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:
Elon Musk is chasing his shiny object.

While channel-surfing over Thanksgiving weekend, I stumbled upon The Aviator — specifically, the scene in which Leonardo DiCaprio’s Howard Hughes maniacally scrambles a fleet of biplanes to capture the greatest air combat scenes even filmed, and rants that he doesn’t care if the conservative suits at his company worry he’s squandering his fortune in pursuit of a mad dream. It’s hard to watch these scenes and not think of Elon Musk, Hughes’ heir apparent (with apologies to Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos) as the leading air-and-space-obsessed billionaire man-child of his era. That’s doubly true this week, with the long-awaited official launch of the Tesla Cybertuck.
Bold pursuit of the big dream has always been Musk’s calling card. Before his rise to prominence, onlookers said it would be impossible to start a new space launch company that could outcompete established giants like Boeing and Lockheed Martin or start a new car company that could outmaneuver giants like Ford and GM, much less do both at the same time. Musk’s self-marketing as the real-world Tony Stark helped to sell his electric vehicles and kept tech enthusiasts tuned in to his attempts to land reusable space rockets on ocean-going platforms. The man and his mad science were the message.
But the Tesla Cybertruck seemed like a turning point. Instead of chasing another sci-fi dream of a better tomorrow, Musk in 2019 revealed a boyhood cartoon: an all-metal, supposedly bulletproof tank that would feel at home as an armored personnel carrier in some PlayStation theatre of warfare. In the four years since, Cybertruck has swallowed much of Musk’s focus as Tesla tried to bring the vehicle to fruition, which he recently admitted has been a much bigger struggle than he anticipated. The first 10 Cybertrucks will finally be delivered to their very patient owners on November 30.
In light of this misadventure, it’s worth asking: Is it time for Tesla to get boring?
I am on record as saying Cybertruck could succeed. Despite the jeers of auto journalists and onlookers who think Tesla’s truck is ill-conceived, poorly constructed, and, well, stupid, it’s clear that Musk’s cult of personality will sell some of these EVs. Plenty of buyers with the same man-boy fantasy of owning a pointy tank as a daily driver will see the appeal. So will shoppers whose main priority is feeling safe and protected on the highway.
Still, the case for the Cybertruck is eroding. Musk initially teased single- and double-motor versions that would start at $40,000 and $50,000, respectively, bringing the EV in well below the price of some electric truck competitors. After all the time and trouble it took to realize the Cybertuck, though, Tesla will reportedly begin sales by offering only double- and triple-motor versions, and at prices estimated to be $70,000 to $80,000. That puts them on par with pricey trucks like the Rivian R1T.
The biggest trouble with the Cybertruck, though, is the opportunity cost of what Tesla could’ve been doing with all this time and industrial energy. That’s not to say the EV maker is struggling, exactly — the Model Y became the world’s best-selling car during this time, and Tesla has revealed what will become the redesign of the very successful Model 3.
During the development of Cybertruck, however, Tesla seems to have deprioritized the redesign of the Model X, which has looked basically the same on the outside since 2015, for example. It has made slow progress on the promise to build a truly affordable EV in the $25,000 range, which could have entrenched for Tesla a leading position in the entry-level EV market that will soon emerge. Tesla could’ve tried to fill out its lineup with crossovers of other sizes, the way a boring legacy company would have done to keep its huge advantage in market share from slipping away. But Musk chased the shiny steel object instead, allowing his rivals to get back into the game in the process.
Such is the tension inherent in any successful startup. The mercurial, damn-the-torpedoes founder or CEO leads the firm to the promised land, but somewhere along the way to true success comes the pressure to button down and grow up, and to start making sound, sane business decisions instead of building the Spruce Goose.
Musk himself seems to realize this, at times. He once called the gullwing-doored Model X a “technology bandwagon” into which Tesla poured all the whiz-bang technology ideas it could think of. This led to an admittedly wild vehicle, but one that never sold in huge numbers. He seemed to learn his lesson with the simpler and more affordable Model 3 and Y, which led to enormous sales numbers and made Tesla the most valuable car brand in the world. Here in California, Teslas went from exotic to ordinary. Every time I drive my Model 3 down the freeway, there are at least two more within view.
But with those volume successes in hand, the devil on Musk’s shoulder made itself heard once more. Musk’s obsession with making the exterior from stainless steel led to long production delays. And Cybertruck clearly follows the Model X pattern, with Tesla including every possible feature from bulletproof windows to a slide-out tailgate for loading your Tesla ATV in the back.
Maybe Musk got afraid of getting old and becoming boring. Maybe nobody was around with the authority to tell him “no.” Maybe the Cybertruck, once it emerges from its production quagmire, will be another rousing success. But if it’s not, it will be remembered (along with Musk’s ill-advised purchase of Twitter) as the vanity project that ate Tesla's attention right when it had the whole EV world by the tail.
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.”