You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Green hydrogen may yet descend the cost curve, and expect lots more fusion research.

While some of our most promising decarbonization technologies were born in one of the Department of Energy’s National Labs or in Silicon Valley, China is where so many of them — from solar panels to electric vehicles and battery energy storage — have achieved critical commercial scale. That makes the country’s latest Five-Year Plan an essential document for understanding the future of climate tech.
With a U.S. administration that has eschewed its own climate commitments, many have hoped that China would take on a global leadership role. On that front, many experts have been left wanting. The document makes no promises on phasing out coal, which accounts for over half of China’s energy consumption, and doesn’t set a target for the expansion of solar.
“It’s a green tech addition plan as opposed to a decarbonization plan,” Jeremy Wallace, a Professor of China Studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me. Over the past five years, the country has deployed nearly a terawatt of new solar, far exceeding even its own ambitions. “So the buildout rapidly exceeded expectations, but has not seemingly led to a systematic rethinking about the system,” Wallace said.
The plan does lean into climate tech, however, even if it stops short of positioning new forms of clean energy generation as direct coal replacements. And that interest extends far beyond already commercialized sectors like solar, wind, battery storage, and electric vehicles. The list of “future industries” that the party is prioritizing includes “hydrogen energy and nuclear fusion energy,” alongside quantum science, biological manufacturing, brain-computer interfaces, and 6G wireless networks.
“I don’t think China is creating these technologies as a niche climate experiment anymore. They’re being folded into a broader industrial strategy,” Qi Qin, a China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told me of the emergent tech that the plan mentions. “I think that the more important question is which of them are moving into real deployment now, and which are still at the stage of strategic signaling.”
Much of that should come into sharper focus in the coming months. Now that the national direction has been set, local officials will begin translating the state’s broad agenda into concrete targets and on-the-ground projects. It is not too much to say that how they choose to do so will largely determine how quickly the world decarbonizes.
The plan’s repeated mention of green hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels is particularly notable given these industries' struggles in the U.S. to reach economic viability and secure offtakers, as the Trump administration has dialed back the clean hydrogen tax credits and canceled grants for planned green hydrogen hubs.
And while China also can’t ignore the underlying economics of green hydrogen — which is useful for decarbonizing heavy industry and transport by truck, ship, or air, but still expensive to produce and not so helpful outside those specific use cases — the party appears much more open to bringing it down the cost curve. As Qin put it, “hydrogen has clearly moved up in political visibility.” The plan promises to “expand applications of hydrogen energy in transportation, electricity, industrial, and other domains,” according to an unofficial translation, while improving “renewable energy hydrogen production equipment” such as electrolyzers, advancing “the hydrogen energy industry chain toward green ammonia, methanol, and sustainable aviation fuels,” and accelerating technological breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and transportation. (China has not released an official translation of the plan.)
The Five-Year Plan also comes amidst a slew of recently announced policies supporting the industry’s development, Yuki Yu, an independent researcher with a deep knowledge of China’s hydrogen economy, told me.
The week before the plan was finalized, Premier Li Qiang delivered China’s annual policy statement to the National People’s Congress, which included a pledge to “establish the National Low‑Carbon Transition Fund, and cultivate hydrogen energy, green fuels and other new growth points.” By rhetorically linking the fund — which Yu described to me as functioning “a little bit like a national private equity company to invest directly into frontier technology” — specifically to hydrogen and clean fuels, it signals that the country views these technologies as core pillars of its energy transition, Yu said.
Then just days after the plan was adopted, the country launched a green hydrogen pilot program, offering performance-based government funding to five regions for projects spanning sectors such as fuel cell vehicles, green ammonia and methanol production, low-carbon steelmaking, and industrial heating. The four-year program aims to cut the end-use price of hydrogen to below 25 Chinese yuan (approximately $3.50) per kilogram, and double the national fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles nationwide to 100,000.
Taken together, all of this sends a “very, very clear financial signal” to the industry, Yu told me. While government funding for hydrogen had previously focused primarily on fuel-cell vehicles like trucks and buses, Yu said China now appears to be placing a far greater emphasis on commercializing other hydrogen use-cases.
Yet as Qin sees it, producing hydrogen with renewable energy — which powers the process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen — is, in some sense, simply a diversion from leveraging renewables to replace coal on the grid.
“I think that part of the reason that green fuels has become a hot topic, has become a new focus in China is because nobody wants to touch that 55% of coal power,” Qin told me, referencing coal’s approximate share of primary energy. Hydrogen, she said, offers an attractive way to decarbonize certain hard-to-abate sectors without having to overturn the coal economy.
Wallace also noted that electrolyzers — the devices used to split hydrogen from water — made in China are generally viewed as “second rate” compared with Western systems, which are typically more powerful and better able to ramp up and down in tandem with solar and wind resources. Perhaps, he suggested, the country is betting that its lower-cost electrolyzers will go the way of lithium iron phosphate batteries, a cheaper alternative to the traditional lithium-ion chemistry involving nickel and cobalt, which are much more expensive and supply constrained than iron. LFP batteries “approximate the first rate tech, but at a much cheaper price point,” Wallace told me, which could be the arc its electrolyzer industry attempts to follow.
None of the other frontier tech gets quite as enthusiastic a shoutout in the Five-Year Plan as green hydrogen. Fusion, however, seems to be an area of keen interest, at least on the research front.
In a section on key technological breakthroughs the country aims to achieve, the document lists “key fusion technologies such as tritium fuel preparation and circulation, material radiation testing, high-performance lasers, and superconducting magnet manufacturing,” with the ultimate goal being to “advance fusion research and development.”
And yet the plan does not set a timeline or explicit goal related to fusion commercialization, even as well-capitalized American startups such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Thea Energy, and Pacific Fusion aim to put electrons on the grid in the 2030s. “I think the government sees, okay, this is a very strategic and very interesting direction that we should also pursue,” Yu told me. And yet, it “seems to have a conservative look, or a cautious look on how commercialized these technologies truly are.”
Similarly, while Qin sees the inclusion of fusion in the plan as “politically meaningful” in and of itself, she said it “should be read as a signal about ambition” and not as a “near-term climate solution.”
Last year, China launched a state-owned fusion company, the aptly named China Fusion Energy Co., with $2.1 billion in capital, as well as a 10-nation alliance to promote collaborative fusion energy research and knowledge sharing. Yet the government has largely steered clear of talking about fusion as a commercial possibility, and when it has, the timeline is far longer than what the U.S. upstarts are promising. As Zhang Libo, the General Manager of China Fusion Energy Co. has stated, the company wants to build a demonstration reactor by 2045, while the China National Nuclear Corporation said it expects to produce commercial power around 2050.
This type of circumspection is par for the course with the Chinese Communist Party, which tends to underpromise and overdeliver when it comes to its clean energy targets. “In general, a lot of this seemingly moderate change can really kick off ripple effects and have long term impacts,” Yu told me. For instance, while China previously set a target to deploy 1,200 gigawatts of combined wind and solar capacity by 2030, it ended up achieving that goal a full six years early. “So even though sometimes the policy could come across as mild or more conservative, the effect does not necessarily mean the same.”
That may provide little comfort to those longing to see a disavowal of coal in writing. But if the past has taught us anything, it could also mean that five years from now China will have changed the game for hydrogen, clean fuels, fusion, and a host of other emerging industries.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The Metropolitan Police Service signed a deal with BetterFleet to manage the complicated logistics.
Police officers can’t be stuck waiting for their black-and-whites to recharge when an emergency call comes in. That urgency makes it especially tricky to transition their fleets away from fossil fuels and the lightning-fast gas fill-ups that get cars back on the road.
But some cities and departments have begun to make the move, aided by artificial intelligence models to manage their many vehicles and ensure electric cars can do not just the next job, but every job. Around the world, trucking companies, buses, municipal vehicles, and other huge fleets want to go electric to save money on fuel and maintenance, and they’re looking to AI to give them the confidence to take the plunge.
A cleaner fleet of cop cars is already coming to London, where the Metropolitan Police Service has turned over nearly a third of its fleet to hybrids or EVs. Last week, the MPS announced a partnership with the firm BetterFleet to manage how and when it charges its EVs, helping the service pursue its goal of a net-zero carbon emissions fleet by the end of the decade.
Much of the challenge is psychological, says BetterFleet CEO Dan Hilson. His solution is to use the power of data to overcome whatever anxiety an organization might have about switching to EVs, whether it’s range anxiety or fear of dealing with fluctuating electricity prices or something else entirely. During our interview earlier this month at the ACT Expo, a conference on advanced technology in fleets and trucking, Hilson told me that his company was able to prove to the London police that, with enough information and planning, “there’s no route you can’t do. There’s no day that you’ve done in the last three years that you couldn’t have done if it was electric.”
To demonstrate, BetterFleet builds digital twins of an operation — data-driven models that consider anything that would impact a vehicle’s range, from its own weight and cargo and the condition of its battery and motors to its planned route and speed. Even external conditions such as weather and traffic must be included to create as accurate a picture as possible of the vehicle’s condition and state of charge at any given moment.
While the approach sounds straightforward enough, hiccups come from unexpected places when you’re simulating the real world. BetterFleet found while working with King County Metro and its Seattle-area bus fleet that recharging times could vary widely between two pieces of charging equipment that look identical. “We thought, Hey, this is physics. It should just work in a particular way. But it really doesn’t,” Hilson said.
You also can’t always get what you want, data-wise. For example, Hilson said he thought automakers had access to battery information about things like degradation over time or what’s happening with the battery’s chemistry or temperature at any given moment. “Almost none of them have that, believe it or not,” he said. “And that’s because some of the original manufacturers of the batteries don’t seem to be able to give it.” His team had to work around it, building their own algorithms based on observed data to model how fast, say, an electric semi truck’s battery life would fade and adjust for it in the numbers.
BetterFleet had previously modeled and managed fleets such as London’s buses and the EV semi trucks that have been moving soft drinks around for Pepsi. But the electrification of emergency vehicles represents a next-level challenge. Bus routes are unchanging; trucking paths are predictable. Police may have beats and typical areas of service, but they must be able to respond elsewhere at a moment’s notice. As such, Hilson told me that part of his firm’s deal with the MPS was the inclusion of priority charging, so that critical vehicles could get back on the road faster. BetterFleet also must consider the possibility of when and where cop cars might use DC fast chargers to fill up quickly — an issue for departments everywhere. I often see a police Tesla or two refueling at a Supercharger in South Pasadena, California I often visit.
Indeed, while AI could have cascading benefits for EV fleets — think of predictive maintenance systems that learn which parts are likely to fail when — charging is one place where this kind of machine learning could be an enormous difference-maker right away. Trucking companies that want to go electric and steer clear of diesel price shocks don’t need to buy a $100,000 fast-charger for every truck; they need AI to tell them how many they really need if their whole fleet spreads out and optimizes its charging schedule. Grizzled lifelong trucking fleet managers don’t particularly want to become experts in complex energy markets in order to maximize their savings by charging EV trucks at the cheapest times, Hilson says. They just want AI to do it.
A variety of firms are moving into this space to help out companies that want to dip their toes into EVs. Katie Siegel, CEO of the charging management service FlipTurn, said at ACT that AI-managed charging has helped her firm balance the electrical demand of fleets by moving much of it to off-peak hours. While that approach netted thousands of dollars of savings per month, especially during summer, the benefits weren’t just monetary. For one client, such a demand-flattening approach got trucks and chargers up and running four to six months sooner than expected because it meant they didn’t have to wait for the utility to deliver extra capacity.
With so many data insights available, the trick now is deciding what matters. “The worst customers really says, It’s all important,” Hilson says. “Every single thing is important. I want my battery to be saved. I want energy savings. I want it to always be ready for trucks to pull out. So it’s about sitting with customers and really getting to that crux of what really is important. What’s the hierarchy?”
On Last Energy’s milestone, California CCS, and RFK Jr. vs. microplastics
Current conditions: The summerlike heat in the Northeast is set to drop by double digits as cold Canadian air blows southward, sending temperatures in Boston as low as 50 degrees Fahrenheit by Saturday • Temperatures are nearing 100 degrees in Cordoba, Spain, as Western Europe’s record-breaking heatwave continues • Juba is also nearly 100 degrees as heavy thunderstorms roll into the capital of conflict-riven South Sudan.
Last year, in a move so bold it made Biden administration officials jealous, President Donald Trump took an equity stake in MP Materials, making the federal government the largest shareholder in the United States’ only active domestic rare earths producer. The deal became a trend, with the U.S. government taking minority ownership stakes in at least a dozen more companies that produce or process critical minerals, of which China controls the global supply. In January, USA Rare Earth, a manufacturer of rare earth magnets that aims to eventually mine and process fresh ore in Texas, became the second large rare earths-focused company in the Trump administration’s portfolio. Now America’s two champions in the war against China’s metal monopolies are instead battling each other. On Wednesday afternoon, the Financial Times reported that MP Materials had filed a lawsuit against USA Rare Earth, accusing its rival of “stealing” its technology for making the permanent magnets that go into everything from phones and electronics to electric vehicles to fighter jets. “USA Rare Earth has repeatedly failed to meet its commercial and performance targets and is now resorting to stealing technology to dig itself out,” MP Materials alleged in a complaint filed last week in Texas court. In response, USA Rare Earth said: “MP Materials’ complaint has misrepresented our company, our culture, and our people, and we will defend ourselves vigorously.”
Yet another U.S. reactor startup hoping to build a prototype plant under the Department of Energy’s reactor pilot program has won the agency’s approval for its safety blueprint. On Thursday, Last Energy plans to announce the regulator’s official endorsement of the microreactor developer’s preliminary documented safety analysis — a key procedural step known as PDSA — for its 5-megawatt demonstration reactor at Texas A&M University. The reactor, set to be a quarter the size of Last Energy’s commercial-scale model, is designed to show regulators the technology can safely split atoms and generate heat for electricity production. The approval is only from the Energy Department and limited to the pilot project. To produce commercial electricity, Last Energy still needs to go through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license. But the data from this pilot project is likely to count for Last Energy’s eventual application to the NRC for its first commercial plant. “Last Energy’s PWR-5 uses the same physical reactor geometry as the company’s commercial PWR-20, with reduced fuel enrichment scaled for 5 megawatts of electrical output,” the company told me. “The PWR-5 pilot project is a direct bridge to Last Energy’s commercial PWR-20 deployment.”
The approval makes Last Energy at least the fourth company so far to pass the PDSA phase after rival microreactor developers Antares, Radiant, and Deployable Energy. But it isn’t the only one. On Wednesday afternoon, an official at the Idaho National Laboratory posted on LinkedIn that he had approved the PDAS for two reactors in the Energy Department’s pilot program. It wasn't immediately clear which company was the second after Last Energy. “I couldn’t be prouder of the exemptional nuclear safety review team,” wrote Bob Boston, the Energy Department’s Idaho operations manager. “The public can rest assured that any and all approvals for new reactors under DOE will be safe.”
Two of the most populous states in the nation’s largest electric grid just released new rules for data centers looking to set up shop. In Pennsylvania, the largest state in PJM Interconnection, Governor Josh Shapiro issued a new set of standards for companies seeking to fast-track development, including requiring developers to generate their own electricity, give out millions of dollars in local support, and follow stricter sustainability rules on water. The Democrat, per the public radio station WVIA, “also wants to change a tax exemption program for data center owners and operators” to require companies to meet the new standards to qualify for tax breaks. The idea mirrors a proposal from Searchlight Institute senior fellow Jane Flegal, who argued last month for conditioning tax incentives on meeting best-practice industry standards for data centers. In New Jersey, the sixth-largest of PJM’s 13 states, Democratic Governor Mikie Sherrill released her own set of guidelines for data center companies that includes requiring public reporting of water and electricity usage and plans to develop “strong statewide standards” that provide “state resources to ensure municipalities can negotiate from positions of strength, ensuring data centers address impacts like light, noise, and pollution while making meaningful local investments” and “delivering good-paying jobs.”
Meanwhile in Alaska, where the Trump administration is clearing the way for all kinds of new infrastructure, the Anchorage-based startup Stak Energy is proposing one of the largest data centers in the nation on the Arctic North Slope. The $500 million project would take up an entire square mile with multiple buildings off the Dalton Highway, where proponents say cold temperatures and an abundant supply of land and natural gas for power can bolster the facility. The project could, according to the Northern Journal, produce up to 3 gigawatts of power for its own use, “making it competitive with some of the largest data centers under development in the Lower 48.” In a Tuesday segment on Alaska Public Radio, Northern Journal reporter Nathaniel Herz said the below-freezing average temperature on the North Slope meant the project would “be using what they expect to be 90% less water than a facility in the Lower 48.” Perhaps the biggest benefit though is the sparse population in the Arctic. As Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer explained of the latest Heatmap Pro data, the number of data center projects being canceled due to public backlash is soaring.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Deep under California’s traffic-clogged streets, rolling farmland, and sprawling deserts are vast caverns — many the legacy of wells drained of oil during the heyday of Chevron’s Great Depression-era homestate drilling bonanza — capable of storing carbon dioxide captured before it enters the atmosphere. Until now, the state could only theoretically return carbon to the Earth’s crust. But on Tuesday, the oil and carbon management developer California Resources Corporation injected its maiden load of carbon dioxide into a depleted oil reservoir, marking the first time a carbon capture and storage project has come online in the state’s history. The project, called Carbon TerraVault I, is located in Kern County, the vast inland stretch northeast of Santa Barbara that’s home to California’s largest active oil fields. The site will draw out the dregs of oil left in the depleted wells in the Elk Hills Field by permanently returning up to 30 million tons of carbon dioxide to the formation roughly a mile deep underground. It’s part of a vertically integrated operation. California Resources Corporation, which calls itself CRC, operates a nearby cryogenic gas plant. The company captures the carbon dioxide from the facility and ships it to the so-called Class IV well in the oil and gas field. The first injection “demonstrates that California can lead on climate solutions that are practical, scalable, and cost-effective,” CRC CEO Francisco Leon said in a statement. Investors remain skeptical. Shares of CRC fell nearly 3% yesterday.
With gas turbines selling faster than manufacturers can keep up, technology that could capture carbon from gas-fired plants and thus preserve their value even in a scenario where the government prices emissions commands a new premium. It wasn’t long ago that activists uniformly dismissed the technology as a “false solution,” and experts cautioned that carbon capture and storage would be limited to hard-to-abate industrial sectors. But last October, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported, Google backed a project to build a gas plant with CCS, launching what may be one of the most promising efforts yet to commercialize the technology.
Fresh off wrangling a biting pair of eastern racer snakes he grabbed off the patio of Dr. Oz’s vacation home, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is trying to find ways to round up and get rid of the microscopic plastic particles circulating in Americans’ bodies. A new $144 million program, launched last month but featured in E&E News on Wednesday, aims to measure, understand, and remove micro- and nanoplastics, and marks the biggest federal investment to date in a field of study that coalesced just five years ago.
While the move was “welcomed by researchers, industry, environmental, and Make American Healthy Again advocates as well as online wellness gurus promoting nascent ‘detoxification’ methods,” the newswire quoted Kennedy’s own experts, who said the controversial health government chief was “focused on the wrong questions.” Marcus Eriksen, a marine plastics scientist who heads up the nonprofit 5 Gyres Institute and has advised Kennedy for years, said: “Getting it out of our bodies? That seems extremely tough to me.” So, why put resources there? Well, Eriksen said, it’s politically easier to sell than cracking down on the fossil fuel companies with growing businesses producing the ingredients for plastics. “I get that’s kind of the narrative that’s going to fly with this administration — focus on the downstream stuff, less on the prevention side,” he said.

For all the hype around small modular reactors, only two of the 440 some-odd commercial nuclear reactors in operating in the world today would qualify. One of them is a high-temperature gas-cooled plant in China, which generates 210 megawatts of electricity. (The cutoff for what qualifies as an SMR is widely agreed to be under 300 megawatts but over 20 megawatts, the threshold for microreactors.) The other was the world’s first SMR: Russia’s floating nuclear plant on a barge in the Siberian Arctic, capable of generating 70 megawatts of power. Nearly seven years after the vessel Akademik Lomonosov started producing electricity, Russia’s state-owned nuclear firm is preparing for another floating nuclear station. On Wednesday, World Nuclear News reported that Rosatom had finished manufacturing a 58-megawatt reactor for a serialized floating power station set to power a copper mining complex in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, in the country’s northeasternmost corner. “Rosatom continues to expand its range of floating power units, and the completion of the first reactor for the lead floating nuclear power unit is a significant milestone,” Alexey Likhachev, the director general of Rosatom, said in a statement. “Today, Russia is the only country with an operating floating nuclear power plant, and we intend to maintain our leadership in the development of small-scale technologies.”
An investment boom is exploding in outer space. Investors have thrown their backing behind space-based solar power, orbital data centers, and even extraterrestrial power grids. SpaceX is pursuing an IPO — potentially the largest the world has ever seen — in part to fund its own off-Earth data center ambitions. The Space Foundation reported that the global space economy reached $613 billion in 2024, combining commercial revenue and government funding, while PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the sector could grow to reach $2 trillion by 2040, largely driven by private sector innovation and support.
Different though they may be, these technologies all leverage the vast unknown outside our atmosphere to monitor, manage, and optimize terrestrial energy and climate systems.
This boom comes after roughly a decade of sharply falling launch costs, which has fueled a surge in satellite deployments for telecommunications and remote sensing applications. Together, these shifts have expanded the scope of what’s technically and economically possible in space — and in turn, broadened the range of systems and services needed to make this off-Earth infrastructure work.
“We’ve got over 14,000 satellites in space already, and that’s growing every day. It’s going to triple over the next five, six years,” Jeff Johnson, a general partner at the venture firm B Capital, told me. “And if you look at the other trend that’s happening, the power requirements for what’s going up in space have been growing dramatically and will continue to do so.” As Johnson explained, that’s because we’re asking satellites to do more — and to do it faster — than ever before: deliver high-speed internet globally, extend cell coverage in remote areas, and perform onboard data processing before transmitting imagery and other information down to Earth.
SpaceX, of course, has been the dominant force driving down launch costs while dramatically increasing the scale of satellite deployments with its partially reusable Falcon 9 rockets. More recently, it’s laid out an ambitious plan to put 100 gigawatts of “AI compute satellites” into orbit each year, with launches beginning as soon as 2028. As the company wrote in its S-1 filing ahead of its pending IPO, “we believe orbital AI compute is an incredibly difficult technical challenge that only we can solve at scale in the near term.” It also acknowledged, however, that the effort involves “significant technical complexity, unproven technologies, or technologies that do not exist,” and that ultimately, “such initiatives may not achieve commercial viability.”
It’s a startlingly frank assessment of an industry that holds both great potential and significant uncertainty. Much of SpaceX’s growth strategy — and likely the prospects of numerous other companies looking to launch large infrastructure into space — hinges on the success of its next-generation rocket called Starship. Designed to be fully reusable and much larger than any rocket built before, Starship will be capable of carrying roughly five to six times the volume and over eight times the massas Falcon 9. Throughout its 12 test launches so far, the rocket has seen both success and failures, accumulating mounting delays along the way.
The uncertainty around Starship’s future is one reason Johnson’s firm invested in Star Catcher, a startup that bills itself as “the first power grid in space.” He doesn’t view the startup’s value proposition as dependent on Starship’s success, betting that it can serve as critical infrastructure for satellites already in orbit today — not just for the bigger and better systems that future launch vehicles could enable.
Founded less than two years ago, Star Catcher is developing a laser-based system to beam solar energy to satellites in low Earth orbit, supplying additional power directly to their solar arrays even when they’re in Earth’s shadow. This enables satellites to perform ever more power-intensive operations. It also addresses a fundamental constraint of satellite design: A satellite is only as powerful as the size of its solar array, which must be small enough to fit inside a rocket and also degrades over time.
“The average satellite in the Earth’s orbit has like 1,500 watts of power generation, which is as much as my kids’ gaming computer uses,” Andrew Rush, Star Catcher’s CEO, told me. “But we’re saying that satellite is going to be a cell tower, it’s going to be a data center, and those are multi-kilowatt, tens of kilowatts, hundreds of kilowatts applications. There’s a big disconnect there.”
B Capital led Star Catcher’s oversubscribed $65 million Series A round, which closed earlier this month. The fresh capital will help the company demonstrate its system in orbit and move towards commercialization. Star Catcher plans to launch its own constellation of power node satellites with the sole purpose of harnessing energy from the sun — or, as Rush quipped, “the greatest fusion reactor known to humankind.” Each node will then beam that energy to other power-hungry satellites by directing concentrated, near-infrared laser light at their solar panels. This type of light can deliver far greater power density than diffuse sunlight, providing satellites with a roughly 10-fold increase in power capacity compared to what they would generate alone.
As Rush explained, this then enables both satellite and rocket companies to “shrink the size of the solar arrays, and therefore, shrink the size of the spacecraft — actually make it less complex, less massive, and therefore less costly to field.” Already, he said the startup has signed seven power purchase agreements with satellite companies such as Loft Orbital and Astro Digital, as well as agreements or letters of intent with “almost every orbital data center startup” including Starcloud, which wants to begin offering cloud computing in space by early 2027.
For its part, Star Catcher aims to scale commercially by the end of the decade. Rush argues that just as bringing data processing closer to mobile users on the ground speeds up browsing and streaming, the growth of satellite broadband will create demand for the same infrastructure in space. That means everything from caching streaming content to running AI inference and processing satellite data in orbit, thus reducing the latency involved with routing everything to space and back.
While Star Catcher is focused on providing grid infrastructure for conventional satellites and orbital data centers, another recently funded startup, Cowboy Space, wants to build those data centers itself — and the rockets that will bring them to space. The company was founded in 2024 under the name Aetherflux, with the goal of beaming solar energy from space down to Earth. But with its latest $275 million Series B fundraise earlier this month, the company unveiled both a new name and a new mission.
Modern rocket designs from SpaceX — Cowboy Space’s most formidable competitor — pair a reusable lower section with a disposable upper section that carries satellites into orbit mounted at the rocket’s tip. After that upper section releases the satellite into orbit, the now purposeless component drifts through space, eventually burning up as it reenters Earth’s atmosphere. But Cowboy Space aims to transform what would otherwise be discarded debris into an orbital, 1-megawatt data center, integrating hundreds of Nvidia chips into the rocket’s upper section.
“We started with a blank sheet of paper with a goal of packing as many GPUs as tightly and densely as possible, and getting them to space,” Joseph Yaffe, the startup’s COO, told me over email. “We believe that this is a first-of-its-kind approach — the launch vehicle and the orbital data center designed as a single integrated system from day one.”
He told me that existing launch providers couldn’t offer the launch capacity or flexibility that Cowboy Space needs, and that the economics just wouldn’t pencil unless they did it themselves. Of course that’s an extremely tall order. SpaceX currently dominates the market for private rocket launches, a sector notoriously littered with failures. Only a few other private companies have even managed to make a dent in the space, and they’re still far behind Elon Musk’s industry giant.
Yaffe naturally thinks his company is well-positioned to become the exception, and prominent backers such as Index Ventures, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, and Andreessen Horowitz seem to agree. The startup is targeting the end of 2028 for its first proprietary rocket launch. Eventually, Cowboy Space plans to deliver processing power on par with conventional data centers, with Yaffe explaining that “abundant solar power and radiative cooling in orbit are what make that cost structure achievable.”
It’s true that space-based data centers would not require the same energy- and water-intensive fans, chillers, or cooling towers used on Earth, instead dissipating heat into space via infrared radiation — essentially emitting thermal energy as invisible light. But using today’s technology, power dense satellites can’t radiate heat quickly enough to sustain AI workloads, and how Cowboy Space plans to overcome this remains an open question. Even Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang acknowledged the difficulty, remarking in a recent keynote address at the GPU Technology Conference in San Jose that “we have to figure out how to cool these systems out in space.”
But if Cowboy Space and others can overcome these technical hurdles, there are some clear advantages to putting data centers into orbit. For one, building these energy-hungry behemoths has become a fraught political issue on both sides of the aisle, with local opposition exploding this year. Then there are the familiar constraints of limited power availability and interminably long grid interconnection queues, which are preventing hyperscalers from ramping up their AI efforts as quickly — and cleanly — as they’d like.
“AI demand is growing faster than terrestrial infrastructure can scale,” Yaffe argues. He’s betting that this dynamic will hold even if policy fixes such as permitting reform eventually materialize. “Orbital data centers aren’t a replacement for terrestrial infrastructure. The long-term opportunity is about expanding total compute capacity.”
Likewise, Johnson of B Capital doesn’t see the primary value proposition of orbital data centers as alleviating power or permitting constraints. “The reason why things are moving to space isn’t because we don’t have telecommunications that work right on Earth, it’s because new use cases are getting unlocked that are better,” he told me. “The first time you’re on a plane and use Startlink, you see that. The first time you need to be somewhere that isn’t really served well by Wi-Fi, and you use it, you see that. So there’s use cases that are transformational that can get unlocked by the space economy”
Not everyone is as bullish, however. Luigi Scatteia, the lead of PwC’s global space practice, told me he expects there to be “some form of data relay in orbit.” That might look more like space-based computing networks processing data from Earth observation satellites, as we’re already seeing the beginnings of today. But full-on data centers with the capabilities of terrestrial server farms? Launched from rockets? “I’m just going to say what my professor in university always used to tell us: Anything you do on Earth is always going to be more difficult in space.”
He, too, thinks the real unlock for orbital data centers and beyond would be “if Starship really works as intended,” he told me. “If you really want to do massive things in space — if you want to have a paradigm shift, a Copernican change — you need to drastically raise the capacity and lower the cost to orbit.”
No question these are two incredibly difficult tasks, not just for SpaceX but for the broader ecosystem of emerging space startups betting that private industry can fundamentally reshape the space economy. But according to Rush of Star Catcher, investors are now increasingly willing to take that bet too, in a way they weren’t when he first entered the industry a decade ago.
“Now, there’s the full spectrum of capital available, from seed all the way through IPO and beyond,” Rush told me. And that money is flowing to “really every flavor of space company. And so just by that metric alone, this is the golden age to build in space.”