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:
Making sense of two seemingly opposite Tesla stats.

It’s a bad sign when they won’t tell you the exact numbers.
On Thursday, Tesla released final production figures for 2024, which saw the EV maker post a rare year-over-year decline in sales growth. It’s likely that a slow start for the Cybertruck, Tesla’s only new model in recent memory, was a big cause of the slowdown. But we can’t tell you exactly how well or poorly the big truck is doing because the company won’t tell us.
Tesla delivered 1,789,226 total vehicles to customers last year. The popular, reasonably affordable Model 3 or Model Y EVs made up more than 95% of those sales. The remainder were lumped into a group called “other models,” meaning Cybertruck and the long-in-the-tooth, expensive Model X and Model S, a move that has the same flavor as a Friday afternoon news dump. The “other models” accounted for just 85,133 deliveries, or 4.8% of Tesla’s total.
If you’ve been following Heatmap’s coverage then this comes as no surprise. Elon Musk & Co. sold just shy of 17,000 Cybertrucks during the third quarter of last year (July to September). That made the shiny metal beast the third-best-selling EV in America after Tesla’s two volume sellers. But Cybertruck was a distant third behind those two EVs. In the fourth quarter of 2024, Tesla delivered 23,640 “other models,” meaning that’s the maximum number of Cybertrucks it could have sold.
The writing for Tesla’s sales slump has been on the wall for years. A recent design refresh helped bump Model 3 sales, and the company is still working on a rumored update to the Model Y, the world’s best-selling EV, that might give Tesla a shot in the arm. But with Tesla’s future prospects resting with the Cybercab and other autonomous aspirations, the Cybertruck is the brand’s only current opportunity to boost its bottom line with a new vehicle.
Except that the stainless steel war rig was never a good candidate for high-volume sales. Cybertruck starts at $80,000. It has suffered embarrassing viral moments where the vehicle failed at basic truck tasks such as getting out of snow or sand. It comes with some cool amenities, such as the ability to back up one’s home power supply via bidirectional charging. It also serves as the avatar of everything Elon, making the car a polarizing hard pass for anyone who doesn’t want to be publicly profiled as a Musk fan.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox each day.
Cybertruck endured a slow start dogged by production delays and nagging, frequent recalls. Soon it became evident that demand for the vehicle wasn’t exactly red-hot. Musk at one point has claimed that a million people put their names down for a Cybertruck, but doing so cost only $100, so the length of that list doesn’t mean much. More telling was the report that Tesla was scrubbing the badging off the limited-edition Foundation series, which wasn’t selling, so it could offer the vehicles as ordinary Cybertrucks.
As The Verge notes, how you’d grade the Cybertruck depends entirely on what you believe its potential to be. As a competitor to EV pickup trucks like the Rivian R1T, Ford F-150 Lightning, and Chevy Silverado EV, the Tesla is the king — Cybertruck is outselling all those models. But electric truck sales have been sluggish all along, making the Cybertruck the big fish in a pretty small pond.
If the Cybertruck’s raison d'etre was simply to bring Musk’s Mad Max daydream to life, then it has succeeded. But if the goal of the Cybertruck was to sell lots of cars, then it’s hard to argue it has been anything but a boondoggle.
The automakers nipping at Tesla’s heels in the EV market, including GM and Hyundai/Kia, have every reason to see a path to more growth, even with the lingering uncertainty of an unfriendly new era of American government. They’re rolling out new models and posting record sales. If they can continue to bring down the starting price of their electric models, lots of their customers could be ready to ditch fossil fuel engines.
But, at least for today, Tesla’s status it tethered to the Cybertruck, which doesn’t have a lot of room to grow. Once upon a time, Tesla teased a high-end version of the vehicle that would have 500 miles of range, as well as an entry-level Cybertruck that could start in the neighborhood of $50,000. Realizing either of those goals could make many drivers — at least those not immediately turned off at the thought of owning this thing — take a long look at the Cybertruck. Neither appears imminent.
Musk’s reaction to all this might be a shrug. Rather than rounding out his stable of cars with an affordable EV with the potential to sell in huge numbers, he has bet the farm on Tesla winning the autonomous vehicle race and tossed out the Cybertruck as a treat to his hardcore devotees. Now he must hope enough of them buy it to keep Tesla’s cratering stock price afloat while he chases 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 movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.
A conversation with Hanson Wood of RWE
This week’s conversation is with Hanson Wood, chief development officer for solar developer RWE. Wood’s perspective felt crucial at a moment when the data center boom is leading to so much deal volume – even after the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. So I reached out to his team to see if we could talk about how he’s evaluating all things Fight-related, including the impacts of the data center backlash on solar itself. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is solar finding opportunities in the data center development space? I know there’s conversations about speed-to-power and some deal volume, but help us get a better sense of the level of capacity being sought versus fossil or other forms of energy.
Great question. To contextualize, I think it just makes sense to talk about energy demand overall. Solar is filling the base of where the majority of load growth and generation is coming from and going to be served.
Over the last decade, the cost of solar has gone down dramatically. It’s become a very modular technology being deployed in a variety of locations. It can be deployed very quickly at low cost. It can ramp to meet short-term demand needs. And within the space of just energy demand, across utilities and large industrial data center companies, the reality is no single technology is going to be able to serve overall demand. Everything from solar to onshore wind and geothermal and other forms of flexible generation are needed.
What this speaks to is how our grid is pretty finite. We have to be able to mix and match a variety of products to be able to meet an ever-growing reliability need. To make it simple, I think solar’s going to serve the largest base of growing demand because it's cheap and it's available. But it’s not going to be the only technology. We need to be able to serve this load growth reliably. And we know this is going to require a diversity of technologies.
From a social license perspective, does solar power for a data center make it more acceptable for a community? Less acceptable? More friendly?
One thing I want to be clear about: I don’t develop data centers. So I’m looking at it through the same view many people in the industry and the public see it.
I think there’s manifold reasons why people have concerns about data centers, overall. I can’t speak for all of them. But what solar does address is, we don’t want to see large price spikes in the short term and solar can really help in that regard. It can provide near-term generation immediately in a lot of instances at one of the lowest costs in the market.
Whether the broader public makes that connection, it’s probably too early to see. There’s probably a lot of anxiety that has to be addressed by that [data center] community.
When it comes to the state of solar development, have the feelings around data center infrastructure we’ve seen in various places impacted solar projects?
Solar is more often in what we consider rural areas where there’s more of a conservative viewpoint generally.
Where I think we stand in the solar industry is that in the 2010s we were looked at as a one-off, and now what we see as the challenge is that as solar scales, communities are looking at the scale and potential of what solar will be bringing. A lot of the conversations we have with [them] are, is this changing the local character? How is this impacting our way of life?
And the way we try to approach that is to highlight a lot of the public benefits. Renewables are generating significant jobs, locally as well as through funding local services. Farmers setting aside land for renewables are also funding their farms and way of life. I’ve heard testimonials from farmers who’ve said they wouldn’t be able to continue on without the revenue from solar or BESS projects.
The broader community is concerned solar is displacing rural farming, but what we hear from rural landowners is that these projects are allowing them to keep their farms.
Most people when they start looking at renewables, they don’t make that connection. They’re primed to ask, what’s the downside here? But it’s nothing in terms of physical land while the economic value it brings is long-term. It’s 30 years — at a time when the American public is seeing lots of headwinds.
I know at a broader level, you’re addressing the conflicts in solar energy. Do you think the solar industry offers any lessons for the folks now trying to get data centers built?
Anyone who is building large infrastructure projects can’t ignore early community engagement. One of the things people should be thinking about as they’re developing projects is these things are going to be here 20, 30 years, right? When we develop those projects we are trying to build relationships in a sustainable fashion.
We really take into consideration the concerns we hear. Again, people are primed to see the downside in any development, and without that early engagement – genuinely – you risk whether other people come along and hear the benefits or feel like their voice mattered in the process of development.