You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
There will not be one type of cultured chicken. There will be kosher cultured chicken, halal cultured chicken, and ... vegan cultured chicken?

When you’re a vegetarian, you get used to dealing with sneering, horrified, nosy, and bewildered questions of “...but why?!”
My own well-practiced answer — designed to minimize confrontation — goes something like this: I was raised not eating red meat and then when I was a teenager, I became obsessed with our cultural disconnect from our food and decided that if I couldn’t stomach killing and preparing an animal myself, then I had no right to eat it. But don’t worry, my husband eats meat! I’m not judgmental!
The truth is actually much more complicated and nuanced (my “long version” includes anecdotes about my stint at a wildlife rehabilitation center, my father’s heart attack, and an explanation of why I eat meat when I travel abroad), but I usually don’t get that far when talking with strangers. That’s because what we eat and why are deeply personal questions that can touch on everything from one’s religious beliefs to their code of ethics, cultural and philosophical values, health, and concerns about environmental impact. Every person who observes dietary restrictions around meat has spent at least some time — perhaps very little, maybe every single day — privately weighing these considerations.
Then earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture threw all of that carefully considered reasoning out the window by approving the sale of lab-grown chicken.
Don’t get me wrong: This is incredible news. Around 15% of global emissions come from livestock farming (including dairy and eggs), and it would likely be impossible to get everyone on the planet to switch to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Indeed, for animal rights activists, “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat has long been akin to cold fusion for food — that is, a science-fiction solution that theoretically fixes everything.
But now, using cells harvested from live animals, companies like Upside Foods and Good Meat are able to safely grow animal fat and muscle tissue in stainless steel tanks, resulting in what is essentially slaughter-free animal protein for human consumption. When I spoke with the influential animal welfare philosopher Peter Singer a few months ago about the ethical quandaries of eating meat during the climate crisis, he’d cited such advancements in cultured meat (at the time, only available in Singapore) as an exciting, if far-off, opportunity, telling me “if we can get that economically competitive, maybe that’ll be a solution to the problem.”
The widespread proliferation of cultured meat is admittedly still a long way off. For the time being, lab-grown chicken will only be sold in select U.S. restaurants and an enormous amount of scaling is required for cultured meat to begin to replace industrial farming. There are also concerns that current production methods are not actually more sustainable than live-animal farming. Plus, there is a squeamish factor of “meat grown in tanks” to be cleared.
But the USDA approval is still nothing short of a game-changer. “I’m vegan for ethical reasons, and so if people can enjoy the familiar tastes of meat and textures of chicken and whatever else without animals dying, then that’s a huge win in my book,” Nisha Vora, a vegan recipe developer and cookbook author who runs the YouTube channel and blog Rainbow Plant Life, told me. Still, “it will be weird to eat chicken!” she admitted.
Vora isn’t sure yet how much lab-grown meat will factor into her future recipes, explaining that many of her followers are interested in whole foods and cooking that is meat-adjacent, “so I don’t think I have a huge swath of my audience that’s really like, ‘oh, I can’t wait for meat,’ you know?” She observed, though, that lab-grown meat could potentially make labor-intensive parts of some of her recipes, like her popular vegan Crunchwrap Supreme dupe, easier and quicker, albeit not quite as healthy. “If you are vegan for health reasons, or you’re plant-based for health reasons … then maybe that’s not what you want to be eating,” she pointed out.
Omnivores might be scratching their heads at these fine nuances, wondering why they’re a big deal: No animals are killed, can’t you people ever be happy? But it’s actually the fact that the animals aren’t killed that might prevent a quarter of the world’s population from eating lab-grown meat.
Many religions have customs regarding meat consumption, including Judaism, Hinduism, certain denominations of Christianity, and Islam — groups that together make up approximately half of the global population. That means there is a lot of confusion and theological debate when it comes to cultured meat. As The Washington Post once memorably put it, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, but you’re not supposed to eat a duck, does God consider this ‘cheating’?”
The answer is, it depends.
Take halal, the Islamic laws governing food. A number of rules must be met for meat to be considered permissible to eat, including proper slaughtering of the animal. It is, for example, forbidden to eat an animal that dies naturally and becomes a carcass. This is an essential technicality for the 25% of people globally who keep halal.
“Any severed part of a surviving (land) livestock animal can become a carcass” — including its cells, one recent Malaysian study explained. As such, lab-grown meat would only be halal if the animal the cells were collected from was “slaughtered according to the Shariah law.” Such an interpretation has been echoed by religious authorities in Pakistan and Indonesia, the two countries with the largest Muslim populations. (Kosher-slaughtered origin animals may be acceptable in the eyes of rabbis, too, although Jewish authorities have gone back and forth on the matter).
But using cells from a slaughtered animal might be a non-starter for some hardcore animal rights activists since the shift makes the lab-grown cells ever so slightly less cruelty-free. PETA has long been a proponent and backer of cultivated meat, although on the grounds that “no animal died for it.” As PETA’s Catie Cryar clarified for me, “It is our hope that the original process used to obtain cells will be superseded by scientific advances, but at the very least, our goal would be to have no additional animals slaughtered after the original cell lines were obtained.” That means there is potentially a world in which even cultured meat gets labels distinguishing it as either “vegan friendly” or “halal and kosher” (currently, most cultivated meats are made from live-animal cells).
Hindus, meanwhile, may not eat cultured beef regardless of its origin due to the sacred status of cows, one 2020 survey found, although overall Hinduism was “the only religious group who were … more willing to eat cultured meat than conventional meat … perhaps highlighting the motivation to avoid harming animals.” And of course, all of this generalizes the positions of enormously diverse world religions — every worshipper will have their own perspective.
Then there is a whole other sect of non-meat-eaters that we’ve largely ignored: those who abstain for health reasons. While meat substitutes on the market today are made from plants, lab-grown meat is still animal meat. But that also means eating cultured steaks isn’t any better for you than eating real steaks. Even if cellular meat does eventually take off, there will be plenty of people who avoid it simply because they don’t want to include meat in their diet, no matter what its animal or, uh, tank of origin is.
Now let me guess, you nosy Nelly — you’re wondering at this point what I am going to do? I admit my thinking has been all over the place. Sure, when it comes to my animal-ethics-forward viewpoints, there should be nothing stopping me from eating lab-grown meat. I’m a big believer in open-mindedness and adaption and I fully support lab-grown meat being available on the wider market. But I also enjoy the health benefits of eating plant-based, and it’s conceptually just strange to think of myself eating chicken protein even if no chickens were harmed in the making of my meal.
Mostly I just think it’s funny how one little USDA stamp of approval has the potential to unmoor my entire identity as a vegetarian — whatever that even means anymore. We’ll probably need to come up with new terms to distinguish between people who don’t eat animal proteins, period, and people who don’t eat slaughtered animals.
I’m sure, also, that there will eventually be a need for a term to describe meat purists who avoid tank-grown proteins. Then at last it’ll be my turn to snort and ask, “...but why?!”
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
SoftBank’s error and Nvidia’s scandal suggest data centers may have already peaked as an economic and energy trend.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
Covering energy and climate change sometimes means seeing certain stories in a different light than others. And a particularly vivid hue illuminated The Wall Street Journal’s report today that the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank Group is taking a $3.7 billion loss on several gigawatts’ worth of natural gas turbines.
For the Journal, the big news is that SoftBank and its billionaire founder, Masayoshi Son, are failing to capitalize on the artificial intelligence boom. But at Heatmap, we’re thinking about the turbines.
The data center boom and the return of electricity load growth has depleted the world’s supply of natural gas turbines. SoftBank had purchased reservations for about 13 gigawatts of turbines, according to the Journal. That’s a staggering amount of electricity — it could meet New York City’s maximum power draw on the hottest part of a summer’s day. The conglomerate now seems set to dump reservations for about four gigawatts’ worth. Keeping a reservation, it turns out, really is harder than making it.
Most of those rotors were reportedly from GE Vernova, one of the world’s largest producers of gas turbines. GE Vernova’s order list for gas turbines has been filled for nearly two years and the waiting list now stretches into 2031. That has led data center developers, hungry to get power as soon as possible, to reach for ever dirtier forms of electricity generation, including diesel generators and even old jet engines.
On that front, SoftBank’s failure to sell the turbines to a higher bidder suggests (albeit weakly) that demand for energy-producing assets might not be as strong as the AI boom’s backers once thought. SoftBank was already set to send about 9 gigawatts of turbines to the enormous Trump-backed OpenAI data center in Pike County, Ohio. The roughly remaining four gigawatts will be released back their manufacturers. (One thing this news can’t quite tell us, alas, is what type of turbine set-up will be used in the Pike County facility, which will be the world’s largest gas-fired power plant if it is build to completion. Recent public filings have suggested the facility isn’t planning on using any turbines in the more efficient combined-cycle configuration, which would mean the plant’s carbon intensity will be worse than most other new natural gas plants. But we’d love to hear any tips on this front.)
To zoom out for a second, I’m struck by how the AI bubble has been replaced by an AI muddle. As I wrote this, news emerged that Nvidia is preparing to fire its CEO, Jensen Huang, for his affair with a Chinese woman who is alleged to be a spy. (He had at least one more affair with another Nvidia executive, according to The New York Times.) Under Huang’s leadership, Nvidia has invested in a sprawling and sometimes circular network of energy-related companies, including Emerald AI, a startup that helps data centers flex their electricity consumption, and Redwood Materials, a battery recycler and producer led by the former Tesla executive J.B. Straubel. Huang has used Nvidia’s enormous balance sheet to buy down the risk of other AI and AI-related companies, propelling the overall AI trade to become the biggest story in American markets.
Now that balance sheet is in peril: Nvidia’s stock is already down 11% over the past five days, and it has fallen another 8% in after-hours trading since news broke of Huang’s ouster. If the chip designer’s financial network began to fray — or even if the next CEO had a lower risk appetite than Huang — then its demise could impact a much larger set of firms.
Even before the Huang scandal broke, companies at the center of the AI trade were showing signs of weakness. Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft are all down on the month. Nvidia was already lagging by about 10% on the month before its hebdomas horribilis began, too. The memory and chip makers Micron and Applied Materials are both down more than 25% in about the same period, and GE Vernova and Oklo have fallen nearly 20%. Although the data center company Coreweave rebounded on an earnings beat today, it’s still down 24% on the month and nearly 50% since May.
The market rout isn’t total — Anthropic seems likely to enjoy one of the largest IPOs ever in the next week (although perhaps not with quite as large a valuation as its investors once imagined). And the underlying technology of AI seems to be getting worryingly better all the time. But even though the politics of data centers and AI seem set to dominate the new Washington, I’m wondering if data centers as a mainstream economic trend might have already peaked. Americans voted for a more subdued AI boom in the midterms. Now it seems like they might get it ahead of schedule.
Lunar Energy’s latest AI-powered system aims to integrate EVs into the automated demand response mix.
In theory, it’s straightforward to assemble the smart energy home: Solar panels, home backup batteries, and electric vehicles, plus smart thermostats, heat pumps, and water heaters — all the individual pieces can be had for the homeowner who can afford the up-front cost. The challenge is getting all those pieces to talk to one another.
Bay Area-based Lunar Energy is one of the tech firms that’s been trying to crack this problem. Today, it announced an upgraded version of its artificial intelligence-powered home energy control system, which not only integrates all those separate systems but also responds tactically to energy markets. CEO Kunal Girotra told me Lunar AI saves its users money by monitoring their home 24/7 and making decisions to charge, not to charge, or discharge so that they save the most money.
“Utilities are all moving to almost-real-time changes of rates,” he said. “You need software to handle that for you. I think that the race is on for who has the best AI machine learning algorithms to save the most amount of money. And so far, we seem to have a head start.”
Lunar’s first-generation system focused on generation, storage, and control. In other words, it connected elements like a home’s rooftop solar panels with the backup battery the residents might keep in the garage, using the AI to decide when to meet the home’s real-time energy needs with solar versus grid energy versus stored power. What it didn’t have was the ability to work with electric vehicles to manage charging and use the car’s battery as a bonus source of energy.
To fix this, Lunar has built its own bidirectional EV charger — one that can charge up the battery or discharge the car’s battery for a secondary use, like backing up the home’s power supply. Girotra, formerly the head of Tesla Energy, told me the problem with that functionality to this point has been the connection point between the car and the home electrical system. Carmakers and other companies in the space didn’t have the deep experience with electrical certifications to make the process seamless, he tells me. That led to setups like the original Ford Charge Station Pro, which required several different wall-mounted electrical boxes to connect the F-150 Lightning EV to the home.
Lunar’s charger is built to connect to its customers’ existing home Lunar energy system, which includes a microgrid interconnect device they call Lunar Bridge that islands the home in case of a power outage on the grid. In that way, the power stored in the EV battery is ready to back up the home in case of a blackout without any additional work — or to be optimized as part of a fully smart home that’s making money as part of a virtual power plant.
The company’s setup allows for another fun feature: “slow” charging that’s not slow at all, but actually two or three times as fast as the Level 2 charging most EV owners use to recharge their batteries overnight. Electric cars in the U.S. can typically take on only about 11 kilowatts of AC power from one’s home because of the limitations of their on-board hardware. Because Lunar’s system is fully DC, however, Girotra said the company decided to build a DC home charger, one that — like a Tesla Supercharger or other DC fast chargers out in the world — isn’t limited by that power cap. Lunar said it could use a combination of power from the grid, home solar, or home batteries to charge an EV at up to 25 kilowatts. That’s enough to recharge an EV in three to four hours rather than six to eight.
“If the standards get high, and if everybody sees cars can get charged in three hours, then all of a sudden people are like, ‘Wow, this is how I want it,’” he said. “Especially for 25% of the users who are like me, who always are running low on charge and they don’t mind a boost every now and then.”
Some of the other improvements in the second-gen system are more incremental. An inverter that’s 40% more powerful helps Lunar get its system up to enterprise scale. That’s crucial, as the world moves toward a place where more homes and businesses employ battery backup systems. Lunar’s new batteries come in modular 5 kilowatt-hour blocks ranging from 10 kilowatt-hours to 30 kilowatt-hours in a single unit and scale up to 300 kilowatt-hours for home or small commercial use; there’s also new pad-mounted configurations with capacity up to 1 megawatt-hour.
Batteries, though, are the simple part. Everyone from EV makers like Rivian to utilities like Octopus Energy is racing to make a person’s or a business’s batteries and solar panels and electric cars work for them, using the power of AI to account for moment-to-moment changes in energy prices and supply. Lunar’s new tech makes the case that the most important element is a single brain to integrate every last smart, electrified thing in your house.
The fundraise comes on the heels of a $50 million grant from the Department of Energy.
Almost all lithium-ion batteries on the market rely on graphite for their anodes, more than 90% of which is processed in China. That concentration has created a chokepoint in the Pentagon’s supply chain as the military increasingly turns to batteries to help its transportation network operate more quietly and reduce reliance on complex refueling logistics.
So when Congress passed the latest National Defense Authorization Act at the end of 2025, barring Chinese-linked battery materials from military use starting in 2028, Coreshell saw an opening. While the California-based silicon-anode battery startup had previously focused on automakers as its beachhead customers, it’s now shipping its first battery cells to the military for use on Navy ships and Army ground vehicles. On Wednesday, Coreshell announced a $30 million Series B to scale up manufacturing operations to meet the needs of this growing customer base.
“We’re entering a new stage where we’re no longer, I would say, demand limited,” Coreshell’s CEO Jonathan Tan told me. “This year we’ve had to put on second and third shifts, work nights and weekends, just to get the product out the door.”
Coreshell sets itself apart by going a step further than the NDAA requires. The law doesn’t make suppliers trace battery materials all the way back to the mine, which would be exceedingly difficult given China’s dominance across the battery supply chain. But Coreshell has nevertheless eliminated Chinese sourcing from its anodes by replacing graphite with silicon mined and refined in the U.S. by Ferroglobe, one of its Series A investors.
Ferroglobe and global investment firm Access Industries led the latest round, with defense contractor ADS also joining as a new strategic investor. The financing comes on the heels of a $50 million Department of Energy grant that Coreshell secured in August as part of a program to strengthen the domestic battery supply chain. That funding will support the company’s first commercial-scale facility, a 2-gigawatt-hour factory.
That’s about 20 times the size of the 100-ish-megawatt-hour plant the startup had originally envisioned, as the DOE grant has allowed Coreshell to “expand much further than we were originally expecting,” according to Tan. The company is now evaluating several potential U.S. sites and expects to announce its selection early next year. For now, it relies on unnamed contract manufactures, along with its small pilot line in San Leandro, to produce its cells. But once the gigafactory gets up and running, the startup plans to bring electrode production in house by 2028, followed by full cell assembly in 2029.
Building this plant will ultimately require significant additional capital. But Tan believes this latest vote of confidence from the federal government will help Coreshell to diversify its capital stack as it continues to fundraise. “That’s one of the great things about having such a notable DOE award is that it also allows us to attract multiple forms of capital,” he told me.
Silicon has long been recognized as a promising alternative material for battery anodes, as it can store far more energy than graphite. The catch is that it tends to swell during charging, causing it to break down quickly and ultimately leading to a much shorter cycle life. Coreshell says it’s extended its anode’s lifespan by giving it a proprietary coating, which Tan told me back in April essentially means “painting the inside of your battery” with an ultra-thin protective layer.
Other companies, such as Sila Nanotechnologies and Group14 Technologies, are also working to commercialize silicon anodes. But Coreshell says many of its competitors rely on more highly engineered, expensive forms of silicon, such as silane gas. By contrast, Coreshell uses metallurgical silicon, a cheap, raw commodity already widely used in aluminum alloys. That, Tan argues, gives the company a cost advantage not only over its competitors, but potentially Chinese graphite too.
Coreshell hasn’t yet demonstrated that its cells can meet the performance demands of the automotive industry, however. When the company raised its Series A in early 2025, it said it expected its automotive cells to exceed 1,000 charge cycles while retaining 80% of their original capacity. But Tan told me many defense applications don’t require such demanding performance targets, as Navy ships and ground vehicles are “not intending to have as many miles or missions or use cases on that same battery” as a consumer EV would.
That doesn’t mean the company is abandoning its automotive ambitions. As Tan pointed out, electric vehicles remain by far the largest source of global and domestic battery demand. “It’s natural for us to obviously utilize the security supply chain first,” he told me. “That allowed us to really get to commercialization, revenue, and production faster, because automotive qualification is this longer journey. But ultimately, we want to do both of those and more.”