In a major development in the nuclear sector, Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. and Yasheng Group have strategically partnered to create and file a patent for an innovative small nuclear battery—Nickel-63. This battery is expected to offer an extended lifespan of up to 50 years. The collaboration targets key energy storage challenges in areas such as remote sensing, space exploration, medical devices, and military applications.

What is a Nickel-63 Battery?

A nuclear or an atomic battery converts a radioactive isotope into electrical energy through its decomposition. These batteries can last for several decades, providing a long-term solution for energy storage. By decomposing radioactive materials, they generate substantial energy while minimizing waste.

Scientists believe that nuclear batteries are reliable, lightweight, highly efficient, and economically sustainable. Specifically, the Nickel-63 battery will convert energy produced from the beta decay of the radioactive isotope Nickel-63 into electrical power. It will be encased in a robust radiation-shielding case to prevent leakage and feature a thermal management system to stabilize its operation, ensuring environmental safety and mitigating potential radioactive hazards.

READ MORE: US Targets 200 GW Nuclear Expansion to Meet Soaring Energy Demand 

Unlocking the Kronos and Yasheng Agreement

Kronos Advanced Technologies, headquartered in West Virginia, specializes in air movement and purification technology used in automotive, aviation, healthcare, and transportation sectors. Yasheng Group, a U.S. holding company, has joint ventures in agriculture, biotech, blockchain, and mining, operating in the U.S., China, and the Philippines. Yasheng is expanding globally through growth, mergers, and acquisitions in the eco-agriculture industry.

Agreement Details:

Patent Filing and Costs: Yasheng Group will handle the patent filing for the nuclear battery in China, while Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. will manage the filing in North America. Each company will cover the filing costs in their respective regions.
Royalties: Both companies will share profits from this groundbreaking technology. Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. will receive 10% of the royalties generated by Yasheng Group in China, while Yasheng Group will receive 10% of the royalties from Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. in North America.

The Impact of Nickel-63 Nuclear Batteries on Next-Gen Power

Nickel-63 nuclear batteries hold significant potential across various industries due to their long-lasting power and unique features. In the medical field, they are ideal for powering implantable devices like pacemakers, artificial hearts, and cochlear implants, where frequent battery replacements are impractical.

In aerospace and defense, these batteries are well-suited for long-duration space missions and satellite operations due to their durability and minimal maintenance requirements. They are also perfect for remote sensors and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, providing continuous monitoring and data collection in remote or challenging conditions.

Although still in development, Nickel-63 batteries have the potential to transform consumer electronics by potentially eliminating the need for recharging devices like smartphones and laptops. Notably, Kronos and Yasheng Group have targeted all these applications in their collaboration.

The Rise of Nuclear Power Batteries in a Net Zero Future

Industries are increasingly drawn to nuclear batteries for their reliability, endurance, and sustainability. As the world shifts toward net-zero goals, government regulations focus on reducing energy waste and environmental pollution. Nuclear batteries’ ability to reduce waste and lower greenhouse gas emissions positions them as a key player in the energy market.

Experts predict that demand for these batteries will grow as the industry transitions from electrochemical to nuclear technology. This trend is expected to drive significant growth in the nuclear battery market. Most importantly, these batteries could play a critical role in decarbonizing global electricity systems and mitigate impact of climate change.

According to Expert Market Research, the global nuclear battery market is projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 8.7% to 9.1% from 2024 to 2032. This growth is driven by advancements in nuclear technology, increased adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles, and the rising demand for long-lasting power sources across industries such as medical, aerospace, and remote sensing.

Image: Nuclear Battery Market Share (%) by Region (2019-2031)

source: cognitivemarketresearch

Key market players in nuclear batteries include Exide Technologies, Tesla Energy, Thermo PV, Vattenfall, American Elements, Marlow Energy Group, Curtiss-Wright Nuclear, City Labs, Inc., Luminous Power Technologies, etc.

Interestingly, earlier this year, Betavolt, a Chinese startup announced the development of nickel-63 battery, promising power for 50 years without recharging or maintenance. It claimed that its nuclear battery is “the world’s first to miniaturize atomic energy in a module smaller than a coin.” Media reports state that the battery is currently undergoing pilot testing and is expected to be mass-produced for use in phones and drones.

Overall, if Kronos and Yasheng partnership succeed, it could be a game changer for nuclear battery technology.

FURTHER READING: Is the Battery Boom Heating Up? California Leads the Charge!

The post Kronos and Yasheng Partnership: Revolutionizing Power with Nickel-63 Nuclear Battery appeared first on Carbon Credits.

As the presidential election approaches, many are wondering how does Vice President Kalama Harris’ climate and energy record compare to Donald Trumps.

A recent survey by Climate Power and Data for Progress reveals that Vice President Kamala Harris holds a significant advantage over former President Donald Trump on climate and energy issues, a key factor as the presidential election draws near. This data underscores the stark contrast between the candidates’ approaches, particularly among young voters, who are expected to play a crucial role in determining the outcome.

Voters Prioritize Clean Energy and Climate Action

The survey results indicate that nearly 70% of voters believe the next president should continue investing in clean energy manufacturing, a view that cuts across party lines. Half of Republican voters, two-thirds of Independents, and 71% of young voters aged 18-34 support this stance. This overwhelming consensus highlights the growing importance of clean energy in the political landscape.

When voters were explicitly asked about Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, 62% expressed that she should continue these investments to enhance the climate initiatives started under the Biden-Harris administration. This level of support suggests that Harris’ commitment to clean energy is resonating strongly with the electorate.

Harris’ Climate Record Garners Strong Support

Kamala Harris’ track record on climate issues has earned her widespread support among voters. As Vice President, Harris has been a significant but often unsung force in advancing climate policy. Her behind-the-scenes advocacy has been crucial in shaping major environmental legislation.

In early 2024, Harris championed a $20 billion investment in green banks to cut pollution, an idea she supported since her Senate tenure in 2020. She also endorsed higher unionization rates for clean energy workers, leading to climate law provisions that provide bonuses for projects with prevailing wages.

During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris advocated for electric vehicle incentives for low- and middle-income families. This push resulted in the climate law offering up to $7,500 off new electric vehicles and $4,000 off used ones.

Harris’s commitment to environmental justice dates back to her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney, where she established California’s first environmental crimes unit. As California’s attorney general in 2011, she filed a lawsuit against polluting cargo terminals, leading to a settlement to protect affected communities.

 This approach influenced the federal climate law, which includes $3 billion to reduce port pollution and over $40 billion for disadvantaged communities, marking the largest environmental justice investment in U.S. history.

Additionally, Harris’s influence extended to the bipartisan infrastructure package. This included $5 billion for electric school buses—a policy she introduced in 2019—and $15 billion for replacing lead pipes.

The Results Speak 

The Data for Progress survey tested voter reactions to eight of Harris’ key climate actions, and a majority supported each one. Notably, 72% of voters back her efforts to strengthen the Clean Air and Water Acts, legislate to replace 100% of lead pipes, and introduce the first-ever limits on harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

Furthermore, 69% of voters approve of Harris’ decision to take an oil company to court for potential criminal violations following an oil pipeline spill that polluted coastal waters. This strong backing reflects a public desire for accountability in environmental protection.

Additionally, 68% of voters favor Harris’ clean energy plan, which has created over 300,000 new jobs across the U.S. This support highlights the economic benefits of transitioning to clean energy, an issue that resonates with voters across the political spectrum.

Voters Prefer Harris’ Climate and Energy Policies Over Trump’s

When asked to compare the energy and climate policies of Harris and Trump, voters showed a clear preference for Harris’ approach. By a 12-point margin, voters favor Harris’ focus on expanding clean energy to lower costs for families and boost American manufacturing while protecting communities’ access to clean air and water. This margin is even larger among key demographics, including Independents (+17 points) and young voters (+22 points), indicating strong support for Harris’ vision for the future.

Harris’ edge over Trump is further emphasized when voters are presented with a comparison of each candidate’s approach to the oil and gas industry.

By a 22-point margin, voters prefer Harris’ record of holding oil and gas companies accountable for profiteering and gouging Americans at the pump, over Trump’s record of offering large tax breaks and financial incentives to the fossil fuel industry. This issue is particularly salient among Independents, who favor Harris’ approach by a 2-to-1 ratio (57% to 29%).

In another comparison, 56% of voters agree more with Harris’ approach to the oil and gas industry and pollution. This draws on her experience as a district attorney going after polluters.

Only 38% agree more with Trump’s stated intention to aggressively expand drilling while downplaying the threat of climate change. This contrast is especially pronounced among young voters, with nearly 7 in 10 voters aged 18-34 siding with Harris.

Voters Support Continuing Biden-Harris Climate Progress

The survey also reveals a clear preference among voters for continuing the clean energy and climate progress made by the Biden-Harris administration. When voters were asked to choose between the climate platforms of Harris and Trump, a majority expressed support for the following: 

expanding clean energy, 
strengthening pollution protections, and 
holding big oil and gas companies accountable. 

This support remained strong even when the candidates’ names were explicitly attached to their respective platforms. This suggests that Harris’ climate and energy policies have broad appeal.

Overall, the survey underscores Harris’ significant advantage over Trump on climate and energy issues, particularly among Independents and young voters. With less than 100 days until the election, Harris’ commitment to clean energy and holding polluters accountable appears to be resonating strongly with the electorate. 

READ MORE: US EPA to Invest $20B in Climate and Clean Energy Projects for Underserved Communities

The post Kamala Harris Surges Ahead of Trump on Climate and Energy Policies, Survey Shows appeared first on Carbon Credits.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has announced that carbon credits issued under existing renewable energy methodologies will not be eligible for its Core Carbon Principles (CCP) designation. This decision affects nearly one-third (32%) of the voluntary carbon market or about 236 million carbon credits. 333

ICVCM’s Decision Is Based on “Additionality”

The ICVCM’s decision is based on the concept of “additionality,” which asserts that the projects in question might have proceeded without the financial incentives from carbon credits. The Core Carbon Principles are designed to ensure that carbon credits contribute to emissions reductions that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise.

READ MORE: The Core Carbon Principles

The CCP framework requires that the emissions reductions from carbon credits be additional, meaning they would not have happened without the carbon credit revenue. This principle is applied to eight methodologies, including grid-connected renewable energy generation and biomass energy production. They collectively represent about 236 million credits, or 32% of the voluntary carbon market (VCM).

Chart from MSCI

This low revenue share suggests that carbon credits were unlikely to be a decisive factor in the development of renewable energy plants, especially for large-scale hydro, wind, or solar projects with significant upfront capital costs.

The CCP label now applies only to credits from five vetted programs using approved methodologies.

How Can This Impact the Carbon Offset Market?

ICVCM’s move could severely impact the carbon offset market, which has already shrunk nearly 25% from its 2022 peak, as shown in the chart below. It also highlights ongoing efforts to address criticisms of carbon offsetting, which has been accused of enabling greenwashing. 

Chart from BNNBloomberg

SEE MORE: Will This Be The End of Carbon Offsets?

The ICVCM argues that the current methodologies are inadequate in determining if projects would have progressed without carbon credit revenues.

Climate experts have long criticized renewable energy credits, arguing they are ineffective because renewables are already a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Thus, carbon credits often do not influence decisions to develop or expand green energy projects, benefiting developers instead.

ALSO READ: What are Renewable Energy Credits vs. Carbon Credits

In 2022, renewable energy credits made up about 50% of offset purchases, up from 38% the previous year, according to Bloomberg. Major companies like Volkswagen, Etsy, and TotalEnergies have been among those purchasing these credits. 

However, investigations have questioned the credibility of many offsets, prompting the ICVCM to impose stricter standards.

Greenlighting New Carbon Project Methodologies

On Tuesday, the ICVCM approved two more methodologies for the CCP label:

detecting and repairing methane leaks in the gas industry and
capturing methane from landfills.

The board rejected a methodology for reducing sulfur hexafluoride emissions in the magnesium industry. The ICVCM is also evaluating other offset categories, including REDD+ forestry methods, with decisions expected soon.

Currently, about 27 million credits, or 3.6% of the market, are eligible for the CCP label. The ICVCM is open to new, more rigorous renewable energy credit methodologies if they can promote clean energy in areas where it is not yet established.

READ MORE: ICVCM Reveals First CCP-Approved Carbon Credits Worth 27M

Annette Nazareth, chair of the ICVCM, emphasized that carbon credits are a crucial financing tool. She further noted that:

“Renewable energy projects financed by carbon credits still have a role to play in the decarbonisation of energy grids because it remains challenging for many least developed countries to secure the investment they need to transition away from fossil fuels.” 

While the ICVCM has rejected these methodologies for the CCP label, it acknowledged the importance of scaling renewable energy to achieve global climate targets. Major carbon credit registries like Verra and Gold Standard stopped accepting new grid-connected renewable energy projects in 2019, except for those in least-developed countries (LDCs).  

What’s the Path Forward for Renewable Energy Credits?

According to Carbon Market Watch, over 280 million renewable energy credits are available in the voluntary carbon market. If all these credits were used, they could theoretically offset emissions equivalent to Thailand’s annual carbon dioxide output.

Inigo Wyburd, a policy expert at Carbon Market Watch, praised the ICVCM’s decision as a “positive step.” He said that it addresses the issue of low-quality credits that have been undermining the market. 

Despite widespread skepticism about the effectiveness of renewable energy credits, they remain popular among corporate buyers, including fossil fuel majors like Shell and Total, as well as automakers and cruise operators.

Due to concerns about the validity of the emissions reductions claimed by renewable energy credits, their market price has significantly dropped over the last two years. 

Data from MSCI shows that the average price of these credits is just $2 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced. That’s less than half the price of offsets from projects aimed at forest conservation, methane emission reduction, or energy efficiency. The ICVCM’s recent decision is likely to further drive down these carbon prices.

Despite rejecting the current renewable energy methodologies for the CCP label, Amy Merrill, CEO of the ICVCM, suggested that improved methodologies could still gain approval. She emphasized that while renewable energy costs have fallen globally, they remain high in certain regions including:

remote rural areas of developing countries,
on islands with small populations, and
in areas where renewable energy faces ideological resistance.

Methodologies that address these challenges could be strong candidates for future CCP approval. The ICVCM is open to reviewing more rigorous renewable energy methodologies in the future, particularly for projects in regions where renewable energy is challenging to implement.

READ FURTHER: Private Equity Buys In Renewable Energy Big Time, Almost $15B

The post ICVCM Axes Renewable Energy Carbon Credits from CCP Label appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Credits Verification Explained.

Here’s a new money-making model for you.

Plant a small forest in your backyard. Call it “afforestation” and “carbon sequestration.” Calculate how many tons of carbon dioxide will be locked away in your forest over its lifetime. Then sell those carbon credits to companies and private entities who are still busy pumping CO2 into the air.

Congratulations, you’ve just marketed carbon offsets!

It’s not quite that easy, of course, but in the race to reduce their carbon footprint, companies are realizing that the carbon offset market is largely unregulated.

The market for carbon offsets is voluntary – there’s no government agency setting a standard emission reduction that must be met for eligible project. There’s not even an established criteria for what makes a viable carbon offset project.

Take a quick scan over the voluntary carbon markets out there and you’ll see a dizzyingly broad range of projects on offer. Renewable energy projects are always popular, as well as projects that lock carbon emissions away. You’ll also find forest management projects. Biogas projects. Water quality projects. The list goes on and on, with some of the projects seeming more and more unrelated to actual greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

A Wild West of Carbon Credits

Technically speaking, carbon credits are government-issued carbon allowances. Under the right conditions, they can be bought and sold in different exchanges. But participation is limited to entities (typically companies) in areas with an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). In the US, only California has a state-administered carbon trading program.

That leaves a growing demand for companies to take responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions, but no formal market to meet that demand.

That’s where the idea of carbon offsets comes in.

Carbon offsets are carbon credits traded on the voluntary market. By investing in carbon reductions projects, companies can “offset” the carbon they produce.

Offsets don’t fall under existing government regulation. They’re an entirely natural market response to a new demand.

But that does raise an important question: who verifies carbon credits? And what about carbon prices?

Without a government regulator, the market is left to sort out its own verification activities. In a new and growing market, that means a lot of uncertainty, but also an immense opportunity for any entity who can oversee other carbon offset providers.

Market-Led Verification

Think of “third-party verification,” and you probably think of some bureaucratic seal of approval. That’s how most regulation works. Government sets standards, and administers those standards through agencies that police different sectors of the market.

But verification isn’t only about meeting certain regulatory requirements.

Verification ensures that consumers receive proper value for their money.

In the open market, the job of ensuring proper value – verification – often falls to a third party. That third party often has an outsize influence in the development of the broader market, and the voluntary carbon market is no exception.

Carbon credit verification is a rigorous process that involves various steps to ensure the legitimacy of the credits. The verification process typically starts with the project developers who implement carbon reduction activities and generate the credits. They need to provide evidence of the carbon reduction, such as monitoring data, project reports, and other relevant documentation.

Once the project developers have collected the relevant data, it is submitted to a third-party verifier who assesses the data and ensures that the project meets all the requirements of the chosen carbon credit standard. The verifier will also check for any errors or inconsistencies in the data and verify the accuracy of the project report. If the verifier is satisfied that the project meets all the requirements, it issues carbon credits, which can be traded on the carbon market.

Multiple Market Approaches

Need a carbon offset? You’ll have two options when it comes to purchasing them.

You can buy carbon offsets individually, selecting the offsets and the price you pay for them. Sites like Nori and GoldStandard leave much of the verification process to the consumer. It’s up to you to examine the projects and select the ones you think will provide the greatest impact.

Voluntary offset market sites like these do some verification on their own, of course. By deeming a particular program worthy of being offered on the site, Nori and GoldStandard are implicitly verifying the programs.

Other offset markets provide offsets in a portfolio. By bundling offsets from different projects together, companies like Native can sell a wide range of offsets in one package. It’s a bit of verification through diversification – not every project will be as successful as others in actually reducing CO2 emissions. But by purchasing offsets that cover more than one project, investors can be confident that stronger offsets will offset weaker ones.

Building A New Verification Ecosystem

But what goes into a carbon offset? Who calculates the tonnes of carbon locked away in a given program? Who measures the carbon emissions reductions?

The smart carbon offset provider realizes that the offset market marks a golden opportunity to establish itself as the ultimate verification tool. Any company that can claim to have the best verification process can position itself to lead the rapidly-growing offset market for years to come.

The proof is in the pudding. The company that can prove its carbon offsets contributed to sustainable development benefits will have a notch in its belt. Anyone who can demonstrate clearly-achieved GHG emission reductions will be able to use that success to attract more investors to its projects.

In the voluntary carbon market, better verification leads to demonstrable results. And in a world increasingly aware of environmental damage, demonstrable results will lead to greater sales of carbon offsets.

One example of a company attempting to do just that is Verra.

Verra markets itself not as a seller of carbon offsets, but as a company that provides reliable carbon standards.

What sets Verra and its competitors apart is their efforts to provide internal offset verification services.

In Verra’s case, that means recruiting, training, and maintaining a network of auditors who can follow up on any Verra-approved offset programs. It’s in-house offset project verification, trying to ensure that a ton of carbon offset is an actual ton of carbon gone. That’s easier said than done, and it requires an extensive network.

But with a market growing as rapidly as the carbon offset market, the potential prize is worth it.

What Verra and others are pushing for is the chance to be the de facto verification body for an entire industry.

That push may seem to run against the market, but consumers will have the last word as always. The difference between carbon offset projects may not be apparent immediately, but as the market grows it will be easier to choose offsets based on reputation.

A standard for carbon offsets doesn’t need to be government-issued.

The markets can and will set their own standards.

The post Who Verifies Carbon Credits? appeared first on Carbon Credits.