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:

First it hit Chicago and Milwaukee. Then Detroit, Cleveland, and Washington, D.C. Now it’s back in New York.
Smoke from far-north wildfires returned to the United States and Canada this week, canceling concerts and summer camps, and sending up “Code Red” air-quality alerts across the continent. On Friday, four of the five cities with the world’s worst air pollution were in eastern North America.
The wildfire smoke’s return raised the specter of a long, hot, smoky summer. When wildfire smoke first smothered the East Coast in early June, the fluorescent sky seemed almost like a curiosity. Historians had to go back centuries — to New England’s “Dark Day” of 1780 — to find an appropriate comparison.
Now, they only need to remember a few weeks earlier. Much like how the successive waves of COVID-19, once a terrifying and confusing new reality, slowly became a tedious (but no less dangerous) fact of life, the wildfire smoke has become — and will probably remain — a part of the East Coast’s summer.
Pending a meteorological surprise, the wildfire smoke is likely to return periodically throughout the rest of the summer. The smoke probably won’t fully go away until late September or early October, when Quebec’s fire season ends.
“A lot of the wildfires are in western Quebec, right near Hudson Bay. About 34 wildfires have been left completely to burn,” Matthew Capucci, a Washington, D.C.-based meteorologist, told me. Recent weather patterns have been so dry — and there’s so little rain on the horizon — that almost nothing suggests those fires are likely to go out any time soon, he said.
“Nothing’s gonna put the fires out. They’re gonna keep burning,” he said. The first real break in the pattern is likely to come with the return of hard snowfall and cold weather in three or four months. Until then, every northwest wind will bring clouds of smoke to the eastern United States and Canada.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
That is despite any fire-fighting that Canada can manage, Michael Wara, a senior researcher at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, told me.
For now, hundreds of American firefighters are essentially on loan to the Canadian government’s firefighting effort. America can spare those hotshot crews because few wildfires are raging in the Lower 48. But as fire season heats up south of the border, those firefighters will have to return home, and Canada will have fewer resources with which to battle the flames.
The location of the fires also makes them particularly tricky to fight. Many of the blazes are in remote, unpopulated stretches of boreal forest. Almost no roads exist to carry crews close to the blaze; few airfields, if any, are close enough — or large enough — to allow federal air tankers to operate in the area and drop flame retardant.
“To understand the landscape, go watch an episode of Alone,” Wara said, alluding to the History Channel reality show where 10 people must each survive by themselves in the remote Canadian wilderness for months at a time. “That’s what we’re talking about here.”
This is the worst Canadian wildfire year on record. More than 29,500 square miles of forest have burned, an area larger than the state of West Virginia. In 1989, when the previous wildfire record was set, it took 12 months for that much forest to burn. But this year has already surpassed the old record in barely more than six.
Climate change has warmed the Canadian boreal forest faster than almost anywhere else in the world. The biome’s average temperature has already increased 1.9 degrees Celsius, or nearly three and a half degrees Fahrenheit, since the mid-20th century.
“These ecosystems are out of equilibrium. They have to change. And one of the ways that ecosystems change is that they burn,” Wara, the Stanford researcher, said. “We can’t really prevent this. We can’t really control what is essentially a planetary-scale process of fire.”
Perhaps the worst news for the eastern United States is that wildfire smoke is most likely to hit the region during periods when the weather would otherwise be coolest. As The Washington Post has reported, eastern summers normally have a predictable rhythm: southerly winds bring hot, humid air, while northerly winds provide a respite of cooler, drier air. But this year, those northwest winds will bring clouds of eye-watering smoke.
For the past few years, western North America has been walloped by two climate-change-related disasters: extreme heat and seasonal bouts of wildfire smoke. Marshall Burke, a Stanford economist, has said that wildfire smoke has caused some of the biggest economic losses of climate change so far, at least out West.
“For California, extreme heat and extreme smoke have become the fingerprint — or even the footprint, since it feels like you’re being stepped on — of climate change,” Wara said. “I think the East has been somewhat spared from that so far, thankfully.”
But that holiday may be ending. The East Coast is facing a long, hot, smoky summer.
Read more about the wildfire smoke:
Fireworks Smoke Is Coming for Already Smoke Cities
How to Stay Safe from the Wildfire Smoke Indoors
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 spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”