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:
Four takeaways from a week of earnings.

Every few months, corporate earnings announcements give us the chance to (pretty literally) take stock of how the energy transition is going. After a rocky end-of-year for many renewables companies, this earnings season was, perhaps, more warily anticipated than most.
A bunch of energy companies reported this week, ranging from fossil fuel stalwarts to the bleeding edge of decarbonization and in between. The results indicate an industry that's a bit unsure of itself — showing promising signs overall, but with lots still to figure out, especially in how to make offshore wind a real business. Everyone expects growth, but turning that growth in consistent profits can be tricky.
Here are four takeaways from a mixed bag:
GE’s renewable energy business is a kind of snapshot for utility scale investment: it's doing a lot, but at least for now struggling to make money and taking a bath on offshore wind. The business reported both a fourth quarter loss and a full-year loss for 2023, but its onshore wind turbine business was profitable, as was its business servicing the electric grid. Offshore wind, meanwhile, remained something of a money suck.
So while one large offshore wind order was cancelled (likely a New Jersey project), GE’s renewables head Scott Strazik said the massive SunZia wind project in the Southwest was still full steam ahead with an order for 2.4 gigawatts worth of wind capacity.
The rush to build out new power lines to deliver new electricity also buoyed GE’s business, with “a number of large [high voltage direct current] orders” — infrastructure for sending power over long distances — and a 40% jump in orders for power transformers, equipment necessary to help move electricity. “There’s a lot of healthy demand across renewables that we expect to continue into 2024,” Strazik said.
That demand is coming from companies like NextEra, which combines a regulated utility in Florida with a wind, solar, and storage development business. The company told investors in a presentation on Thursday that it “continues to see strong demand for new renewables and storage,” and had added 9,000 megawatts of combined renewables and storage in 2023. The company said it would spend almost $2 billion to build out transmission through 2027, creating a virtuous cycle with manufacturers like GE.
If NextEra is on one end of the storage business, then Tesla is on the other. The former builds out utility-scale battery operations, often on the same sites as solar projects, and could “operate up to 53 gigawatts of generation with the potential to co-locate battery storage,” its chief executive John Ketchum told investors.
In Tesla’s earnings call on Wednesday, meanwhile, CEO Elon Musk spotlighted the company’s Tesla Energy business, which sells the Powerwall battery and solar system, as an area of high growth while its core auto business goes through a period of transition. A new model code-named “Redwood” coming, Musk said, in 2025.
Musk said the company’s energy storage business “delivered nearly 15 GW-hours of batteries in 2023, compared to 6.5 GW-hours the year before,” growth he described as “tremendous.” And while investors were miffed that Tesla didn’t provide a forecast for growth in car sales — which implied it wouldn’t hit its traditional 50% target — Musk was happy to say that he thought the company’s storage business “would grow much faster than the car business.”
While the oil majors have yet to release their fourth quarter earnings, the market got a hint at how things were going from the results released by Halliburton, the oil services firm that’s also a major player in fracking.
The company hiked up its dividend and reported both revenue and profit growth in 2023. Overall, the business was the most profitable it had been “in over a decade,” the company’s chief financial officer, Eric Carre, told analysts.
It did, however, note that the footprint of its North American business was shrinking as the number of active oil rigs had declined, and that it expected “flattish revenue and margin environment,” the company’s chief executive, Jeff Miller, added. Meanwhile, overseas, Miller
said he expected industry spending to “grow at a low double-digit pace,” with “multiple years of sustained activity growth.”
He did not, however, expect an end to oil any time soon. “[The] long-term expansion of the global economy will continue to create enormous demands on all forms of energy,” Miller said. “I expect oil and gas remains a critical component of the global energy mix with demand growth well into the future.”
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.”