Reconductoring Transmission Lines with Advanced Conductors: It Will Lead to Much Higher Transmission Capacities and Upgrade Power Grids: Challenges and Opportunities

      Silvio Marcacci, writing for Forbes, noted in an April 2024 article that U.S. power transmission expansion was growing at 1% per year while experts were predicting that 4-7% expansion rates were needed to accommodate renewables and storage integration. Then, it was expected that growth would come from the Inflation Reduction Act, but project slowdowns and rollbacks have stifled that growth source. However, AI infrastructure and continuing electrification have and will continue to accelerate growth. The article noted that research from Energy Innovation, GridLab, and the University of California-Berkeley showed that reconductoring existing transmission lines with advanced conductors can double capacity on existing rights-of-way in just 18 to 36 months. The technology could potentially quadruple the transmission growth rate (presumably to 4%).

“Reconductoring is the utility industry term for re-stringing existing transmission towers with new cables, without having to permit and build expensive new transmission towers and power lines. Advanced conductors are a modern, commercialized technology that use composite cores instead of steel, making them stronger and lighter, and denser annealed aluminum for conductors instead of aluminum strands, increasing capacity up to 2x.”

     These upgrades are good investments with the major advantage of no need for permitting.

     The article gives three barriers to the adoption of reconductoring in the U.S. The first is a perhaps perverse incentive where utilities that earn a return on total investment can earn more by building new grid projects than by reconductoring along the same right-of-way as current lines. Advanced conductors are more expensive, so some utilities may see them as an unnecessary expense. Secondly, utilities and regulators may be unsure of future demand growth and see investments in reconductoring as risky, even if there are known benefits, including better efficiency, reduced emissions, easier integration of renewables and storage, and better wildfire protection. Thirdly, a lack of experience with advanced conductors by some utilities may lead them to take a cautious approach with them, treating them as pilot projects with slower and lesser rollouts, despite them being used around the world for the last two decades. The article suggests that policy incentives could help advanced conductor rollout.

“The federal government and U.S. Congress should provide funding support for grid modernization and expansion efforts, industry collaboration, and training for utilities to work with advanced conductors, beyond the funds allocated in the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act.”

     They note that it may be difficult since in the Southeast and West, where monopoly utilities control information about transmission benefits, and suggest “independent transmission monitors to objectively review investments.” States and state agencies can also help with education and project approval.

     A late September 2024 article in IEEE Spectrum by Peter Fairley also explains the benefits of reconductoring. Here, the authors also emphasize power demand growth from EVs and heat pumps, not mentioning AI data centers. The article notes, citing the paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, that the bulk of transmission expansion to 2035 could be along existing rights of way through reconductoring. Fairly’s article is mainly a summary and review of the paper. Emilia Chojkiewicz, an author of the paper, suggests we go all-in on reconductoring now. New transmission line construction projects typically take a decade, although regulators hope to cut that in half to 5 years.

“Most of the more than 800,000 circuit-kilometers of transmission in the United States over 100 kilovolts use aluminum wires wrapped around a steel core. Chojkiewicz and her colleagues at Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy studied the use of advanced conductors that wrap more aluminum around a smaller, stronger composite core. These Aluminum Conductor Composite Cores (ACCCs), made by CTC Global, are more conductive and can operate at higher temperatures, resulting in roughly a doubling of capacity for an equivalent diameter wire.”

     These solutions are proven and available now. On its website, CTC Global notes:

“CTC Global’s ACCC® Conductor has been successfully installed at over 1,350 projects in 65+ countries by more than 300 utilities for projects ranging from 11 kV distribution line upgrades to 345 kV energized reconductoring projects to 1,100 kV new DC substations.”

     The Wikipedia entry for ACCC conductor explains some advantages and disadvantages of this type of advanced conductor. The advantages include doubling the power-carrying capacity, enhancing redundancy, and carrying more power at similar temperatures.

“Operation at high temperatures implies high line losses, which may be uneconomical, but the ability to carry such current contributes to the redundancy of the electric grid (the high overload capacity can stop a potential cascading failure) and thus can be valuable even when rarely used directly. Even at higher operating temperatures, the ACCC conductor's added aluminum content and lower electrical resistance offers reduced line losses compared to other conductors of the same diameter and weight.”

     The disadvantages of ACCC are listed below. Cost is no doubt the biggest concern for utilities.

     Explaining the conclusion of the PNAS paper, Peter Fairley’s IEEE Spectrum article notes:

“The wires themselves can cost two to four times more than steel-core wires. But a reconductoring project adds capacity at less than half the cost of new lines by eliminating the land acquisition and permitting costs. And the job can usually be completed in a year or two, rather than the decade typically required to build a new transmission path in the United States.”

     The paper’s authors used modeling to determine the best choices between reconductoring, building new lines, and adding more generation. Even with conservative estimations of the cost of reconductoring, it still beats out new line builds based on the modeling. However, the modeling was likely based on achieving the Bien administration’s 90% clean power by 2035 push, which is no longer the likely paradigm, especially for utilities. A slower, smarter buildout would be better, although fast builds could be done where they are most needed or most economical. A more feasible, slower buildout would require some reconfiguring in the modeling, but I am guessing it should not change it too much. The authors estimated significant potential savings of $85 billion over the long term. 

     The paper's abstract and some of its figures are reproduced below.

     Fairly praises the benefits of reconductoring but also notes some challenges and misconceptions. Project collaborator Grid Lab’s technical report has an appendix of technologies that can increase capacity within existing rights-of-way, but Fairley notes that cost, benefits, and feasibility comparisons between these technologies and reconductoring were not addressed in the paper, the authors noting that they were aiming to model a path for reconductoring. They also noted that all of the methods would be needed to achieve the desired transmission expansion rates. The paper’s frequent mention of getting beyond fossil fuels (in line with Biden’s overly ambitious plan) suggests a possible bias among the authors, although the Grid Lab report declares a non-partisan approach. According to Fairley:

“The Berkeley team’s report provides no insight into how reconductoring measures up against alternative strategies to send more power through existing rights-of-way. Other such grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) include boosting line voltage, adding converters so that a line can carry high voltage direct current (HVDC), or installing sensors to indicate when favorable winds and temperatures mitigate the risk that extra power will send overheated lines sagging into the trees below.”

     Several of those alternative strategies are actually complementary to reconductoring. One strategy, Dynamic Line Rating, is something that should be done on all congested power lines, notes Chojkiewicz. FERC made a rule in 2024 that required utilities to look into and model reconductoring for their projects. Chojkiewicz wants to see more government pushes to require the technology, but that does not seem likely at the federal level with the current administration. She wants to see a national conductor efficiency standard that operates like an energy conservation standard, like existing energy conservation standards for distribution transformers. Some figures from the Grid Lab technical report are shown below.

     Conductor manufacturer TS Conductor emphasizes its compatibility with current industry installation and maintenance practices.

“AECC is the only advanced conductor that is fully compatible with traditional ACSR/ACSS installation and maintenance practices.”

     TS Conductor shows some of its products’ beneficial features below.

     Conductor manufacturer VEIR touts its advanced high-voltage conductors for data center power lines as well as overland transmission, offering much more power. One feature of its product is:

“… a simple, open loop, passive nitrogen cooling system where distributed evaporation delivers 20x the cooling power per kilogram of liquid nitrogen coolant.”  

“Our next-gen superconducting transmission lines represent a major leap in energy infrastructure, delivering 5-10 times more power than conventional lines at the same voltage level. These advanced lines operate at much higher currents, with negligible energy losses compared to both traditional and other advanced conductors.”  

     The company is also working on solving bottlenecks in behind-the-meter apps for data centers and industry at lower voltages.

 

   

 

References:

 

A Faster, Cheaper Way to Double Power Line Capacity: Modeling shows that reconductoring can quickly beef up grids. Peter Fairley. IEEE Spectrum. September 25, 2024. Reconductoring: Boosting U.S. Grid Capacity Efficiently - IEEE Spectrum

Reconductoring Could Help Solve America’s Looming Grid Crisis. Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology and Silvio Marcacci. Forbes. April 9, 2024. Reconductoring Could Help Solve America’s Looming Grid Crisis

More Capacity, Less CapEx. TS Conductor. Next-Generation Advanced Conductors for Utilities | TS Conductor

Delivering 10X Power Density: Advanced Power Delivery Systems for Data Centers, Power Generation, and Utilities. Veir. VEIR | Pioneering Superconducting Power Line Solutions

Accelerating transmission capacity expansion by using advanced conductors in existing right-of-way. Emilia Chojkiewicz, Umed Paliwal, Nikit Abhyankar, Casey, Ric O’Connell, Duncan Callaway, and Amol Phadke. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 121 (40) e2411207121. Accelerating transmission capacity expansion by using advanced conductors in existing right-of-way | PNAS  

ACCC conductor. Wikipedia. ACCC conductor - Wikipedia

CTC Global. Website. The Advanced Conductor | CTC Global

Reconductoring With Advanced Conductors Can Accelerate the Rapid Transmission Expansion Required for a Clean Grid. 2035. The Report. April 2024. GridLab_2035-Reconductoring-Technical-Report.pdf

 

Natural Gas Production in Virginia: Devonian and Mississippian Conventional Reservoirs, but Mainly Pennsylvanian Coalbed Methane

My Own Adventures with Drilling in Virginia

     Back around 2004 or 2005, I was mapping and working onsite at wells in Southwestern Virginia. We had a farmout of conventional well acreage amidst a coalbed methane (CBM) field. A different company owned the CBM rights and freely exercised its right to deny well locations that we chose. They had wanted the conventional acreage but did not want to develop it as fast, so there was significant tension around that. Our main drilling target on our acreage in Buchanan County was the Berea Sandstone. We also produced from the Devonian Gordon zone and the Mississippian Weir formation, both of which are rather tight sandy siltstones. We also knew that we were drilling near and within a producing channel in the Upper Mississippian Ravencliff Sandstone, an incised valley fill sandstone with scouring at the base and braided streams with pebbles (which I saw when we cored it in Southern West Virginia) and coarse sandstone. We knew about Ashland Oil Company’s old Ravencliff wells in the area with high IPs up to 30MMCF/day that produced well for a few years, then dropped off considerably. These wells were shallow at around 1200 ft deep.

     At the end of one day in the office, we got a call that we hit a large amount of gas in the Ravencliff, measured via u-tube at 29MMCF/day, and we would have to kill the well with a pump truck. I would have to make the 3.5-hour trip for the geophysical logging job. The well ended up producing quite well for about 6 months, but dropped off pretty fast.  

     We also had a well down there with a difficult location on top of a narrow mountain. There was one way up and one way down along a corkscrewed road with switchbacks. When they were getting ready to frack the Berea well with nitrogen, the nitrogen truck slipped off the road and rolled sideways down the hill a couple of hundred feet. Luckily, the driver was not hurt, but some of the liquid nitrogen leaked out of the truck and froze some of the surrounding vegetation.

     At the time, I was also following the drilling adventures by a Michigan-based company, Dart Energy, in Tazewell County to the south. These wells were finding gas in faulted and fractured zones in different Mississippian formations. It was part of what we called the Alleghenian Thrust Play, where the tectonic stresses were such that gas migrated along open fractures created by the thrusting. I studied well logs looking for thickened sections and repeated sections indicative of low-angle thrust faults. Certain formations seemed to be more susceptible to fracturing and hosting gas, even at low porosity. One zone of interest was the Mississippian Pocono formation, which was a siltstone with an average of 4-5% density porosity on logs. I was able to attend a field trip with the Appalachian Geological Society, where we looked at an outcrop of the Pocono Formation down in Mercer County, West Virginia. This was a very interesting outcrop that was folded to the point that the rocks were mostly upside down, and we were looking directly at the face of the rocks. One could see the basic fracture spacing of about 4-6 inches by the gridded weathering on the rocks. One could also see the folding in individual rocks, which came off in plates about a half-inch thick. I also noticed that the rocks were iron-stained and made a metallic sound when struck. The rock was known to grade into a red siltstone of the Borden formation in Kentucky. In any case, I believe the Dart wells also found some gas in the Pocono. I believe some of their tests were rank wildcats in the far eastern part of Tazewell County. I did not have access to any of their logs, only hearsay from a land person.  We drilled some wells in the formation in Raleigh County, West Virginia, and Cabot Oil & Gas had drilled some large wells in the formation in Wyoming County, West Virginia. These were big gas producers. 

     At the 2004 Eastern Section AAPG meeting, I attended a fracturing workshop that detailed the characteristics of fracturing in both compressional and extensional tectonic regimes. I learned about type II and type III fractures associated with anticlines and found the information useful for determining ideal well location candidates.

     Our biggest Pocono well in Raleigh County was the biggest well in the company division, producing steadily at 3MMCF per day for at least the first three months. It had an IP of 9MMCF/day. There is likely more potential for these thrust plays in both Southern West Virginia and Southwestern Virginia. The thrust play was also produced from the Gordon, Berea, Weir, and Big Lime formations. We ran seismic to confirm the geological interpretations and got a fair correlation between log-derived geology and seismic geology. 

     Around 2000 conventional wells have been drilled in Virginia. I was able to work directly on about 20 of those wells, about 1% of them. It was a beautiful area to visit, with some interesting plant life.

     The bigger natural gas story in Southwest Virginia is coalbed methane from the Norton, Lee (New River), and Pocahontas Formations. These wells are produced mainly from the Nora Field and other fields in Buchanon, Dickinson, and Wise Counties. The CBM wells have long been produced as horizontal wells, which enhances their production rates. These are “gassy” coals and are economical when gas prices are high. The coal beds are typically drilled before mining to de-gas the mines. 

     The coal mines near and in the Nora Field are also the site of greenhouse gas mitigation efforts by CNX to convert vented methane to flares, which significantly reduces greenhouse gas accumulation. The Mountain Valley Pipeline developers agreed to do this as a way to offset the emissions of their project, though I am unsure of the current status. I was also familiar with drilling Pocahontas Formation CBM wells in Southern West Virginia, having worked on several well tests, early horizontal well tests, and some coring of the formation.  

     As the graph below shows, both conventional gas and CBM peaked in 2011 at around 150BCF and have been declining since then. The latest figures from 2024 show statewide production just below 80 BCF. CBM typically produces 75-80% or more of the state’s gas.

 

     There is also potential for gas production in the Devonian Lower Huron Shale, which produces some gas in the area, but much more in nearby Eastern Kentucky. Below is a log cross-section of the Lower Huron zone.

    

References:

 

Natural Gas. Virginia Department of Energy. Virginia Energy - Geology and Mineral Resources - Natural Gas

Devonian Shale Gas. Virginia Department of Energy. Virginia Energy - Geology and Mineral Resources - Devonian Shale Gas

 

 

Net Zero 2050 Increasingly Unlikely as Most 2030 Targets Behind Trajectory, According to Wood Mackenzie Annual Energy Transition Outlook

     WoodMac reports that the energy transition has slowed ten years past the Paris Agreement, noting that no G7 country is on track to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target. Right now, it appears that net zero 2050 is more of an aspiration than a likelihood. They note that announced goals for 2035 have been weak, rather than ratcheting up deployment and cost as the original plans called for.

“It is increasingly acknowledged that the world will not achieve net zero emissions by 2050. With COP30 about to begin, our seventh annual Energy Transition Outlook (ETO) reveals the world is on a 2.6 °C pathway, marginally above our base case prediction a year ago.”

     I think we can improve that and hit maybe a 2.2 °C trajectory, if the temperature rise rate is as predicted by the models. While net zero 2050 is not officially dead yet, it seems that 1.5 °C is most certainly dead and 2.0 °C is the best we could hope for.

     The barriers to progress include economic and geopolitical challenges, including COVID, the effects of wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and things like tariffs.

“At the same time, rising population, economic growth and societal aspirations, particularly in developing countries, are driving energy demand ever higher and outpacing gradual improvements in energy efficiency.”​

     Economic growth and societal aspirations in developing countries should be celebrated rather than dissed as these countries get better energy and electricity access and improve the quality of life for their citizens.

     They note that while renewables’ share of global power supply went from 5% to 20% over the past decade, it was still not enough to meet incremental growth in the power sector. That means fossil fuels are still increasing on the global power grid as a whole.

“Scaling up low-carbon supply faster than demand growth and building a new, deeply decarbonised, resilient energy system is proving far tougher than envisaged.”

     Energy affordability is being prioritized over energy sustainability in developed countries, as it probably should, since it solves a more immediate problem. Another factor is the AI race, which is already increasing energy demand. They note that the exit of the US and some European banks from the Net Zero Banking Alliance is another indicator of the backoff from deep decarbonization goals. They believe the multiple-source global energy system will become more connected and more complex. They also believe that capital allocation will need to be handled carefully, with policies that offer support for effective capital allocation.

“Power’s share of energy consumption will increase from one-fifth today to over one-third by 2060 in our base case, the largest share and eclipsing oil. Low-carbon supply is racing to keep pace. Variable renewables will surge from 20% of generation today to 60% by 2050, with solar power alone doubling by 2030 and overtaking coal by 2034. Yet dispatchable fossil fuels remain essential. Coal, in the main, is powering developing economies, and gas turbines are providing critical backup where renewable infrastructure struggles with massive new loads. The surge in power demand from the AI boom will strain global power markets throughout the rest of this decade and perhaps beyond.”

     They also state that “critical minerals are a geopolitical chokepoint,” with China controlling much of the mining and processing, and other countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo controlling much of cobalt production and Indonesia controlling nickel output.

     They see oil demand peaking in 2032, which seems reasonable to me. They see natural gas demand peaking sometime in the 2040s. I think that depends on how well other low-carbon technologies improve from solar to nuclear. Countries will continue to prioritize energy affordability and energy security.

     As detailed in the quote and chart below, there will be a need for increased investment to achieve even the lesser goal of 2° C and net zero by 2060.

“A 2 °C goal is plausible if net zero emissions are achieved by around 2060. To scale up the full suite of low-carbon technologies, from renewables to nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture, annual investment from public and private sources must increase by 30% from current levels to average US$4.3 trillion between now and 2060. That translates to energy sector capex rising from 2.4% of global GDP today to around 3.5% within the next decade, a stretch for many economies.”

 

  

References:

 

Slipping climate targets and the “energy addition.” Scaling low-carbon technologies adds complexity to the energy system. Simon Flowers, Prakash Sharma, and Gavin Thompson. Wood Mackenzie. November 6, 2025. Slipping climate targets and the “energy addition” | Wood Mackenzie

Energy transition outlook: 2025/26 update. Wood Mackenzie. Energy transition outlook 2025-26 - Insights and Scenarios | Wood Mackenzie

 

Re-Manufacturing is Not Happening in the U.S. and is Down in Other Countries: Tariffs are a Major Factor

     Despite Trump administration declarations to initiate a re-manufacturing revolution in the U.S., the first ten months of the administration have seen a steady and significant drop in manufacturing output. This is according to the monthly Purchasing Manager’s Index (PMI), published monthly by the Institute of Supply Management (ISM), which is used as an economic indicator for manufacturing industry health and output. At the beginning of the year, manufacturing in the U.S. was forecast to increase. I am not sure if that is still the case. The PMI for 2025 is clearly down, but is close to average. A PMI above 50% indicates manufacturing growth, and a PMI below 50% indicates manufacturing decline. Decline has outpaced growth over the past few years. The ISM relies on four demand indicators: new orders, new export orders, backlog of orders, and customer inventories.

     The graphs below are longer-term PMIs for the past year and one for the past three years.

     A March 2025 survey by the National Association of Manufacturers, as reported by Practical Ecommerce, utilizing 250 respondents from the sector, cited trade uncertainties as the number one concern, by a sizeable margin, followed by increasing raw materials costs, increasing healthcare costs, attracting and retaining employees, and a weaker economy.

     Since then, material costs have risen much more for several materials due to tariffs. October was the eighth straight month of manufacturing contraction, indicated by the PMI. Some manufacturers noted that even with high tariffs, in some cases, it is still cheaper to import than to produce domestically. According to Stephen Stanley, chief U.S. economist at Santander U.S. Capital Markets, as reported by Lucia Mutikani for Reuters:

 "The comments from individual respondents suggest that firms are exhausted by all of the back and forth on tariffs since the beginning of April and are suffering mightily as their customers have pulled back significantly."

     According to ISM’s Susan Spence:

 "For every positive comment about new orders, there were 1.7 comments expressing concern about near-term demand, driven primarily by tariff costs and uncertainty."

     Other economic indicators like consumer spending and business investment, especially in AI infrastructure, suggest that the economy is in decent shape. However, other indicators like record announced job losses suggest otherwise. I believe tariffs are a big factor, both the costs they create and the uncertainty they create. Companies that export products and materials also import products and materials. Most economists say tariffs are a lose-lose for exporting and importing companies, though they can be a win for governments. Others see it as a kind of government extortion. Basically, they amount to extreme taxes.

     Mutikani also noted:

“Tariffs are gumming up supply chains, resulting in longer delivery times to factories. The ISM survey's supplier deliveries index increased to 54.2 from 52.6 in September. A reading above 50 indicates slower deliveries.”  

     The ISM also noted that factory jobs were down and that the significant number of announced investment projects in American manufacturing (over $100 billion) won’t be up and running for several years.  

     According to Jeffry Bartash for Market Watch, recent monthly surveys are also dominated by dissatisfaction with tariffs:

“Business continues to be severely depressed. Profits are down and extreme taxes (tariffs) are being shouldered by all companies in our space,” said one executive at a maker of transportation equipment.

“Steel tariffs are killing us,” another manufacturer told ISM.

“The tariffs are still causing issues with imported goods into the U.S.,” an executive at a chemical maker said. “The inflation issues continue.”

     I have heard similar complaints from oil & gas executives as surveyed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Practical Ecommerce gives the mid-July graph below from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s survey showing expected cost increases for inputs, which are higher than average. Most showed slight or modest increases of 0-5%, but there were fewer decreases than big increases above 12.5%

     Mike Crisolago for Money Wise reported on economist Paul Krugman’s comparison of modern tariffs to Denmark’s high value-added tax (VAT), which is essentially a sales tax that pays for some government services. Economists are mixed on the effects of VATs. Denmark’s is very high at 25%, while the global average is 15%. Others say VATs are better for funding the government or reducing government debt than tariffs. Krugman also suggested that the big investments announced for manufacturing in the U.S. were mostly from big companies with high cap-ex capabilities that are more likely to deploy robotics and automation for manufacturing and won’t have a big effect on labor.  

     A PMI report for Japan showed a strong contraction in recent months, indicating a manufacturing decline in countries that are key U.S. trading partners. Low demand in the automotive and semiconductor sectors was cited. They are hoping that the negative impacts of tariffs will fade as new terms are agreed.

      The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which has a well-known conservative political stance, has been predictably subdued in any acknowledgement of the negative impacts of tariffs. During the Biden administration and before, NAM focused on the negative impacts of regulations, which they say are higher for manufacturers, as shown in the graphics below. NAM’s bias makes me a bit skeptical. It should be interesting to see if they put out anything showing the positive impacts of regulatory rollbacks. I have not seen anything yet, but it is probably too early to really discern anything, perhaps by a year or more.   

     I believe that when the tariff wars “blow over,” when Trump loses office, or when Congress, or possibly the Judiciary, limits his power, the tariffs will be lowered across the board and the economy will improve, or rather show that it was mostly the tariffs that were causing the problems.

 

    

 

References:

 

US manufacturing mired in weakness as tariff gloom spreads. Lucia Mutikani. Reuters. November 4, 2025. US manufacturing mired in weakness as tariff gloom spreads

Paul Krugman warns tariff ‘chaos’ won’t bring back US manufacturing jobs — and adds Trump’s moves make America look like Denmark. What does that mean? Mike Crisolago. MoneyWise. November 4, 2025. Paul Krugman warns tariff ‘chaos’ won’t bring back US manufacturing jobs — and adds Trump’s moves make America look like Denmark. What does that mean?

‘Business continues to be severely depressed’: U.S. manufacturers blame tariffs. Jeffry Bartash. MarketWatch. November 3, 2025. ‘Business continues to be severely depressed’: U.S. manufacturers blame tariffs.

Japan's factory activity falls at fastest pace in 19 months, PMI shows. Reuters. November 3, 2025. Japan's factory activity falls at fastest pace in 19 months, PMI shows

US manufacturing dips despite improved demand: PMI: Production deteriorated after expanding in September as tariffs and policy uncertainty continue to raise concerns and weigh on manufacturers across industries. Nathan Owens. Supply Chain Dive. November 3, 2025. US manufacturing dips despite improved demand: PMI | Supply Chain Dive

Facts About Manufacturing: The Top 18 Facts You Need to Know. U.S. Manufacturing. National Association of Manufacturers.  Facts About Manufacturing - NAM

United States ISM Manufacturing PMI. Trading Economics. United States ISM Manufacturing PMI

Institute for Supply Management: Analysis by Susan Spence, MBA, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management, Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. boo202510pmi.pdf

What Is the Purchasing Managers Index (PMI)? The Investopedia Team. Updated July 10, 2025Reviewed by Robert C. Kelly. Fact checked by Katrina Munichiello. Investopedia. What Is the Purchasing Managers Index (PMI)?

Charts: U.S. Manufacturing Trends Q3 2025. Adel Boukarroum. Practical Ecommerce. July 31, 2025. Charts: U.S. Manufacturing Trends Q3 2025 - Practical Ecommerce

The Cost of Federal Regulations. National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). The Cost of Federal Regulations - NAM

 

 

2025 Eastern Section AAPG Meeting and Observations

       The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) is a great organization for geoscientists with some nice benefits. During industry downturns and COVID, they lowered membership prices, for which I am personally grateful. The AAPG Academy hosts many very interesting free webinars on a variety of geological topics. 

     Although I ended up letting go of my membership due to my own budget, I was able to get to the latest Eastern Section meeting in Columbus. Ohio, which was the first in several years. Oil & gas geologists have certainly been shrinking in importance in the industry. First, there was the move to unconventional drilling, which pointed geologists in different directions. The horizontal shale plays still need geologists, but are heavier on engineers. Then, there were the multiple industry downturns. Now, it is an increase in efficiency that makes less drilling and fewer wells able to capture more resources. I found out that the Appalachian Geological Society, founded in 1931, has been more or less shuttered for good. I used to attend meetings, usually in Charleston, WV, but sometimes in other cities like Huntington, WV, Morgantown, WV, or Marietta, Ohio. One problem was that attendance at meetings dwindled to just a few people, and the speakers invited to talk didn’t have much of an audience. The Ohio Geological Society is still having meetings, though attendance is likely down for those as well. The last one I went to was in 2023.

     The lower-priced meeting was attended by about 75 people, many from state geological surveys from Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Past Eastern Section meetings were attended by several hundred people and lasted three days. This was before and during the boom in unconventional horizontal drilling. The oil & gas industry has definitely contracted, particularly the geological part of it. Many geologists moved on to other careers.

     I was going to do a review of the talks, but I didn’t take good notes, so I thought I would just write about some of them and the character of the meeting. Unfortunately, I missed Randy Blood’s talk about the Kelwasser Upper Devonian mass extinction event, which he has traced in different outcrops around the world. I follow his interesting work on LinkedIn.

     There were talks on the potential effects of iron in formation fluids on the underground storage of hydrogen and a few different talks and poster sessions about carbon sequestration evaluation, some from geoscientists at Battelle, one of the world’s largest science R&D companies, based in Columbus, Ohio. Comparison of oil & gas reservoirs and carbon sequestration reservoirs, typically the deep saline formations, was a theme. Another talk was on automated mineralogy, and indeed, AI was present in several talks, including the use of AI in seismic processing and attribute analysis. There were other talks on lithium exploration, identification of hydrocarbon gases and noble gases to understand geochemistry of petroleum systems, facies analysis, the study of paleo bio-events, and geothermal possibilities in Eastern West Virginia in an area with volcanic intrusions. Thus, many of the talks were about hydrogen, CCS, geothermal, and geological events, rather than oil & gas exploration and development.  

     There were a lot of smart people in the room, smart geologists, knowledgeable of many aspects of geology, which is a really vast science. Good questions were asked and answered. It was nice to see what some of the Ph.D.’s are up to. There were a few prospectors around as well, which was nice. Hopefully, the Eastern Section and the local geological societies will continue to be important and relevant. There is still a need to understand the subsurface economic and greenhouse gas mitigation possibilities.

 

 

Chinese Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor Achieves Thorium-to-Uranium Fuel Conversion Milestone

     Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) have achieved a first-ever milestone with the successful thorium-to-uranium fuel conversion powering a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR). This confirms the technical feasibility of thorium utilization in a molten-salt reactor nuclear energy system. It is currently the only molten salt reactor in the world loaded with thorium. Success with thorium-powered reactors could mean improved safety due to less radioactive waste and more fuel security since China has vast reserves of thorium, as do some other countries, such as Australia.  

     The researchers utilized a fourth-generation advanced nuclear reactor. Construction of the 2 MW TMSR-LF1 reactor began in September 2018. The facility was licensed in June 2023. It achieved first criticality - a sustained reaction - on 11 October 2023. TMSRs use a high-temperature molten salt as a coolant instead of water. Aside from producing less waste and easier-to-process fuel, TMSRs can operate at atmospheric pressure, which reduces mechanical stress on materials and components. TMSRs are the best reactor design for utilizing thorium as a fuel. China’s TMSR program began in 2011 with laboratory experimentation. It can now claim a totally domestically developed TMSR technology. They have a goal to build a 100-megawatt demonstration project and have it operational by 2035. 

     According to Interesting Engineering:

“With this technical feasibility confirmed, SINAP plans to collaborate with leading energy companies to strengthen the supply chain and accelerate the technology’s real-world engineering application.”

     A report earlier this year determined that China has much higher thorium reserves than previously realized. One major new source is iron ore mining waste. It is estimated that the Bayan Obo mining complex alone could yield enough thorium to power China for 60,000 years.

     According to World Nuclear News:

“The TMSR-LF1 uses fuel enriched to under 20% uranium-235, has a thorium inventory of about 50 kg and conversion ratio of about 0.1. A fertile blanket of lithium-beryllium fluoride (FLiBe) with 99.95% Li-7 is used, and fueled with uranium tetrafluoride (UF4).”

“Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics Deputy Director Li Qingnuan said: "Since first reaching criticality on 11 October 2023, the thorium-based molten salt reactor has been continuously generating heat through nuclear fission." She explained that conventional pressurised water reactors require periodic shutdowns and the opening of the pressure vessel top cover to replace the nuclear fuel when refueling is needed. However, the thorium-based molten salt reactor uses liquid fuel, with the nuclear fuel uniformly dissolved in the molten salt coolant and circulating with it, allowing for refueling without shutting down the reactor.”

"This design not only improves fuel utilisation but also significantly reduces the generation of radioactive nuclear waste, which is one of the advantages of thorium-based molten salt reactors."

“Molten salt reactors (MSRs) use molten fluoride salts as primary coolant, at low pressure. They may operate with epithermal or fast neutron spectrums, and with a variety of fuels. Much of the interest today in reviving the MSR concept relates to using thorium (to breed fissile uranium-233), where an initial source of fissile material such as plutonium-239 needs to be provided. There are a number of different MSR design concepts, and a number of interesting challenges in the commercialisation of many, especially with thorium.”

     The project suggests that by the early 2040s, thorium-fueled TMSRs could be seeing significant deployment, at least in China. The Chinese researchers noted that it could facilitate “the construction of a complementary, low-carbon, integrated energy system.”

     The pictures below are from the Chinese Academy of Sciences newsroom.

 

References:

 

Chinese molten salt reactor achieves conversion of thorium-uranium fuel. World Nuclear News. November 4, 2025. Chinese molten salt reactor achieves conversion of thorium-uranium fuel - World Nuclear News

China’s first-ever thorium fuel conversion paves way for 100MW molten-salt reactor. Aman Tripathi, Interesting Engineering. November 1, 2025. China’s first-ever thorium fuel conversion paves way for 100MW molten-salt reactor

China Achieves Thorium-uranium Nuclear Fuel Conversion in Molten-salt Reactor. Chinese Academy of Sciences. November 4, 2025. China Achieves Thorium-uranium Nuclear Fuel Conversion in Molten-salt Reactor----Chinese Academy of Sciences