Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Next month will mark four years since the Indian Point nuclear power plant north of New York City began to be shut down.

Indian Point 2 was closed on April 30, 2020. Indian Point 3’s closure followed a year later. The two units, rated at roughly 1,000 megawatts each, started operating in the mid-1970s. A half-century later, their reactor cores lie dismembered. Both units are irretrievably gone, for better or worse.

I believe the closures are for the worse — and not by a little. The loss of Indian Point’s 2,000 MW of virtually carbon-free power has set back New York’s decarbonization efforts by at least a decade.

I hinted at this in Drones With Hacksaws: Climate Consequences of Shutting Indian Point Can’t Be Brushed Aside, a May 2020 post in the NY-area outlet Gotham Gazette. Soon I grew more outspoken. In two posts for The Nation in April 2022 (here and here) I invoked Indian Point to urge Californians to revoke a parallel plan to close Pacific Gas & Electric’s two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which I followed up with a plea to Gov. Gavin Newsom to scuttle the shutdown deal, co-signed by clean-air advocate Armond Cohen and whole-earth avatar Stewart Brand. Which the governor did, last year.

Once I had regarded nuclear plant closures as no big deal. Now I was telling all who would listen that junking high-performing thousand-megawatt reactors on either coast was a monstrous climate crime, the carbon equivalent to decapitating many hundreds of giant wind turbines — a metaphor I employed in my Gotham Gazette post. My turnaround rested on two clear but overlooked points.

One was that nearly all extant U.S. nukes had long ago morphed from chronic inconsistency into rock-solid generators of massive volumes of carbon-free kilowatt-hours, with “capacity factors” reliably hitting 90% or even higher. This positive change should have put to rest the antinuclear movement’s shopworn “aging and unsafe” narrative about our 90-odd operating reactors. It also elevated the plants’ economic and climate value, making politically forced closures far more costly than most of us had imagined.

The other new point is connected to carbon and climate: The effort to have “renewables” (wind, solar and occasionally hydro) fill the hole left from closing Indian Point or other nuclear plants isn’t just tendentious and difficult. Rather, the very construct that one set of zero-carbon generators (renewables) can “replace” another (nuclear) with no climate cost is simplistic if not downright false, as I explain further below.

These new ideas came to mind as I read a major story this week on the consequences of Indian Point’s closure in The Guardian by Oliver Milman, the paper’s longtime chief environment correspondent. To his credit, Milman delved pretty deeply into the impacts of reactor closures — more so than any prominent journalist has done to date. Nonetheless, it’s time for coverage of nuclear closures to go further. To assist, I’ve posted Milman’s story verbatim, with my responses alongside.

A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up.

By Oliver Milman, The Guardian, March 20, 2024

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Guardian graphic using eGRID data for NYCW subregion. The chart’s other half was excised to fit the available space.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

“From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”

The closure of Indian Point raises sticky questions for the green movement and states such as New York that are looking to slash carbon pollution. Should long-held concerns about nuclear be shelved due to the overriding challenge of the climate crisis? If so, what should be done about the US’s fleet of ageing nuclear plants?

For those who spent decades fighting Indian Point, the power plant had few redeeming qualities even in an era of escalating global heating. Perched on the banks of the Hudson River about 25 miles north of Manhattan, the hulking facility started operation in the 1960s and its three reactors at one point contributed about a quarter of New York City’s power.

It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling. Pressure from Andrew Cuomo, New York’s then governor, and Bernie Sanders – the senator called Indian Point a “catastrophe waiting to happen” – led to a phased closure announced in 2017, with the two remaining reactors shutting in 2020 and 2021.

The closure was cause for jubilation in green circles, with Mark Ruffalo, the actor and environmentalist, calling the plant’s end “a BIG deal”. He added in a video: “Let’s get beyond Indian Point.” New York has two other nuclear stations, which have also faced opposition, that have licenses set to expire this decade.

But rather than immediately usher in a new dawn of clean energy, Indian Point’s departure spurred a jump in planet-heating emissions. New York upped its consumption of readily available gas to make up its shortfall in 2020 and again in 2021, as nuclear dropped to just a fifth of the state’s electricity generation, down from about a third before Indian Point’s closure.

This reversal will not itself wreck New York’s goal of making its grid emissions-free by 2040. Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027, while the state is pushing ahead with new offshore wind projects – New York’s first offshore turbines started whirring last week. Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor, has vowed the state will “build a cleaner, greener future for all New Yorkers.”

Even as renewable energy blossoms at a gathering pace in the US, though, it is gas that remains the most common fallback for utilities once they take nuclear offline, according to Furnas. This mirrors a situation faced by Germany after it looked to move away from nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, only to fall back on coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a temporary replacement.

“As renewables are being built we still need energy for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining and most often it’s gas that is doing that,” said Furnas. “It’s a harrowing dynamic. Taking away a big slice of clean energy coming from nuclear can be a self-inflicted wound from a climate change point of view.”

With the world barreling towards disastrous climate change impacts due to the dawdling pace of emissions cuts, some environmentalists have set aside reservations and accepted nuclear as an expedient power source. The US currently derives about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power.

Bill McKibben, author, activist and founder of 350.org, said that the position “of the people I know and trust” is that “if you have an existing nuke, keep it open if you can. I think most people are agnostic on new nuclear, hoping that the next generation of reactors might pan out but fearing that they’ll be too expensive.

“The hard part for nuclear, aside from all the traditional and still applicable safety caveats, is that sun and wind and batteries just keep getting cheaper and cheaper, which means the nuclear industry increasingly depends on political gamesmanship to get public funding,” McKibben added.

Wariness over nuclear has long been a central tenet of the environmental movement, though, and opponents point to concerns over nuclear waste, localized pollution and the chance, albeit unlikely, of a major disaster. In California, a coalition of green groups recently filed a lawsuit to try to force the closure of the Diablo Canyon facility, which provides about 8% of the state’s electricity.

“Diablo Canyon has not received the safety upgrades and maintenance it needs and we are dubious that nuclear is safe in any regard, let alone without these upgrades – it’s a huge problem,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director of Friends of the Earth, which was founded in 1969 to, among other things, oppose Diablo Canyon.

Templeton said the groups were alarmed over Diablo Canyon’s discharge of waste water into the environment and the possibility an earthquake could trigger a disastrous leak of nuclear waste. A previous Friends of the Earth deal with the plant’s operator, PG&E, to shutter Diablo Canyon was clouded by state legislation allowing the facility to remain open for another five years, and potentially longer, which Templeton said was a “twist of the knife” to opponents.

“We are not stuck in the past – we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” she said. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything. The main beneficiary of all this is the corporation making money out of this plant remaining active for longer.”

Meanwhile, supporters of nuclear – some online fans have been called “nuclear bros” – claim the energy source has moved past the specter of Chernobyl and into a new era of small modular nuclear reactors. Amazon recently purchased a nuclear-powered data center, while Bill Gates has also plowed investment into the technology. Rising electricity bills, as well as the climate crisis, are causing people to reassess nuclear, advocates say.

“Things have changed drastically – five years ago I would get a very hostile response when talking about nuclear, now people are just so much more open about it,” said Grace Stanke, a nuclear fuels engineer and former Miss America who regularly gives talks on the benefits of nuclear.

“I find that young people really want to have a discussion about nuclear because of climate change, but people of all ages want reliable, accessible energy,” she said. “Nuclear can provide that.”

The forces that won Indian Point’s closure were blind to the climate cost. 

By Charles Komanoff, Carbon Tax Center, March 23, 2024

New Reality #1: Indian Point wasn’t “deteriorating” when it was closed.

“Deteriorating and unloved” is how Milman characterized Indian Point in his lede. “Unloved?” Sure, though probably no U.S. generating station has been fondly embraced since Woody Guthrie rhapsodized about the Grand Coulee Dam in the 1940s.

But “deteriorating”? How could a power plant on the verge of collapse run for two decades at greater than 90% of its maximum capacity?

Calculations by author from International Atomic Energy Agency data. Diablo Canyon has also averaged over 90% CF since 2000.

Had Indian Point been less productive, the jump in the metropolitan area’s carbon emission rate would have been far less than the apparent 60 percent increase in the Guardian graph at left. Though the “electrify everything” community is loath to discuss it, the emissions surge from closing Indian Point significantly diminishes the purported climate benefit from shifting vehicles, heating, cooking and industry from combustion to electricity .

The impetus for shutting Indian Point largely came through, not from then-Gov. Cuomo.

Milman pins the decision to close Indian Point on NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Vermont’s U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. While Cuomo backed and brokered the deal (which Sanders had nothing to do with), the real push came from a coalition of NY-area environmental activists led by Riverkeeper, who, as he notes, “spent decades fighting Indian Point.” And it was relentless.

The wellsprings of their fight were many, from Cold War fears of anything nuclear to a fierce devotion to the Hudson River ecosystem, which Indian Point threatened not through occasional minor radioactive leaks but via larval striped bass entrainment on the plant’s intake screens. Their fight was of course supercharged by the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania and, later, by the 9/11 hijackers’ Hudson River flight path. But as I pointed out in Gotham Gazette, few shutdown proponents had carbon reduction in their organizational DNA. None had ever built anything, leaving many with a fantasyland conception of the work required to substitute green capacity for Indian Point.

And while the shutdown forces proclaimed their love for wind and solar, their understanding of electric grids and nukes was stuck in the past. To them, Indian Point was Three Mile Island (or Chernobyl) on the Hudson — never mind that by the mid-2010s U.S. nuclear power plants had multiplied their pre-TMI operating experience twenty-fold with nary a mishap.

No, in most anti-nukers’ minds, Indian Point would forever be a bumbling menace incapable of rising above its previous-century average 50% capacity factor (see graph above). Most either ignored the plant’s born-again 90% online mark or viewed it as proof of lax oversight by a co-opted Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note too that the “hulking facility,” as Milman termed Indian Point, lay a very considerable 35 air miles from Columbus Circle, rather than “25 miles north of Manhattan,” a figure that references the borough’s uninhabited northern tip. NYC residents had more immediate concerns, leaving fear and loathing over the nukes to be concentrated among the plant’s Westchester neighbors (Cuomo’s backyard). Which raises the question of why in-city environmental justice groups failed to question the shutdown, which is now impeding closure of polluting “peaker” plants in their own Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx backyards.

Still, the shutdown campaigners’ most grievous lapse was their failure to grasp that the new climate imperative requires a radically different conceptual framework for gauging nuclear power.

New Reality #2: Wind and solar that are replacing Indian Point can’t also reduce fossil fuels.

It’s dispiriting to contemplate the effort required to create enough new carbon-free electricity to generate Indian Point’s lost carbon-free output. Think 500 giant offshore wind turbines, each rated at 8 megawatts. (Wind farms need twice the capacity of Indian Point, i.e., 4,000 MW vs. 2,000, to offset their lesser capacity factor.)

What about solar PV? Its capacity disadvantage vis-a-vis Indian Point’s 90% is five- or even six-fold, meaning 10,000 or more megawatts of new solar to replace Indian Point. I won’t even try to calculate how many solar buildings that would require. But this is where Indian Point’s 90% capacity factor is so daunting; had the plant stayed mired at 60%, the capacity ratios to replace it would be a third less steep.

But wait . . . it’s even worse. These massive infusions of wind or solar are supposed to be reducing fossil fuel use by helping the grid phase out gas (methane) fired electricity. Which they cannot do, if they first need to stand in for the carbon-free generation that Indian Point was providing before it was shut.

So when Riverkeeper pledged in 2015-2017, or Friends of the Earth’s legal director told the Guardian‘s Milman that “we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” they’re misrepresenting renewables’ capacity to help nuclear-depleted grids cut down on carbon. Shutting a functioning nuclear power plant puts the grid into a deep carbon-reduction hole — one that new solar and wind must first fill, at great expense, before further barrages of turbines and panels can actually be said to be keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

I suspect that not one in a hundred shut-nukes-now campaigners grasps this frame of reference. I certainly didn’t, until one day in April 2020, mere weeks before Indian Point 2 would be turned off, when an activist with Nuclear NY phoned me out of the blue and hurled this new paradigm at me. Before then, I was stuck in the “grid sufficiency” framework that was limited to having enough megawatts to keep everyone’s A/C’s running on peak summer days. The idea that the next giant batch or two of renewables will only keep CO2 emissions running in place rather than reduce them was new and startling. And irrefutably true.

To be clear, I don’t criticize Milman for missing this new paradigm. He’s a journalist, not an analyst or analyst. It’s on us climate advocates to propagate it till it reaches reportorial critical mass.

I credit Milman for giving FoE’s legal director free rein about Diablo. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything,” she told him.

Goodness. Everyone [who? California government? PG&E? green entrepreneurs?] didn’t do anything to switch over to solar and wind. Welcome to reality, Friends of the Earth!

I knew FoE’s legendary founder David Brower personally. I and legions of others were inspired in the 1960s and 1970s by his implacable refusal to accede to the world as it was and his monumental determination to build a better one. But reality has its own implacability. The difficulty of bringing actual wind and solar projects (and more energy-efficiency) to fruition has the sad corollary that shutting viable nuclear plants consigns long-sought big blocks of renewables to being mere restorers of the untenable climate status quo.

In closing: Contrary to Milman (and NY Gov. Kathy Hochul), Indian Point’s closure will wreck NY’s goal of an emissions-free grid by 2040.

“Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027,” Milman wrote, referencing the Champlain-Hudson Power Express transmission line and Clean Path NY. But their combined annual output will only match Indian Point’s lost carbon-free production. Considering that loss, the two ventures can’t be credited with actually pushing fossil fuels out of the grid. That will require massive new clean power ventures, few of which are on the horizon.

I’ve written about the travails of getting big, difference-making offshore wind farms up and running in New York. I’ve argued that robust carbon pricing could help neutralize the inflationary pressures, supply bottlenecks, higher interest rates and pervasive NIMBY-ism that have led some wind developers to deep-six big projects.

Though I’ve yet to fully “do the math,” my decades adjacent to the electricity industry (1970-1995) and indeed my long career in policy analysis tell me that New York’s grid won’t even reach 80% carbon-free by 2040 unless the state or, better, Washington legislates a palpable carbon price that incentivizes large-scale demand reductions along with faster uptake of new wind, solar and, perhaps, nuclear.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025

Published

2 days ago

on

January 9, 2026

By

Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.

The global Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) market is growing at a rapid pace. The expansion is driven by the rise of renewable energy, the increasing need for grid stability, and the growth of electric vehicles (EVs). 

BESS allows electricity to be stored when supply exceeds demand and released when demand is higher than supply. This technology is becoming essential for utilities, commercial users, and residential applications.

Powering Demand: EVs and Energy Storage Drive Growth

J.P. Morgan’s recent analysis shows that shipments of stationary energy storage batteries will rise by 50% in 2025 and 43% in 2026. This surge is causing the lithium supply to move into a deficit. 

lithium demand changes

Analysts estimate that BESS will account for about 30% of global lithium demand by 2026, rising to 36% by 2030. Global lithium demand in lithium-carbonate-equivalent (LCE) terms could reach ~2.8 million tonnes by 2030.

Demand is rising not only from energy storage but also from the EV sector. J.P. Morgan has increased its forecast for EV-related lithium demand by 3–5% for the years 2025 to 2030. This change shows that more people are adopting electric vehicles globally.

Battery EV sales and penetration

The rising demand is further amplified by policies encouraging renewable energy adoption. Many countries are setting goals for renewable energy and cleaner grids. This opens up new chances for energy storage.

Utilities are using BESS more widely. They do this to manage peak loads, integrate renewable energy, and offer services like frequency regulation and black-start capability.

Price Sparks: Lithium Supply and Market Tightness

Despite growing demand, supply faces significant constraints. Many lithium producers hesitate to restart idle production. They want prices to rise enough for them to profit. 

J.P. Morgan highlights that prices of $1,200–1,500 per tonne of spodumene are needed to bring new supply online. Spot prices have already risen from around $800/t to ~ $950/t, highlighting tightness in the market.

lithium price changes

Lithium price forecasts have also been upgraded to reflect these market conditions:

  • 2026/27: $1,100–1,200/t
  • Long-term: $1,300/t

Higher price levels boost the economics of lithium projects. This benefits companies with strong ties to the BESS market. Higher prices also create incentives for new players to enter the market and expand existing projects.

Key Market Trends for BESS

The BESS market is evolving rapidly with several structural trends:

  • Grid-scale storage growth: Large-scale BESS deployments are increasing to help utilities manage intermittent renewable generation and maintain grid stability.
  • Distributed energy storage: Behind-the-meter storage for commercial, industrial, and residential users is rising as battery costs fall.
  • Advances in battery technology: Lithium-ion battery performance is improving, with longer lifespans, higher efficiency, and better safety.
  • Policy support: Governments worldwide are providing incentives and creating regulations that encourage energy storage adoption.
  • Supply-chain risks: Lithium, nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals remain a bottleneck, and securing a reliable supply is a key challenge for the industry.

J.P. Morgan says that high demand and limited supply are creating a structural deficit in the lithium market. This is pushing prices up and making companies that supply lithium for BESS applications more appealing.

Spotlight on Surge Battery Metals: A Rising Player

Surge Battery Metals (TSXV: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) is advancing the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the United States. With this level of grade and consistency, the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) represents the type of high-quality, domestic lithium supply that battery makers and grid-scale energy storage developers have been looking for – an “American-made” resource that strengthens U.S. supply chains and reduces dependence on imported material.

With the lithium market emerging from a prolonged downturn, high-quality projects with strong fundamentals are beginning to stand out. Surge Battery Metals is well-positioned in this environment as the company has:

  • BLM approval for its Exploration Plan of Operations, 
  • Hosts the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the USA, and 
  • Maintains a strong treasury to advance the NNLP. NNLP holds an inferred resource of 11.24 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at 3,010 ppm Li, showcasing the scale and potential quality of its lithium assets.

These advantages – combined with a high-grade, near-surface deposit located in mining-friendly Nevada – position Surge as one of the few lithium explorers with the potential to advance meaningfully toward production as market conditions improve. Demand for BESS is rising quickly, which boosts its potential advantage.

Surge joint venture evolution mining

Forecasts and Industry Analysis: Lithium and BESS Outlook

The BESS market is expected to continue growing sharply over the next decade. According to J.P. Morgan, stationary energy storage will account for 30–36% of lithium demand by 2030. Utility-scale projects will lead this growth. However, commercial and residential installations will also play a big role.

Price trends are likely to remain supportive for suppliers. Spot prices are near $950/t, with long-term forecasts at $1,300/t. Companies that produce and supply lithium efficiently can capture significant value.

Industry analysts also highlight several emerging trends:

  • Integration of smart-grid technology: AI and software solutions are being deployed to optimize energy storage and distribution.
  • Hybrid energy storage solutions: Combining batteries with other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro or thermal storage, is becoming more common.
  • Recycling and secondary supply chains: As BESS adoption grows, recycling lithium and other critical metals will become increasingly important.

These trends should boost the flexibility, efficiency, and sustainability of power networks globally.

Strategic Moves: Surge’s Path to Market Leadership

Surge Battery Metals is positioned to benefit from these industry dynamics. Its focus on high-quality lithium assets aligns with the rising demand for BESS. Key strategic considerations for the company include:

  • Advancing projects efficiently to meet growing market demand.
  • Forming strategic partnerships with battery manufacturers and utility companies to secure offtake agreements.
  • Maintaining operational discipline and cost efficiency to maximize project returns.

Surge Battery Metals is currently advancing lithium exploration at its Nevada North Lithium Project with the goal of defining resources that could support future production. Its metallurgical testing has shown promising results. These include lithium carbonate of 99% purity, but the company is still working toward a full feasibility study. If development proceeds as planned, Surge could become a significant future supplier for the BESS market, although current supply remains limited.

The Bright Future of Energy Storage

Battery Energy Storage Systems are no longer a niche market. The growing use of renewable energy, the rise of electric vehicles, and updates to the grid are increasing the demand for lithium and other battery materials. 

Moreover, the outlook for BESS is positive. Demand growth, tech improvements, and policy support all suggest the market will keep expanding. Supply limits and higher prices are opening doors for companies that can deliver lithium effectively.

By 2030, BESS could account for more than one-third of global lithium demand. Surge Battery Metals and similar companies are key to this shift. They help create cleaner, stronger, and more efficient electricity systems.

As the market grows, execution, timing, and partnerships will decide which companies benefit the most. Surge Battery Metals can shine in the energy storage market by focusing on high-quality lithium resources, smart development, and staying aligned with market trends.


DISCLAIMER 

New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.

This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.

Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.

It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.


CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.

These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.

Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.

There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.

The post How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

BYD Overtakes Tesla as World’s Biggest EV Seller in 2025

Published

3 days ago

on

January 7, 2026

By

BYD Overtakes Tesla as World's Biggest EV Seller in 2025

In 2025, China’s automotive maker BYD became the world’s largest seller of electric vehicles (EVs), overtaking U.S. EV pioneer Tesla for the first time. Data from multiple industry trackers shows that BYD sold about 2.26 million battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in 2025.

In contrast, Tesla delivered about 1.64 million EVs in the same year, marking a decline from its 2024 figures. This shift marks a major change in the global EV market.

From Challenger to Market Leader: BYD’s Breakthrough Year

BYD’s EV sales showed strong momentum throughout 2025. Its pure battery electric vehicle deliveries rose by roughly 28% year on year, reaching more than 2.25 million units worldwide. This steady growth allowed BYD to move ahead of Tesla in total annual BEV sales.

Tesla, by comparison, reported a decline of about 9-10% in overall vehicle deliveries versus the previous year. As a result, 2025 marked the first full calendar year in which BYD sold more battery electric vehicles than Tesla.

BYD vs TESLA ev sales 2025

The gap became more visible in the second half of the year. Demand for EVs softened in some of Tesla’s key markets, particularly as higher interest rates and reduced incentives affected consumer spending. BYD, however, continued to benefit from strong demand in China and improving sales abroad.

By year’s end, the gap in total EV deliveries between the two companies grew to several hundred thousand units. This marked a clear shift in market leadership.

Quarterly data reinforced this trend. In the fourth quarter of 2025, Tesla delivered around 418,000 vehicles, representing a 15–16% drop from the same period in 2024. This decline reflected slower sales growth and increased competition.

BYD’s fourth-quarter BEV deliveries, in contrast, continued to rise. Its consistent quarterly growth helped push its full-year sales past Tesla’s and confirmed its position as the world’s largest EV seller by volume.

Why China’s EV Champion Is Scaling Faster

Several factors helped drive BYD’s expansion in global EV sales during 2025. A key driver was strong domestic demand in China, the world’s largest electric vehicle market.

Chinese automakers lead in local EV sales. This is thanks to consumer trust in domestic brands and a strong charging network in big cities. BYD benefited directly from this environment.

From January to November, industry estimates China’s NEV wholesale sales are about 13.78 million units. This shows a 29% increase compared to last year, and BYD captured a dominant 32% domestic share. This home-market strength fueled its global BEV leadership.​

China passenger new EV sales

The product range also played an important role. BYD offers a wide lineup of EV models, including many lower-priced options that appeal to cost-conscious buyers. These vehicles attracted customers looking for practical electric cars rather than premium models. This broader appeal helped BYD reach a larger customer base than some competitors.

At the same time, BYD’s exports hit 1.05 million units in 2025, up 200% from the previous year. Europe and Latin America are key drivers of this growth. Globally, BYD claimed 12.1% of the BEV market in 2025, ahead of Tesla’s 8.8% and Volkswagen’s 5.2%, cementing the competitive shift.

Competitive pricing and improving vehicle quality helped BYD gain traction in these markets. Policy support also contributed, as incentives and trade policies in several regions made imported EVs more competitive.

Together, these factors allowed BYD to sustain sales growth even as demand softened for some rival brands.

Tesla Under Pressure in a Crowded EV Arena

Tesla’s sales declines in 2025 were linked to several challenges, including:

  • Reduced demand after EV tax incentives ended in the United States, particularly the federal EV tax credit that expired in late 2025. This had encouraged buyers to purchase earlier in the year.
  • Stronger competition from Chinese brands, not only BYD but also other manufacturers, is entering global markets.
  • Market saturation in some regions, where potential customers postponed purchases or chose alternatives.

Tesla remains a major EV maker, but it saw its first consecutive annual drop in deliveries. By contrast, BYD increased its volume while expanding into new regions.

The EV Market Is Still Growing—But Leadership Is Shifting

The global EV market continues to grow, with total EV sales rising annually as more countries push toward cleaner transport. Analysts see strong demand for electric cars continuing this decade. Climate goals and stricter emissions rules in many areas support this trend.

Industry forecasts say global EV deliveries might keep growing until 2030. This growth is due to lower battery costs and more models from various automakers.

Industry forecasts project global EV sales reaching 40–50% of total car sales by 2030, up from ~20 million units in 2025. Battery pack prices have fallen to $115/kWh in 2024. They could further drop to $80–$99/kWh by 2026 (50% decline), enabling price parity with gas cars.

global long-term EV sales by market 2040

Nations in Europe and Asia are pushing zero‑emission vehicle targets as part of their climate commitments, which may further expand EV adoption.

Europe targets 90% CO2 cut by 2035 for new cars (easing from 100%, allowing some e-fuels/PHEVs). China aims for ~60–90% EV/NEV sales by 2030.

Still, challenges remain. EV buyer incentives vary by country and can affect sales patterns, as seen in the U.S. when federal credits expired. Some regions face infrastructure gaps, like limited charging networks, which can slow growth. Continued cost reductions and broader infrastructure rollouts will be key to sustaining EV adoption long term.

Emissions, Energy, and the Bigger Climate Picture

Electric vehicles are central to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport by 70–90% over their lifecycle compared to gasoline cars. This holds even with current grids.

  • For EVs, emissions range from 200–500 gCO2/km, while ICEVs emit 200–300 gCO2/km.

Global transport represents 24% of CO2 emissions (8 GtCO2e). EVs could slash this by 40% by 2030 at 40% adoption. Clean grids, renewables >60% by 2030, boost EV advantage to near-total decarbonization.

Source: IEA

Also, EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions and can lower overall carbon output when charged with renewable electricity. As more power grids shift toward clean energy sources, the lifetime emissions advantage of EVs grows.

BYD’s sales surge contributes to this global transition. As one of the largest EV producers, its growth means more EVs are on the road worldwide. This supports international efforts to cut emissions from passenger cars, which remain a major source of global greenhouse gases.

However, the environmental impact of EV manufacturing, especially battery production, remains a focus of industry and policy discussions. Sustainable practices in sourcing materials and recycling batteries will be crucial to maximizing the environmental benefits of EV growth.

A New Global Auto Order Takes Shape

BYD’s rise to the top reflects broader changes in the global auto sector:

  • Chinese carmakers are gaining ground internationally, not just in their home market.
  • Competition in EV segments is increasing, pushing companies to innovate faster on cost, range, and technology.
  • Tesla’s leadership is challenged, even as it pushes into areas like autonomous driving and energy products.

The shift also highlights how consumer preferences are evolving, with buyers showing strong interest in different EV brands and models beyond traditional market leaders. As EV technology matures, more brands are expected to capture market share and expand globally.

The post BYD Overtakes Tesla as World’s Biggest EV Seller in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

DOE’s $2.7 Billion Push for Uranium Enrichment Rebuilds U.S. Energy Security

Published

4 days ago

on

January 7, 2026

By

The United States is taking a decisive step to rebuild its nuclear fuel supply chain. The Department of Energy has announced a $2.7 billion investment over the next decade to expand domestic uranium enrichment. This move aims to strengthen energy security, reduce dependence on foreign suppliers, and support the next phase of nuclear power growth.

The announcement also reflects a shift in how the U.S. views nuclear energy. Once seen mainly as a legacy power source, nuclear is now positioned as a strategic solution for rising electricity demand, artificial intelligence growth, industrial resilience, and long-term climate goals.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said:

“President Trump is catalyzing a resurgence in the nation’s nuclear energy sector to strengthen American security and prosperity. “Today’s awards show that this Administration is committed to restoring a secure domestic nuclear fuel supply chain capable of producing the nuclear fuels needed to power the reactors of today and the advanced reactors of tomorrow.”

To understand why this matters, it helps to look at how DOE is deploying the funding and at where the U.S. stands today.

How the DOE Is Deploying the Funding

Last year, the DOE signed contracts with six enrichment companies, allowing them to compete for future work. Now, the department has awarded task orders to three companies under a strict milestone-based structure to ensure accountability.

  • American Centrifuge Operating received $900 million to establish domestic HALEU enrichment capacity.
  • General Matter also received $900 million to develop HALEU production.
  • Orano Federal Services secured $900 million to expand LEU enrichment within the United States.

Together, these projects will help maintain fuel supplies for the nation’s 94 operating nuclear reactors. At the same time, they will create a foundation for future advanced reactors that are still moving through development and licensing.

Importantly, this funding not only supports fuel production. It also drives job creation, strengthens domestic manufacturing, and restores confidence in the U.S. nuclear ecosystem.

HALEU Changes the Nuclear Equation and the U.S. Must Act on Uranium Enrichment

Uranium enrichment plays a critical role in nuclear power. Most U.S. reactors operate on low-enriched uranium, or LEU. However, advanced reactors, including small modular reactors and next-generation designs, require high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU.

For years, the U.S. relied heavily on foreign enrichment services. In fact, the country currently performs less than 1% of global uranium enrichment. This reliance has raised serious concerns about energy security and supply reliability, especially as new rules will restrict imports of Russian uranium starting in 2028.

As a result, rebuilding domestic enrichment capacity has become urgent. The DOE’s $2.7 billion investment directly addresses this vulnerability by accelerating U.S.-based production of both LEU and HALEU.

us uranium nuclear reactor

Upstream Supply Remains a Weak Link

While enrichment capacity is expanding, upstream uranium production still faces challenges.

EIA revealed that, in the third quarter of 2025, U.S. uranium concentrate production fell to 329,623 pounds of U₃O₈, a sharp drop from the previous quarter. Production came from only six facilities, mainly located in Wyoming and Texas.

This decline highlights a broader issue. Rebuilding the full nuclear fuel cycle requires coordinated growth across mining, processing, enrichment, and fuel fabrication. Progress in one area must be matched by investment in others.

U.S. Uranium

Orano’s Oak Ridge Project Anchors to DOE Funding

One of the most significant projects tied to the DOE funding is Orano’s planned enrichment facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Known as the IKE project, the facility will provide a new domestic source of enriched uranium. Orano plans to finalize contracts and submit its license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the first half of 2026.

Once operational, the plant will help U.S. utilities comply with regulations that ban Russian uranium imports after 2028. It will also support rising electricity demand linked to AI, data centers, and broader electrification.

Nicolas Maes, Chief Executive Officer of Orano, commented,

“This is excellent news for Orano and a decisive step forward on our project for an enrichment plant in the USA! This recognition by the US authorities is an illustration of the confidence they have in our expertise and our capacity to deploy our technology to ensure robust security of supply to our customers.”

AI Growth Shows Why Nuclear Matters

Beyond energy security, another powerful force is shaping this investment: artificial intelligence.

As AI systems grow more complex, demand for computing power continues to surge. Data centers require vast amounts of electricity that must be reliable, affordable, and available around the clock. Renewable energy alone often cannot meet this need without firm backup power.

This is where advanced nuclear reactors come into play. General Matter has highlighted that AI leadership depends on expanding both compute capacity and electricity production. Gen IV small modular reactors, fueled by HALEU, can provide steady power either directly to data centers or through the grid.

By powering AI infrastructure behind the meter, nuclear reactors reduce pressure on public grids while delivering low-carbon electricity. As a result, nuclear fuel is increasingly seen as a critical input for the digital economy.

AI demand
Source: McKinsey

Keeps Industry and Remote Sites Running

Nuclear energy powers U.S. manufacturing, supplying factories, refineries, and heavy industries with stable, affordable electricity. Disruptions can slow production and raise costs, so a reliable LEU supply is essential. Today, reactors provide nearly 20% of U.S. electricity and almost half of emissions-free power.

Small, containerized microreactors fueled by HALEU are emerging for remote or harsh locations, including military bases, mining sites, and disaster zones. These systems run long with minimal maintenance, delivering dependable power and driving demand for HALEU, strengthening America’s domestic nuclear fuel infrastructure.

The Future of Enrichment Goes Laser-Fast

To support long-term innovation, the DOE also awarded $28 million to Global Laser Enrichment (GLE). The company is advancing the SILEX laser enrichment technology, which promises higher efficiency and lower energy use compared to traditional methods.

GLE has reached Technology Readiness Level 6 and has submitted a full license application for its Paducah facility. If deployed commercially, laser enrichment could significantly improve the economics and flexibility of nuclear fuel production.

Taken together, these developments signal a strategic reset. The DOE’s $2.7 billion investment reflects a clear decision to treat nuclear fuel as a national priority. By strengthening domestic enrichment, supporting advanced reactors, and backing innovation, the U.S. is positioning nuclear energy as a cornerstone of its future energy system.

In an era defined by AI growth, rising electricity demand, and climate pressure, nuclear power is no longer just part of the mix. It is becoming a central pillar of American progress.

The post DOE’s $2.7 Billion Push for Uranium Enrichment Rebuilds U.S. Energy Security appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com