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:
Insurance often leaves homeowners with a devastating choice — to stay in the place where they lost so much, or to give up everything.

More people were displaced by wildfires between the start of this year and the end of July than in all of 2024. Globally, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre puts the number around 496,000 wildfire displacements — more than half of which occurred in Los Angeles County during the Eaton and Palisades fires in January.
“Displacement,” of course, can mean many things, and often in the case of wildfires, “most people can return quickly” once the danger has passed, the IDMC writes. But many in Los Angeles County are now entering their 10th month of displacement — and still more may choose, or have chosen, never to return.
Though the former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called this kind of internal displacement “the great tragedy of our time,” voluntarily deciding to move away after a wildfire in the United States is something of a luxury. There are only three states in the U.S. in which insured homeowners have the legal right to replace a wildfire-destroyed home by buying a new property instead of rebuilding; for many, mortgages anchor them to properties that are covered in rubble and toxic ash. Three-quarters of homeowners who believe they have adequate insurance discover only after a fire that they’re actually underinsured, meaning that their policies cover less than 75% of the cost of rebuilding.
While there is limited data about how people disperse after a wildfire, recent tragedies have shed light on those who’ve either cashed out, cut their losses, or remain displaced in what was intended to be temporary housing. In 2018, for example, the Camp Fire burned down almost the entire town of Paradise, California, and as of 2021, 80% of the local population still had not moved back. Nearby Chico became “the epicenter for Paradise’s long-term relocation,” Abrahm Lustgarten writes in his book about climate migration, On the Move: The Overheating Earth and the Uprooting of America, though “smaller numbers of people moved farther,” with survivors ultimately resettling across all 50 states. Cheryl Maynard, a Camp Fire survivor I spoke to for this piece, even told me she’d heard about Paradise residents making it as far as Ukraine.
In some cases, though, this dispersal can lead to a stigma against those who either chose to leave or decide against returning. In Lahaina, the fact that native Hawaiians are being forced to find housing elsewhere is viewed as a form of “climate gentrification.” Even in Los Angeles, “many survivors have been quietly selling due to the many obstacles they face,” Joy Chen, the co-founder and CEO of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, told me in an email. “Nearly all are reluctant to speak publicly. Locally, there’s been a lot of backlash to those who sell, and the folks I’ve spoken with just want to move on without drawing attention.”
Every story is different and personal, however — from being forced into temporary housing turned permanent to the reluctance of starting over. In an effort to better understand why people move away after a fire, I spoke to four California wildfire victims about their relocations and what they plan to do next. Their stories have been condensed and edited below.
Pasadena, California — Eaton Fire, 2025
I grew up in Pasadena. It was a nice community where you could ride your bike outside and there were other kids on the street — you could all get together, hang out, and get up to no good. It was an all-American town. I stayed, and I built my family there.
This was the third house I’d owned in Pasadena. I got married at 27, and when I was 30, we upgraded to a bigger house because we wanted to have kids. We bought a 1,700-square-foot house and we were really happy there, but at some point, we decided we needed something a little bigger. So we bought a house in 1990 that abuts the Eaton Canyon, about 300 yards from the Edison Tower where the January fire started. There is a wrought-iron fence in our backyard, and it goes straight down into the national forest. My husband and I were young and stupid, and we didn’t have any money, so we bought the worst house on a nice street. It was a real fixer-upper.
In 1993, a fire came through and burned right up to our backyard. We had only minutes to get out. When we came back and the house was still standing, we couldn’t believe our luck. So we moved back in; we got out our mops and brooms, and we cleaned it up. Five years later, my husband was dead of cancer. I don’t know if the toxins caused my husband’s death, but I don’t know that they didn’t. And I was left with a 6-year-old and a 12-year-old to raise by myself.
On the day of the Eaton Fire, my [second] husband and I were sitting and eating dinner when, at about 6:15 p.m., the TV went out. I said, “It must be Spectrum again.” We didn’t think much of it. Then we heard a loudspeaker, but we live right above the Eaton Canyon Nature Center, and they’re always rousing people at dark, saying, “The park is closed.” So that’s what I thought it was. But then there was a loud pounding on the front door, and it was my neighbor who’d just pulled into his driveway from work and saw a small fire directly underneath the tower across the canyon. The wind was blowing 70 or 80 miles an hour at the time, and he apparently rushed into his house and screamed for his wife to call 911 and to get the kids and the dog. And then he ran over and started knocking on doors.
We walked outside and there was the fire. I go, “Oh no, I know this drill.” Just then, a whole bunch of fire trucks pulled in, and I think that’s the only reason [the house] survived — because we were the first place burning, and the infrastructure wasn’t stressed yet. There are about eight to 10 houses in our cul-de-sac, and we had four huge fire trucks and probably 40 firefighters. I went back into the house, and I had a list from the last fire of the things I should take; I’d printed it up and taped it inside a closet door, but there was not going to be any time for that. We grabbed our hard drive, laptop, and three dogs, and got into our cars.
By then, it was black outside, with golf ball-sized embers flying by your head. It was like the videos of the fall of Saigon; it was the same damn way. Once I got out of the cul-de-sac, it was complete chaos. Nobody was obeying traffic lights or signs. My son had called — he lives in Monrovia, which is about 20 minutes away — and he was saying, “I saw the fire, I’m gonna come.” And I said, “There’s no time, forget it.” I finally made it to his house, and my husband was already there. And we have been there for seven months now.
The house in Pasadena is absolutely in the same condition as it was on January 7, when we left. It hasn’t been touched; it’s just full of all this toxic stuff that you can’t really see. State Farm’s adjuster came by with a little Kleenex box, and he wiped my hallway and said, “Oh, it’s not that bad. You just need a cleaning lady.” But we spent $6,400 to find out it’s full of lead, arsenic, and nickel. Seven months later, we still don’t have enough money to even start the cleanup. The original estimate, before we knew about the heavy metal contamination, was for $120,000. When we found out about the contamination, we got another estimate, and it’s up to $350,000 because everything has to be trashed. All the upholstered goods have to go. The hardwood floor has to go, because it’s grooved and distressed, and you can’t get the lead out of that. The carpets have to go. The window treatments have to go.
Fortunately, I get along with my son and daughter-in-law, but they’re a young couple and they’re relatively newly married, and they just bought that house in October. Then we move in with our three dogs, and it’s only a 1,000-square-foot house. I said, “We need to find someplace to rent. We can’t stay here.”
I talked to my financial planner, and he said, “We worked with people in Paradise after the Camp Fire, and people identical to you, with no fire damage but just smoke damage, they weren’t back in their house for one or two years.” And I said, “You’ve got to be out of your mind.” But it’s true, because you’re fighting with insurance the whole time. State Farm is still only okaying month-to-month rentals, and try to find a place to rent month-to-month with three dogs. So I asked my financial planner, “Is there any way we can buy another house right now?” And he crunched the numbers and said, “Everything’s got to be financed, but we can get a conventional loan and finance a mortgage, and then we can borrow against your portfolio for the down payment. You can survive for about two years that way before it gets financially untenable.”
So we put in an offer. We bought a house. We aren’t officially living there yet because it’s really dirty. We’re here every day, cleaning everything. But we’ll be in Monrovia, about seven or eight blocks from my son’s house, and the house wasn’t in the plume of the fire.
I worry that [the insurance company is] not going to give us enough money to clean up our house appropriately. I’m just not going to feel safe there anymore. My kids are, of course, advocating that we not go back. As my son says — because he’s so charming — he says, “Mom, you’re old now. You got out of two fires. Your luck has run out. The first one, you had a 10-minute warning. The second one, you had a six-minute warning. I don’t think you should push it.”
But it’s home, right? My whole life is there. Neighbors I’ve known for 35 years. I had saved up my nickels and dimes for about three decades to make it my Barbie’s dream house. I don’t know how much money we’re going to have to put into the house to get it into shape where we can either go back or sell it. But how could I sell it without making sure it’s clean? Somebody else is going to live there. What if they have little kids?
Kenwood, California — Tubbs Fire, 2017
Larry: Kenwood is beautiful wine country. We had been looking for a home where we could spend time with our family on weekends and in the summertime, and that’s why we bought the house. We lived there for about 12 years before we started renting it as an Airbnb on weekends, or sometimes for a week at a time. On the night of the fire, the last tenant had just moved out. Though the Kenwood house was our primary residence, we were luckily not living there at the time, so our most valuable possessions weren’t there, either.
We were awakened at 3:30 in the morning by a friend who had heard there was a fire up near Kenwood. We went to the TV, turned it on, and watched it. Coverage focused on the area around the Kaiser hospital, but we knew it was in our area because we’d heard from a neighbor who was running for his life and who said our house was on fire and there was no way there’d be anything left.
We didn’t get up there until two and a half weeks later. They’d completely closed the area off to get rid of all the dangerous brush. It was hard going back.
Jackie: In the beginning, we thought about rebuilding. It felt like we were fighting back. Like, “Just put the house right back where it was!”
Larry: We immediately got in touch with a contractor who could clean up the place. He went through the bureaucracy to get the okay to clean it all up. We got an architect. We were ready to rebuild.
Jackie: Then I looked at our lives and said, “Do I really want to start picking out doorknobs again? To go through two years of hassle trying to rebuild?”
Larry: At that time, we were in our late 70s. We just figured, This is just ridiculous. This is going to be such a heartache.
We were really careful and diligent, though. There are people out there who will deal with the insurance process for you, but they take 30% of the proceeds. You don’t want to do that, but some people don’t think they have the time or the intelligence to go through it all. We went through the whole thing, start to finish, and it took us two years and eight months before we were done. We had this house here in Marin County that we were renting, so we didn't have to worry about moving anywhere, and so we were able to go through the process slowly. It’s very emotional, but a few days after the fire, you’ve got to sit down and do your homework.
After we received the money for the trees and shrubs and the loss of the house, we still had the land, so we put it up for sale. A young couple — speculators — bought it, and they built a home in their style, and then they put it up for sale.
Jackie: The real problem is — like the new people who bought the house — they don’t know what Kenwood was like before. We were surrounded by the Trione-Annadel State Park, and when we looked out, we could see miles of trees. Now, when you look out, you see trees, but they’re all burnt. Every time we go up there, it just looks burnt to me.
Paradise, California — Camp Fire, 2018
I lived in the Paradise area for eight years. I’d lived in Magalia, which is just a few miles to the north of Paradise, but it was very cold — much colder than I was used to. So I sold my three-bedroom home and moved down to what they called the Banana Belt. We actually received some sunlight through the trees.
On the day of the fire, I had a friend visiting me from out of town. The day before, I had received a phone call from PG&E — a live person, not a recording! — saying that if there were high winds, they would be turning off the power. That morning, I got up and it looked kind of cloudy, but there was no smoke. My friend needed a prescription from CVS, and I told her, “You probably should call them.” But she was stubborn and looked at me like, I’ll do it when I want to. So we hung around for a little bit, and then I heard her calling CVS on her own terms. The guy there told her, “Lady, what are you doing here? The whole town is leaving. I’m locking up and I’m getting out of here.”
We thought, “Okay, we’d better leave.” I’d helped out in the condos there; I was on the safety committee, and we could evacuate 40 people in about 35 minutes. But they’d canceled the committee, so we didn’t have it on the day of the fire. I didn’t know if people were going to make it out or not. We had one person with no legs, married to a deaf lady, and I worried about them so much.
So I’m starting to panic. I took a quilt on the floor that I was trying to make for my son that had taken me forever — just a tie quilt, a $10 value. I took a picture of him in a frame that he and his girlfriend had given me. I took two salt and pepper shakers, one from each grandma. I left my china and my silver. I left a 100-year-old quilt, because it wasn’t in my line of sight. I left my mom’s wedding dress and my wedding dress.
Outside, the trees were burning behind the garages. One lady was in her garage next door, and I thought, “Oh my gosh, these people are inside there.” We stopped and asked if they needed help, and they said no, they had people coming. I should have made them get in my car. The condo manager drove around the parking lot a few times, honking his horn, but you couldn’t hear it because of the wind.
My friend said she was going to drive. I was holding onto my dog, who’s terrified of fire and things exploding. I told my friend, “Don’t go along the canyon because I don’t like it; it’s a drop off.” Well, the fire jumped over my car — like a rainbow — and went into the other median. I said to her, “Man, that was cool!” My dad raised me that way.
What my friend did then was, she went over into the wrong lane, and she went down against the upcoming traffic. At that point, they’d cut it off and made it that way. I was very blessed that we did not get trapped. She was doing about 70 going down that road and following a police officer. I said, “You’re going to get pulled over.” She said, “I don’t think he’s worried about me right now.”
At the bottom of the hill, another police officer directed us into a grocery store parking lot. It was packed with cars and people and dogs and animals, and we all got out and turned around and stared up at the mountain. There was just smoke and people coming down, people crying.
I went to my son’s in-laws with my friend, and on the third day, I found out that my condo was gone. So I booked a flight to where my family lived, and I’ve never been back. I went back to Chico a year later to pick up some things — I had a friend meet me there and we had lunch — but I never went back up the hill. There were so many people in the Facebook group [for fire victims] that were struggling mentally and emotionally because they were living in the burn scar, and there was no way I wanted to go up and see it. I’d talked to a tow truck driver before I left — I ran into one going into a store, and he was working up there hauling all the cars away — and I said, “How is it?” He said, “It’s bad. It’s bad.”
Recovery has been really complicated. A lady started the Facebook group after reading PG&E’s 2019 bankruptcy court documents, and she told people to vote against the plan. The $13.5 billion Fire Victims Trust was going to pay the 70,000 survivors of the Butte, North Bay, and Camp Fires — all sparked by PG&E — half in cash, half in the company’s stock. But it was approved by more than 85% of survivors. How do you get 70,000 people to agree on anything?
The day they signed the deal, PG&E’s stock was only worth $9 a share — so it was only worth $11 billion — and we had to wait for it to get to, like, $14 a share for us to break even at $13 billion. And we couldn’t sell until after shareholders were able to sell, which knocked the value of the stock down. All this was so complicated, and Wall Street manipulated the whole thing. We have been fighting to get the remaining 30% of the recovery settlement that we still have not received from PG&E. We got some preliminary payments, but most people can’t afford to stay in Paradise. Many people have a distaste because of being victimized, politicized, and not treated fairly.
There’s no hospital anymore; there’s not the medical facilities like they used to be. What are you going to do if you’re 75 and used to [a Kaiser Permanente hospital] down the street? You have to end up going to the Bay Area. Other people left because there is fire after fire in the state, and we couldn’t handle it for health reasons — the smoke, the PTSD. I’ve talked to many people who said, “There’s a fire outside my house, three miles away, and I can see smoke! Oh my gosh, I’m going to die!” Every once in a while, when the power goes out, I freak out. And imagine living in Paradise, where they have all those fires around them.
It’s been hard. Financially, I had been set up. My highest payment in Paradise was my [home owner’s association] fee — they’d just raised it to $320, and we were really complaining about that. Now I’m paying rent of $1,500-something a month, and with utilities, it’s like $1,900.
I worry about my future. I shouldn’t — I know God’s going to take care of me — but some days I do.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus news on cloud seeding, fission for fusion, and more of the week’s biggest money moves.
From beaming solar power down from space to shooting storm clouds full of particles to make it rain, this week featured progress across a range of seemingly sci-fi technologies that have actually been researched — and in some cases deployed — for decades. There were, however, few actual funding announcements to speak of, as earlier-stage climate tech venture funds continue to confront a tough fundraising environment.
First up, I explore Meta’s bet on space-based solar as a way to squeeze more output from existing solar arrays to power data centers. Then there’s the fusion startup Zap Energy, which is shifting its near-term attention toward the more established fission sector. Meanwhile, a weather modification company says it’s found a way to quantify the impact of cloud seeding — a space-age sounding practice that’s actually been in use for roughly 80 years. And amidst a string of disappointments for alternate battery chemistries, this week brings multiple wins for the sodium-ion battery sector.
One might presume that terrestrial solar paired with batteries would prove perfectly adequate for securing 24/7 clean energy moving forward, as global prices for panels and battery packs continue to fall. But the startup Overview Energy, which uses lasers to beam solar power from space directly onto existing solar arrays, thinks its space-based solar energy systems will prove valuable for powering large loads like data centers through the night. Now Meta is backing that premise, signing a first-of-its-kind agreement with Overview this week that secures early access for up to a gigawatt of capacity from the startup’s system.
Initial orbital demonstrations are slated for 2028, with commercial power delivery targeted for 2030. It’s an ambitious timeline, and certainly not the first effort to commercialize space-based solar, though prior analyses have generally concluded that while the physics check out, the economics and logistics don’t. Overview Energy thinks its found the core unlocks though: “geographic untethering,” which allows it to direct its beam to ground-based solar arrays anywhere in the world based on demand, and high-efficiency lasers capable of converting near-infrared light into electricity much more efficiently than pure sunlight.
The startup is targeting between $60 and $100 per megawatt-hour by 2035, at which point the goal is to be putting gigawatts of space solar on the grid. “It’s 5 o’clock somewhere,” Marc Berte, founder and CEO of Overview Energy, told me when I interviewed him last December. “You’re profitable at $100 bucks a megawatt-hour somewhere, instantaneously, all the time.”
Launch costs have also fallen sharply since the last serious wave of space-solar research, and Overview has already booked a 2028 launch with SpaceX. Solar power beamed from space also sidesteps two earthly constraints — land use and protracted grid interconnection timelines. So while this seemingly sci-fi vision remains unproven, it might be significantly more plausible than it once appeared. And Meta’s certainly not alone in taking that bet — Overview has already raised a $20 million seed round led by Lowercarbon Capital, Prime Movers Lab, and Engine Ventures.
Fusion startups are increasingly looking to nearer-term revenue opportunities as they work toward commercializing the Holy Grail of energy generation. Industry leader Commonwealth Fusion Systems is selling its high-temperature superconducting magnets to other developers, while other companies including Shine Technologies are generating income by producing nuclear isotopes for medical imaging. Now one startup, Zap Energy, is pushing that playbook a step further, announcing this week that it plans to develop fission reactors before putting its first fusion electrons on the grid.
Specifically, the startup is now attempting to develop small modular reactors — hardly a novel idea, as companies like Oklo, Kairos, and TerraPower have already secured significant public and private funding and struck major data center deals. Zap, however, thinks it can catch up to these new competitors in part by leveraging design commonalities between fission and fusion systems, including the use of liquid metals, engineered neutron environments, and high-power-density systems. “Fission and fusion are two expressions of the same underlying physics," Zap’s co-founder Benj Conwayby said in the press release. "This isn’t a pivot — by integrating them into a single platform, we can move faster, reduce risk, and build a more enduring company."
As the company outlines on its website, pursuing both pathways could eventually manifest in the development of a hybrid fusion-fission system, while also giving Zap practical experience interfacing with regulators and securing approvals. As The New York Times reports, the company is targeting an early 2030s timeline for its fission reactors, although Zap has yet to specify a timeline for fusion commercialization. Like so many of its peers, the company is eyeing data centers as a promising initial market, though bringing its first units online will likely require a significant influx of additional capital.
For all the concern surrounding geoengineering fixes for climate change such as solar radiation management, there’s one form of weather modification that’s been in use since the 1940s — cloud seeding. This practice typically involves flying planes into the center of storms and releasing flares that disperse a chemical called silver iodide into the clouds. This causes the water droplets within the clouds to freeze, increasing the amount of precipitation that falls as either rain or snow.
Alarming as it may sound for the uninitiated, there’s no evidence that silver iodide causes harm at current usage levels. But what has been far more difficult to pin down is efficacy — specifically, how much additional precipitation cloud seeding actually creates. That’s where the startup Rainmaker comes in. The company, which deploys unmanned drones to inject the silver iodide, says that its advanced radar and satellite systems indicate that its operations generated over 143 million gallons of additional freshwater in Oregon and Utah this year — roughly equivalent to the annual water usage of about 1,750 U.S. households. The findings have not yet been peer reviewed, but if accurate, they would make Rainmaker the first private company to quantify the impact of its cloud seeding operations.
Cloud seeding is already a well-oiled commercial business, with dozens of states, utility companies and ski resorts alike using it to increase snowfall in the drought-stricken American West and worldwide — China in particular spends tens of millions of dollars per year on the technology. Rainmaker has a particular aspiration: to help restore Utah’s Great Salt Lake, which has been shrinking since the 1980s amid rising water demand and increased evaporation driven by warmer temperatures.
In a press release, the company’s 26-year-old founder and CEO Augustus Doricko said, “With the newfound capability to measure our yields and quantify our results, Rainmaker will go forward and continue our mission to refill the Great Salt Lake, end drought in the American West and deliver water abundance wherever it is needed most around the world."
Sodium-ion batteries have long been touted as an enticing alternative — or at least complement — to lithium-ion systems for energy storage. They don’t rely on scarce and costly critical minerals like lithium, nickel, or cobalt, and have the potential to be far less flammable. The relatively nascent market also offers an opening for the U.S. to gain a foothold in this segment of the battery supply chain. But especially domestically, the industry has struggled to gain traction. Two sodium-ion startups, Natron and Bedrock Materials, both closed up shop last year as prices for lithium-iron-phosphate batteries cratered, eroding sodium-ion’s cost advantage, while the cost of manufacturing batteries in the U.S. constrained their ability to scale.
But one notable bright spot is the startup Alsym Energy, which announced this week that it has signed a letter-of-intent with long-duration energy storage company ESS Inc. for 8.5 gigawatt-hours of sodium-ion cells and modules, marking ESS’s expansion into the short and medium-duration storage market. Alsym’s CEO, Mukesh Chatter, told me this represents the largest deal for sodium-ion batteries in the U.S. to date — although it’s not yet a binding contract. Notably, it came just a day after the world’s largest-ever order for these batteries, as CATL disclosed a 60 gigawatt-hour sodium-ion agreement with energy storage integrator HyperStrong. Taken together, these partnerships suggest the sector is finally picking up durable traction both domestically and abroad.
ESS, however, is facing its own operational headwinds, nearly shuttering its Oregon manufacturing plant last year before securing an unexpected cash infusion and pivoting to a new, longer-duration storage product. Chatter remains exuberant about Alsym’s deal with the storage provider, however, telling me it represents a major proof point in terms of broader industry acceptance and an acknowledgement that “the benefits [sodium-ion] brings to the table are significant enough to overcome any stickiness” and hesitation around adopting new battery chemistries.
Chatter said that interest is now pouring in from all sides, citing inquiries from lithium-ion battery manufacturers, utilities, and defense companies and highlighting use cases ranging from data centers to apartment buildings and mining operations as likely early deployment targets.
A handful of startups are promising better, cheaper, safer water purification tech.
The need for desalination has long been clear in water-scarce regions of the planet. But with roughly a quarter of the global population now facing extreme water stress and drought conditions only projected to intensify, the technology is becoming an increasingly necessary tool for survival in a wider array of geographies.
Typically, scaling up desalination infrastructure has meant building costly, energy-intensive coastal plants that rely on a process called reverse osmosis, which involves pushing seawater through semi-permeable membranes that block salt and other contaminants, leaving only fresh water behind. Now, however, a number of startups are attempting to rework that model, with solutions that range from subsea facilities to portable desalination devices for individuals and families.
They could find potential customers across the globe. Many countries in the Middle East — including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar — rely on desalination for the bulk of their municipal water. Meanwhile, drought-prone regions from Australia to the Caribbean and California have also turned to the technology to shore up supply. But as the Iran war has underscored, this vital infrastructure is increasingly being treated as a military target, exposing a significant vulnerability in a resource relied upon by hundreds of millions.
One more resilient alternative is to move the plants underwater — making them more difficult to target while also harnessing subsurface pressure to do some of the energy-intensive work of desalination.
“I came up with the idea of using natural pressure to run the process,” Robert Bergstrom, a veteran of the water industry and CEO of the desalination startup OceanWell, told me. That meant “putting the membranes in a place where it’s already 800 pounds [of pressure] per square inch” — e.g. inside pods on the ocean floor, each capable of producing 1 million gallons of freshwater daily. By using the natural pressure of the ocean to drive the reverse osmosis process, this approach cuts energy use by about 40%, he said, thus slashing the system’s largest operating cost: electricity.
OceanWell’s design maintains a lower internal pressure within each pod than the surrounding environment, causing seawater to flow passively inside and push through membranes — just like on land, but without the high-pressure pumps. Compact pumps inside the pods then push the freshwater up a pipeline to the shore, while the resulting brine dissipates in the deep ocean.
The method also helps solve another problem with conventional desalination: environmental impact. Today’s facilities typically produce a more concentrated brine that they discharge at the ocean’s surface, which is more disruptive to marine ecosystems. The plants also frequently cause damage to organisms large and small by either trapping them against water intake screens or pulling them into the plant itself. That’s been a big sticking point when it comes to permitting these facilities, especially in California where the startup is based. OceanWell’s system, Bergstrom said, is able to filter out larger organisms while allowing microscopic ones to pass through the pods and return to the ocean.
The company began a trial last year in partnership with Las Virgenes Municipal Water District in southern California, testing its system in a freshwater reservoir full of marine life to verify its safety. Next it will test its pods in the ocean before undertaking a pilot in a to-be-determined location — California, Hawaii, and Nice in southern France are all contenders. If all goes according to plan, OceanWell will follow that up with a full-fledged commercial system targeted for 2030.
But it’s not the only startup pursuing underwater desalination — or even the one with the most aggressive timeline. Two years ago, Norwegian startup Flocean spun out of the subsea pump specialist FSubsea with a similar technical approach and a plan to deploy its first commercial system off Norway’s western coast this year. Flocean has already logged over a year of testing in the deep ocean, a stage OceanWell has yet to reach.
OceanWell thinks it can differentiate itself by meeting the unusually stringent permitting required in California. “If we can get it done in California, then the rest of the world will follow,” Bergstrom told me, meaning more resilient, more energy-efficient freshwater infrastructure for all. But it’s a high bar. The last major effort to build a desalination facility in the state led to a long-running fight that ended in 2022 with a rejection. Over 100 groups opposed the facility proposed for Orange County, citing risks to marine life, as well as high energy requirements and costs, with many arguing that alternatives — such as conservation and wastewater treatment — would be more superior options.
Megan Mauter, an associate professor of civil engineering at Stanford, thinks the groups may have a point, especially when it comes to overall system costs. The high capex of desalination can be hard to justify in California, she told me, since the state doesn’t need it 100% of the time, only in bad drought years. For example, just a few weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that San Diego County’s desalination plant, by far the largest in California, now has a surplus of desalinated water that it’s looking to sell to drought-ridden Western states such as Nevada and Arizona.
And while desalination startups purport to cut overall system costs, she has her doubts about that. “The energy savings that they’re going to get are offset by some pretty high increased costs of the other elements of their plant designs,” Mauter told me. “In a subsea system, you’ve got these unproven and not mass-manufactured skids. You’ve got subsea installation, and then mooring it, and putting in pipelines that you’ve got to maintain all the way to land. You’ve got to convey water back to shore, which takes energy, and you are going to have significantly higher maintenance burdens in an open ocean environment.”
Despite her reservations, she certainly sees the appeal of non-traditional water sources, “even at costs that would have been totally infeasible a decade ago.” Municipal planners are staring down a future of worsening drought at the same time that states in the Colorado River basin remain locked in contentious negotiations over water rights, debating how to allocate cuts as river flows have declined nearly 20% since 2000. California’s narrow continental shelf also makes it an ideal environment for subsea desalination, as having deep water close to shore allows the system to harness pressure depths while minimizing the length of the pipeline needed to transport freshwater to land. Norway is also favored in this way.
“I don’t know whether the cost gaps can be solved, but I bet that the technology gaps could be solved,” Mauter told me.
Ultimately, she thinks the binding constraint is likely to be regulatory rather than technical. “Permitting is going to be a nightmare unless something fundamentally changes,” she said. Bergstrom told me that OceanWell is currently working with the California State Water Resources Control Board to revise its rules that govern desalination facilities in order to account for new technologies, though how long that process will take is anyone’s guess.
There’s one idea emerging in this ecosystem that largely sidesteps the regulatory constraints that control our land and seas. The startup Vital Lyfe has developed a portable desalination unit roughly the size of a small cooler that allows individuals and households to produce freshwater on demand with reverse osmosis — effectively decentralizing the desalination industry in the same way that the startup’s founders, former SpaceX engineers, helped decentralize internet infrastructure with Starlink.
“We’ve seen this paradigm shift coming out of Starlink that traditional, large, centralized, systems are very expensive,” Vital Lyfe CEO Jon Criss told me. “They’re hard to deploy and hard to scale up when you really need them.”
After raising a $24 million seed round in December, the startup launched its first product a few weeks ago, which retails for $750. At that price point, it’s a great deal for sailors spending days or weeks at sea, but likely too expensive for the individuals in remote communities far from water infrastructure that might need it most. Criss’s goal is to quickly iterate on this first product to bring more affordable models to the market in short order.
Portable desalination devices aren’t anything new in and of themselves — they’ve been used in military, maritime, and humanitarian scenarios for decades. The startup’s breakthrough, Criss explained, is more about manufacturing efficiency than technology. “We went all the way back, looked at why every component was designed and how to redesign it for high rate manufacturing. So we were able to substantially drop the cost of ownership and operation of these things.”
You’ll soon find Vital Lyfe’s product in big box retail stores, Criss said, though he also aims to partner with large-scale desalination facilities and utilities to help boost their output. Either way, the startup is already generating buzz — it’s seen significant inbound interest as of late, as the inherent resilience of its small system stands in sharp contrast to the vulnerability of conventional desalination infrastructure now being targeted in the Middle East.
The company is scaling up to meet the moment, building out a facility in Los Angeles county that Criss said will eventually produce 120 portable units per hour. He’s aiming to start production by summer’s end, ramping to full capacity by October. “Within the next three years we plan to account for about 10% of total membrane production at Vital Lyfe alone,” he told me, referring specifically to the production for the desalination industry.
The future of the industry, of course, could look like any combination of all of these approaches — portable devices, conventional plants on land, and modular systems at sea. What seems certain is that as the globe continues to heat up, so will desalination tech.
Why local governments are getting an earful about “infrasound”
As the data center boom pressures counties, cities, and towns into fights over noise, the trickiest tone local officials are starting to hear complaints about is one they can’t even hear – a low-frequency rumble known as infrasound.
Infrasound is a phenomenon best described as sounds so low, they’re inaudible. These are the sorts of vibrations and pressure at the heart of earthquakes and volcanic activity. Infrasound can be anything from the waves shot out from a sonic boom or an explosion to very minute changes in air pressure around HVAC systems or refrigerators.
Knowing some of these facilities also have the capacity to produce significant audible noise, growing segments of the population’s more tech-skeptical and health-anxious corners are fretting some data centers could be making a lot of infrasound, too. The whizzing of so many large computational machines combined with cooling fans and other large devices creating so many new columns of air flow. Add onto that any rotational onsite power generation – think natural gas turbines, for example – and you get quite a lot of movement that could potentially produce what they say is infrasound.
Some of the virality of this chatter about infrasound and data centers comes from a video about infrasound created by audio engineer and researcher Benn Jordan. Currently sitting at more than 1 million views, this short YouTube film documents claims that some data centers are operating like “acoustic weapons” through infrasound and harming people. Andy Masley, an “effective altruist” writer, has become the chief critic of the Jordan video, getting into a back-and-forth that’s raised the issue to Internet discourse territory.
The Jordan-Masley infrasound debate is honestly a bit of a mess. So I want to be clear: I’m not going to get into the science of whether or not infrasound poses any kind of public health risk in this article. We can get to that later. It’s worth saying that this subject may need more study and that work is ongoing. Also, talking about infrasound at all can make you honestly sound a little wacky (see: this study blaming people seeing ghosts on infrasound). It might also remind you of another panic in the Electric Age: electromagnetic fields, also known as EMFs. Developers of transmission lines and solar projects have long had to deal with people worried about transmission lines and large electrical equipment potentially glowing with invisible, unhealthy radiation.
In late 2024, I wrote about how an RFK Jr. supporter worried about this form of electrical emission was helping lead the fight against a transmission line in New Jersey for offshore wind. Maybe that’s why it didn’t surprise me one bit when the Health and Human Services secretary himself told a U.S. Senate Committee last week that he was asking the Surgeon General’s office to “do either meta reviews” or “base studies” on noise pollution and EMF radiation from data centers “so we can better inform the American public.”
“There’s a range of injuries that are very, very well documented. They’re neurological – very, very grave neurological injuries, cancer risk,” Kennedy Jr. told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on April 22 in response to a request from Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri to study the issue. “The risks, to me, are tremendous.”
There’s also the unfortunate reality that infrasound impacts have previously been a cudgel to slow down renewable energy deployment. Wind turbines create infrasound because of the subharmonic frequencies created when one turbine rotates at a slightly different pace than another, producing a slightly dissonant low frequency noise. Groups like the Heartland Institute proudly list this infrasound as one of the reasons wind energy “menaces man and nature.”
But regardless of merit, this concern is already impacting local government decisions around data center projects, much like how one Michigan county sought to restrict solar energy on the same basis.
In February Adrian Shelley, the Texas director for environmental group Public Citizen, implored the city of Red Rock to study changing their noise ordinance to take into account infrasound. “It has effects on sleep patterns, on stress, on cardiovascular health, and it is potentially a very serious concern,” Shelley said at a February 11 city council discussion on data center rules. “It will not be covered by the city’s noise ordinance, which only deals with audible sound.”
Earlier this month in Calvert County, Maryland, a volunteer for their environmental commission recently told the county government that infrasound needs to be factored into their future data center planning. “It will have significant impacts on our region and the Chesapeake and the Patuxent because infrasound isn’t stopped by walls,” commission member Janette Wysocki, a proud land conservationist, said at an April 15 hearing. “It will keep going, it will move through anything. It’s a very long wavelength. So we need to protect our ecosystem.” Wysocki implored the county to consider whether to adjust its noise regulations.
Around the same time, similar concerns were raised in Lebanon, a small city in east-central Pennsylvania. “It permeates through concrete walls, it permeates through the ground,” Thomas Dompier, an associate professor at Lebanon Valley College, said at an April 16 Lebanon County commission hearing on data centers.
Lastly, last week I explained how Loudon County wants to rethink its noise ordinance to deal with low-frequency “hums” from data centers – a concern echoing those who fret infrasound.
Ethan Bourdeau, executive director of standards at Quiet Parks Intentional and a career acoustician and building standards writer, told me that what makes data centers unique is the “constant drone” of noise that could potentially carry subharmonic frequencies. Bourdeau said cities or counties could possibly factor concerns about infrasound into noise ordinances to address those who are most concerned. One way they could do it is by changing how decibels are weighted in the government’s measurements. A-weighting decibel meters are a common form of sound measurement geared toward perceptible noise. Using different systems, like C-weighting or G-weighting, would avoid ways that A-weighting can filter out sub-hearing frequencies.
“These are reporting and weighting systems where a sound level meter taking background noise receives all the unweighted sound and then you apply all these filters afterwards, like an EQ curve,” Bourdeau said.
So I guess if those most concerned about infrasound have their way, a lot of country commissioners and local elected leaders will be heading to the mixing booth.