carbon removal approaches, told me.
For example, some companies are eyeing the use of agricultural waste like corn stalks, which are often left to decompose in fields, but also add nutrients to the soil. If the corn waste is removed and processed and buried underground, will that increase the use of carbon-intensive fertilizer? What if the waste was going into a landfill? There, it would have broken down eventually, but much more slowly than if it had been burned.
These questions get more complicated as projects that utilize waste biomass scale up. Once there’s more of a market for the material, will those counterfactuals that support what Vaulted Deep is doing — like that the waste would have been incinerated — still hold? “It's really hard to govern system-level risks with project-level rules, but that is the situation we are in,” said Chay.
At a second project location, in Los Angeles, Vaulted Deep is collecting sewage from the city’s wastewater treatment facilities that otherwise would have been trucked hundreds of miles out of the city and spread on farmland to decompose, releasing CO2 both during the transport and as it decays. The city has actually been paying Advantek to dispose of some of its sewage since 2008. But now, because of the Frontier deal, the company will drop its fee, allowing the city to divert even more of the waste for slurry injection.
Chay didn’t have any immediate concerns about Vaulted Deep’s biomass sourcing. In fact, she highlighted the co-benefits the company would provide. Oftentimes biomass waste is contaminated with toxic chemicals, and Vaulted Deep is preventing it from getting dumped in communities. “We should celebrate that,” she said.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the type of waste diverted for the Kansas project.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On British nuclear, Puerto Rican water, and the U.S. solar supply chain
Current conditions: Dolly is no longer a tropical storm, but the remnants of the system are set to drench the northern Caribbean, especially the Leeward Islands, the British and U.S. Virgin Islands, and eastern Puerto Rico • One person died and at least 14 hikers are missing in flash floods in the Grand Canyon that forced airlifts on Sunday • In the Pacific, Tropical Storm Karina is rapidly strengthening into a hurricane, but it’s unlikely to make landfall anywhere.
The United States has brokered what President Donald Trump called “the biggest oil deal in world history” with Venezuela, securing majority control over more than 65 million barrels of the South American nation’s proven supply of crude. In a post on his Truth Social network Friday evening, Trump said the agreement would “more than double American oil reserves” and “substantially lower gas prices for all Americans, long into the future, while helping to continue to set Venezuela on a course toward tremendous success and great prosperity.” Appearing on national television for a six-minute address, Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez, who took power after the U.S. captured former leader Nicolás Maduro in a night-time raid nearly nine months ago, said the pact would allow Caracas to earn more than $209 billion in revenue and become “an energy powerhouse.” While “everyone knows our country has the biggest oil reserves in the world,” she said, “having resources underground isn’t enough.” She added, according to The Guardian’s translation: “It’s no use having our oil resources underground, only to appear in statistics or bookkeeping.” The deal is good news for the string of U.S. oil refineries on the Gulf coast that were designed for the heavy crude that comes out of Venezuela. As it stands, my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week, “America’s oil refineries are going all out.”
For all the fears stirred up by Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe’s recent surprise visit to Moscow — remember, the last two times an American spy chief went to Russia, it was to try to dissuade the Kremlin from invading Ukraine or commit the first war-time nuclear bombing since World War II — the country doesn’t seem particularly ready to, as The Wall Street Journal reported, risk war with Washington by attacking a North Atlantic Treaty Organization country. Russia’s gasoline production fell to about 70% of domestic consumption levels in August following a series of Ukrainian drone attacks that forced major refineries offline, two industry sources told Reuters.
In June, New York led Northeast states in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the deals the Department of the Interior struck with offshore wind developers to pay out billions in taxpayer-funded “settlements” in exchange for abandoning the already-stalled turbine projects. Now California has filed its own lawsuit over what Attorney General Rob Bonta called the administration’s “blatantly unlawful” buyout of wind leases off the state’s coast. “The Trump administration’s backroom buyout with Golden State Wind to stop offshore wind development in favor of gas and oil drilling is, unfortunately, a classic playbook for them to line the pockets of their Big Oil donors,” Bonta said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: California will continue to aggressively fight back against the Trump administration’s outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind investments that could have delivered union-paying jobs and reliable clean energy to Californians.” The California Energy Commission, which joined the lawsuit, called the Interior Department’s efforts to curb offshore wind development “reckless” in the face of rising electricity demand. Adding to the malcontent over President Donald Trump’s most fruitful effort yet to kill off a specific clean energy sector that has drawn his ire since before he entered politics, my colleague Robinson Meyer noted earlier this month that the deals — more of which have come since the California settlement — are all for projects that were unlikely to move forward anyway.

Until 1991, the United States produced the majority of the uranium its reactors (and atomic war machine) needed. Then came “megatons to megawatts.” Under the pithily named program, the U.S. took a victory lap after winning the Cold War by agreeing to import virtually any reactor fuel Russia made from disassembled weapons. American power plants received cheap fuel, a chaotically marketizing Russia found a market for some of its most coveted materials, and the world averted nuclear apocalypse. The only problem is that, contrary to the rhetoric of the time, history didn’t end. What nearly did end was domestic production of uranium and reactor fuel as Russian imports put American suppliers out of business. Nearly four decades later, the U.S. has banned Russian imports, and the exemptions to the prohibition end in 2028. The good news is that the U.S. is stepping up. In 2025, uranium concentrate production totaled 2.1 million pounds of triuranium octoxide — the base component for reactor fuel, known as yellowcake. That, according to the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration analysis, is the most since 2017 and more than triple the volume produced in 2024. But it’s still far from enough for energy independence. U.S. power plants used nearly 47 million pounds of yellowcake in 2025, down from just under 56 million pounds in 2024. Regardless of whether all the reactors currently underway move forward, that number is going up. New supply is coming. On Friday, developer Anfield Energy told The Northern Miner that it’s seeking to raise at least $50 million in financing in the coming months to refurbish and reopen Utah’s Shootaring Canyon mill, one of only three licensed, permitted, and constructed uranium mills in the U.S.

The U.S. supply boost could also benefit the United Kingdom, which is working with Washington on spurring along its own nuclear renaissance. A new YouGov poll released Friday found nuclear power to be Britain’s preferred future electricity source, with 21% of Britons saying it should be prioritized, compared to 19% for solar and 18% for offshore wind. Just over half of the voters surveyed doubted renewables alone could provide enough electricity to meet the nation’s power demand and lower costs. That’s despite nearly 50 gigawatts of onshore wind in the development pipeline across Great Britain, according to Renewables Now.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Britons’ doubts over renewables come as England’s water network heaves under the stress of a severe “flash drought” that Bloomberg said “is showing no signs of easing,” forcing water companies to truck supplies in and call for emergency restrictions. At least 30 million now face a temporary ban on using hoses and outdoor pipes.
Nearly 200,000 households and businesses are still without steady access to running water in Puerto Rico, where drought has collided with an aging aquifer system that leaks, by some estimates, more than half its supply of freshwater. Climate change reduced rainfall in America’s most populous non-state territory by 9% between May and July of this year, according to a new study by more than 20 scientists worldwide. The conclusion, the San Juan-based Centro de Periodismo Investigativo reported, is that drought “will persist and worsen.”
Earlier this month, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo and I reported, the Trump administration tossed solar manufacturers a lifeline, raising tariffs on imported panel components in a bid to help factories compete with imports after Republicans’ sweeping tax law eliminated the federal incentives for developers to buy American-made photovoltaics. Since then, analysts have debated whether the minimum prices set in the Department of Commerce’s policy are sufficient to spur new investments in the production of solar cells. At least one company is announcing a project. In a post on LinkedIn last week, Oklahoma City-based Nextnova Solar unveiled plans for a 2-gigawatt solar cell factory in its home state. The company expects to bring the facility online in November and begin mass production in March 2027, according to PV Tech, which noted the possibility to expand to 5 gigawatts of annual production sometime in the future.
Meanwhile, the Minnesota-based manufacturer Heliene is preparing for a trial run of panels using American-made glass. The company has 1.3 gigawatts of crystalline silicon module capacity production, and recently formed a partnership to secure more locally sourced wafers and cells. But U.S.-made glass “has so far been a key missing element,” PV Tech reported in a separate story. Heliene’s pilot run will use glass from Ohio-based Stewart Glass. “As U.S. module manufacturing has been growing, there has been no supply of non-iron content glass,” Heliene CEO Martin Pochtaruk told the trade publication. “Being able to use glass versus importing glass is also part of de-risking the geopolitics of imports from Asia, and that’s why it’s so important.”
In the U.S., we are still working our heads around building out a charging network that can comfortably keep electric cars fueled up from coast to coast with the same ease as a vehicle that can just fill up at a gas station. In China, auto giant BYD is now rolling out its ultra-fast chargers, which can restore a vehicle’s battery as quickly as you can fill up a gas tank. Just a few months ago, BYD marked its 5,000th Flash Charger deployment. Now it’s up to 10,000 across 300 different centers, InsideEVs reported last week, cribbing from the Chinese news site IT Home.
And more thoughts on the week’s most notable fights around project development.
1. Pinal County, Arizona – If you can’t build a solar or a wind farm somewhere, it’s really hard to get a data center built there too.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Thousands of miles away from Arizona, a similar division is dominating the fight over whether to enact a 2-year moratorium on data centers in the county home of South Bend.
3. Ingham County, Michigan – The first solar farm fight has been resolved under Michigan’s new renewables siting law.
A conversation with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford
This week’s conversation is with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford, the Democratic candidate for governor in the state. His campaign reached out recently asking if I wanted to chat about what he’d want to do on data center and energy policy, which is essentially catnip for a reporter like me. So we hopped on the phone and chatted about his approach to regulation as he seeks to oust the sitting GOP governor Joe Lombardo.
The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
As someone running for statewide office, how do you take into consideration the growing backlash to industrial development? Not just data center development but solar and wind?
I think it's the responsible thing to do and it’s the responsive thing to do to engage in conversation around this issue, understand what people think about it, and try to come up with policies to demonstrate your willingness to accommodate those issues. I’ve been on two statewide tours in the last nine, 10 months all over the state talking to folks. The first time I recall having a conversation about this was at the end of my first statewide tour at the end of last year in a rural county, complaining about a data center coming to a different part of that rural county.
It’s across demographics. Democrats, Republicans, Independents – they’re having concerns about these data centers. They’re swarming into Nevada communities, draining our water, jacking up our energy prices, and using Nevada taxpayer money to do it. So folks have asked for thoughtful consideration on how to do this.
How do you distinguish between the concerns about data centers and the concerns about renewable energy, transmission, maybe even conventional energy sources? Do you separate those conversations or are they all just one big conversation to have?
They’re not mutually exclusive. There are sure to be distinct conversations to be had.
What I have said in my plan is that we’re going to stop the [tax] abatement for future data centers coming here until I can audit the efficacy of these other data centers who’ve received abatements. Joe Lombardo has given out $200 million in abatements and he hasn’t checked to see that they’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain in terms of local hires, their impacts on the environment, and so forth.
What I’m going to do is ensure that [if] they're going to operate here, they’ll have to bring not just their own energy but renewable energy to power their facilities.
If elected, you’d be representing a state that has principal interest in front of the federal government. I’ve been writing about data center development on federal lands including the situation in Boulder City. How do you view engaging with the Trump administration on data center development?
At the outset, what we see happening right now outside of Boulder City is an affront to local control. It’s an affront to a local government and its residents voicing their opposition to a data center and the federal government shouldn’t be able to do an end run around zoning and environmental protections. I’m going to stand up for our sovereignty in that regard. I’ve said time and again that anyone who is serious about improving the lives of Nevadans, this is contrary to that. They are ignoring the will of Nevadans.
When it comes to the situation in Boulder City, what do you think should happen there?
I think the federal government shouldn’t be able to come in and authorize the approval of a data center when the initial authorization was for a solar project. There are two different environmental protection measures that need to be implemented in that regard.
An end run around protections with no notice and opportunity to be heard is tantamount to a coup in this arena. It’s not something that I countenance. I know what I stand for. Certainly I wouldn’t stand by quietly and not do anything.
Walk me through what you want to get done on this topic should you win? What do you want to see the state legislature do?
We’re going to stop the tax abatements, these giveaways to these companies. We need to ensure they’ve lived up to their obligations.
When I’m governor they’re going to have to bring their own clean energy and bring their own water. We live in the desert. We’re going to end evaporative cooling throughout the state.
I’m not new at this. My tenure in public service has been defined by holding public companies accountable. I’ve held them all accountable and I’m going to do the same for data centers should I be elected governor.
My last question for you is about the future. Most conversations happening about data center development are focused on the short term. But five, ten years down the road, where do you think we’re going to end up on this issue?
That’s the real question. Eleven years ago, we had no idea we’d be here. ChatGPT didn’t exist when data centers were first discussed. They were places where the cloud was being held.
So look, we need to have conversations with companies. We need to stay at the forefront of development.We need to stay in conversation with companies to understand where it's going and make sure we’re passing governmental policies that will accommodate the needs of Nevadans. While we can’t predict where we’ll be in five years, we know it won’t look like this today.
We need to be nimble. We need to be responsive. We need to be reactive. Proactive, when we can. All of it at the exact same time.