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:
Yes, it’s possible — even in the suburbs.

I love driving. Love it. And I am not alone.
“Automobility is our national way of life,” the historian and journalist Dan Albert has written. Getting your driver’s license is as close to a coming-of-age ritual as we have; cars inspire everything from our music to our movies to the design of where we live. At the same time, the automobile has boxed out other options for getting around, poisoned the air we breathe, and is the country’s most significant single cause of climate change.
Driving is so integral to American life that only 8% of U.S. households currently get by without owning a car (and 20% of those carless households, including mine, are located in the relative mass transit paragon New York City). For most people, “giving up driving” is more of a radical thought experiment than a realistic possibility.
Here’s the thing, though: You can almost certainly drive less than you do right now. Yes, that takes thinking and planning and doing some things differently than the way you’ve always done. (You can also check out our e-bike guide for more advice on that.) But the majority of car trips made by U.S. drivers are for distances of less than three miles. “If I just need to pick up a carton of milk, does it make sense to do that in a 6,000-pound metal box on wheels that is powered by dinosaur juice? Not so much,” Doug Gordon, the cohost of “The War on Cars,” a podcast about the fight against car culture, told me recently for our guide about how to drive less.
As urban theorists have argued for decades, America’s overreliance on cars has reduced our overall freedom. In addition to diminishing our options for getting around — it’s car or bust in places without safe bike lanes, public transportation options, or dense residential and commercial development — there is also the “inescapable dependence on a vast support structure comprising oil refineries, tanker fleets, service stations, repair shops, road crews, traffic police, emergency services, investment in road projects, manufacturing, licensing, registration, insurance, and all who work in these areas,” notes the Public Transport Users Association. “Seen this way, even a bicycle permits greater freedom.”
Cycling is, on balance, usually more convenient than driving (no need to look for parking!), not to mention far cheaper and healthier. Driving costs about $5,522 per year, according to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics; cycling only 10 miles a week can knock off about $299. Other studies have found that the health benefits of cycling add an additional three to 14 months to your life, even when the possibilities of collisions and air pollution are factored in.
We can’t just Tesla our way out of the global emissions problem, either. To reduce transportation emissions by 45% by 2030, we would need 70 million electric vehicles on the road — in addition to reducing miles driven 20% per capita, RMI has found. Public transportation or cycling are the next best options for most people in most places.
E-bikes, especially, are incredible car replacement tools, helping to make otherwise daunting commutes manageable for a bigger pool of people (you don’t even have to be athletic!). While there can be sticker shock shopping around, there are also also all kinds of e-bike incentive programs and lending libraries available, and even higher-end models cost cost a fraction of a car at the end of the day. (“Well, but what if it rains?” As the old Scandi saying goes, there’s no such thing as bad weather; just bad clothing..)
Americans admittedly have one very good reason to resist letting go of their cars: Our infrastructure is so overwhelmingly car-centric that it is actively hostile to people who are thinking about alternative ways of getting around. “So often in the United States, we think about things like, ‘What is the most convenient way for every single person in a car to get from Point A to Point B with as few obstacles as possible?’” Alexa Sledge, the director of communications at Transportation Alternatives, a nonprofit organization that promotes non-polluting and safe travel in New York City, told me. “But that leaves so many people behind.”
This might actually be one of the biggest social benefits of using your car less: It will, in turn, open your eyes to how little room has been left for anything else. “Reimagining how we’re going to truly allocate our public resources — our public dollars, our public services — to serve everyone is so important,” Sledge stressed. Looking around, you’ll realize there is almost never a justifiable reason for your suburb or city to lack protected bike lanes or sidewalks or crosswalks — other than because they weren’t expected or demanded in the first place. What a failure of imagination that is.
And the best part? Even as you think about driving a little less, you can still love cars. A car can be an incredible freedom machine. But it isn’t the only one.
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.”