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:
An exclusive interview with the Rivian CEO about the future of electric vehicles.

It has been an astonishing year for the electric vehicle industry. In the past 12 months, the world’s three largest car markets — the United States, the European Union, and China — have unveiled aggressive new subsidies or ambitious new targets to accelerate EV adoption. Even automakers that have long sat out the electric revolution, such as Toyota, are now getting in the game.
That might be good news for R.J. Scaringe, the founder and chief executive of Rivian Automotive. Rivian is angling to use the EV revolution to become one of a handful of new American entrants to the automotive space. You can think of its high-end trucks and SUVs, the R1T and R1S, as the Patagonia meets Apple meets Jeep of the vehicle space. But the company, which designs and manufactures its trucks in America, has struggled with scaling issues and delivered only 42,000 electric vehicles since 2021.
I recently had the chance to sit down with Scaringe and chat about what’s next for Rivian and the broader electric vehicle industry. Our conversation has been lightly edited for concision and clarity.
It seems like over the past year — between the Inflation Reduction Act, between things we’ve seen internationally — the entire electric-vehicle market has undergone a number of shifts that the wider world still hasn’t caught up to yet. Could you give us a snapshot of the sector right now, as you see it?
I think we have seen these really large-scale shifts. You could almost look at it across every vantage point.
You have it from the vantage point of policymakers. If you'd told me just a few years ago that Europe would be committing to 100% of new vehicles being electric, you know, within the next 10 years. That California would be making that commitment in the same way. That the United States, through EPA regulations, is going to be 60% EV of new sales by 2030, I don't think I would have believed it. It’s awesome to see that — literally the reason I started the company is to help drive and instigate that change.
But in parallel with that, we see a shift in how consumers are looking at it. The performance envelope and the drivability of an electric vehicle makes it so much more desirable than an alternative. Buying a non-EV just feels very old. Aside from carbon emissions and environmental responsibility, it's just not interesting.
And then I think the third element is the way that the manufacturers have responded. Up until not too long ago, electrification was sort of a thing you had to do to generate some credits and to look responsible as a company, but they weren't really committed to it. Now, most big vehicle manufacturers have begun to really lean into their electrification strategies.
So with all those things happening, then the question becomes like, what does five years from now look like? What does 10 years from now look like?
I think policy is going to ping-pong around a little bit, unfortunately. Electrification and sustainability have become politicized — it makes no sense at all that it has been, but unfortunately it is. So as a result of that, you will see a little bit of variation there.
But I don't think, at a macro level, [the trend] is going to change. The slope of the curve is going to continue to be policy that drives toward electrification, policy that drives toward moving off of fossil fuels. I think consumers have made the switch and it's a diode-like switch — it's one directional.
I don't think we're going to see consumers have any reignited interest in combustion-powered vehicles. You're going to see a lot of entrenched things try to switch that. But the reality is consumers have made it clear that shift is going to come. It’s not as if everyone has reached that decision [today]. But you can see the slope of the curve.
Once you drive an electric vehicle, again, you can't go back. So for example, for us, more than 75% of our vehicles are sold to first-time EV customers, which is really cool, which means our brand is creating new EV customers. We're helping to drive that change. But once you're in a vehicle, you just can't imagine, like, going back to the pump or dealing with the sound of an engine.
And manufacturers now are all working towards both creating supply of vehicles, but also making sure that the products that they offer are interesting enough to generate demand.
The big question is: There's new brands like us, and then there's existing brands, and which of those brands emerge as the sort of stronger pools of demand — that because of their product attributes, the way those attributes are combined together, the way those are put in under a brand position, which of those offerings, create sort of breakaway interests from consumers?
Do you see consumers deciding my next vehicle will be electric? Or at this point, are consumers still being like, I'd like to go electric, but I want these different attributes. And I'm looking around.
Yeah, both. I think the vast majority of customers are now at least asking themselves the question, "Should I be thinking about electric?"
That doesn't mean they're going to decide on electric, either because of concerns around charging infrastructure or price, or the vehicle that they're looking for doesn't exist — "I want a minivan, but there's no electric minivan that's out there.” There may not be a form factor that fits your desire to see convertible electric vehicles today. So like you may end up in a non-EV choice, because it doesn't exist yet on the supply side. But everyone is asking the question. Or a lot of people are.
And I think what will happen over the next 10 years is those questions today that may not get answered with something that leads to an electric vehicle purchase, that will change. The vehicle that I want, that form factor will be available in an electric offering. And the infrastructure is getting solved too.
Then I think the reality of buying a combustion powered vehicle, in light of the policy that's coming, is sort of like building a horse barn in 1910. Like, imagine buying a Chevy Suburban in 2030. Like, what are you going to do with that, right? In 10 years? Yeah, like gas stations will be slowly disappearing. It's just weird.
It's also, like, your second largest asset.
You're buying this thing that absolutely has no future in our society. And will just increasingly become more and more of a relic of the past. But I think the anticipation of that is leading people to say I don't want to be buying a relic of the past.
I think we're one product cycle away from that really driving consumer demand.
What year do you see?
I think towards the end of this decade. This swing is nonlinear because once you get to that point, whether you're thinking about residual value, or just thinking about standing out as, like, the weird person who still drives a combustion powered vehicle, it's just gonna swing really fast.
What’s the biggest obstacle to electrification right now — to consumers making that decision? Is it just acceptance? Is it charging? Additional policy that needs to happen?
There's a number of them. But I think the biggest is customer choice.
Until recently, there were very, very few choices. Even today, I'd say there are very few good choices, especially across all price bands. So if you want to spend $20,000, you just don't have a good choice to make. You want to spend $35,000 or $40,000, there's a couple of choices. But there's still not a lot of choices. And we've seen that manifest in the extreme market share that Tesla has, because of the lack of choice from other manufacturers.
It's funny, because there aren't that many sub $25,000 new vehicles, period. Do you think we'll get back to that place in a few years in EVs? Or that we might have, you know, a Model 3 that gets there with local incentives, but everything will be nominally above $25,000.
$25,000 starts to get pretty low. I mean, the average selling price, or ASP — like, across the industry now — the average selling price of a new vehicle in the States is about double that, right? It’s like $50,000.
Also, I remember when I could buy a new car for less, but, like, inflation is happening.I bought a new car back in the day for less than $10,000. You can't do that anymore.
What does Rivian need to do to be ready for that moment, five years from now, when consumers are ready to make that leap?
This is the really exciting part for us.
The objective of our R1 program was to serve as our handshake to the world. I often say, it's like it opened the brand umbrella for us as a company and it communicated from a brand point of view and values point of view.
We have vehicles that, we say, enable adventure. They can take your kids to the beach, they can take you to the theme park, they can go to your folks' house for the weekend, you can go mountain biking — just these vehicles that enable life.
And we did that at a premium price with a flagship set of products, the R1T and R1s, that have led to the R1 vehicles being the best-selling electric vehicles over a $70,000 price point. Within that range there, they are the best selling vehicles in the premium segment today, the best-selling electric vehicles.
So as we now look at R2, we need to take that same brand excitement that we've generated, and apply it to a smaller form factor and a much lower price point, and therefore a much bigger addressable market, and carry with it the essence of what was embodied in R1, but make it accessible to so many more people.
So the timing of that program fits beautifully with what we see as this big shift, as a lot of people ask themselves, Am I gonna get an electric car? Well maybe the next one.
So we hope that the R2 platform helps pull a lot of customers across that jump where I want to spend $45,000 or $40,000 in a vehicle. It needs to fit my life. So it's my kids, my pets, my gear — it needs to be able to go places and get dirty and go down a rough road. Our brand fits that so well, but today, a lot of customers just can't afford it, or don't want to spend $70,000-plus, so that's where R2 comes in. I couldn't be more excited about what's coming with that program. Because it just fits so nicely into the market.
What’s the timing on R2?
Beginning of '26. So that vehicle will be produced in our second plant and in Atlanta.
I want to talk about factories for a second. I think Rivian was early to what we would now call reshoring — although, of course, for Rivian, it wasn't really "re," it was just locating manufacturing in the United States with engineering talent located here as well. Lots of other companies are now joining that for various policy and political risk reasons. I think for Rivian, the ramp up has been challenging. What advice would you have to other firms looking to, you know, stand up a manufacturing line and a new factory in the United States?
Yeah, well, we launched our R1T, the R1s, and then our two different variants of our commercial van. In any vehicle, a launch is tough, you’ve got thousands of components coming from hundreds of suppliers that have to ramp in unison and be beautifully synchronized. Any one of those parts can throw it off — there's a whole host of things that can go wrong from a quality or production process point of view. And so we were doing that for the first time. New workforce, new supply chain, new plant, new product, new technology.
And we weren't only doing the first time, we were doing it the first time times three, so it's just really challenging.
And then the operational backdrop was far worse than what we could have ever imagined. So the supply chain catastrophe that was 2022 was our launching ramp here. And then managing the build out of a large 5,000-plus person workforce to produce vehicles in our first plant, in the middle of a pandemic, was also really hard.
It was a hard launch and hard ramp. I don't think you could have designed a more complex environment to do that in. And the strategy we had of those three vehicles happening at the same time, in hindsight, knowing what we know now about what the environment was, we would have created more separation.
In 2017, someone should have come to you and been like, there's going to be a global pandemic.
If somebody only told us that.
So as we think about R2, we're simplifying the launch, we have one product that we're launching, it's a new product, leveraging a lot of the existing technology topology that we have in R1. So there's less technical risk, obviously. There’s also dramatic focus on part simplification, joint simplification and manufacturability. So it’s a very, very different vehicle architecture than what we did in R1. All the scars from ramping R1 are informing and driving this deep focus on manufacture building as we go into R2.
Would that have happened anyway or because of the needs of the R2 platform?
I think it's sometimes the pains of the present that enable the skills of the future. I look at like all the pain we've gone through on R1, created this proximity and an appreciation for manufacturing simplicity that, one, everyone would have agreed that that's necessary for R2, but two, embody that in such a deep way because you've lived through it is really powerful. And it's not like a whole different team is doing R2, it's the team that had to go through the R1 launch.
We’re coming off that — there's still people that are involved with the ramp, but a lot of the people that were on that are now moving to our or have moved, I should say, to R2, and so they're directly talking about stuff like, Hey, that was a real big challenge when we had to attach the C pillar trim on this part because the clips do this, this and this. Let's rethink that. Heck, let's get rid of all the clips. Those types of big questions are now coming up.
How do you see and how you think about vehicle weight right now?
Weight or wait? We get asked about both.
Ha, that’s true. Weight — W E I G H T. Rivian has obviously made two very big vehicles right now, and that increases the material needed for them — the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the battery, the bigger the mineral needs. At the same time, consumers seem to prefer larger motor vehicles. So I'm curious, like, do you think we're gonna find a sweet spot on vehicle weight? Do you think there's a trade-off between consumer demand, consumer tastes, and vehicle size? And if so, what does that mean for profitability? Because if vehicles are getting bigger, and it also means less safe for other people, not vehicles?
Yeah. There's a lot of questions.
First of all, our R1 vehicles are and will be our biggest consumer vehicles. They’re the flagship vehicles, as you'd expect — we have a three row SUV and, like, call it a large truck. And as a result of their physical size, their weight is also high, as a result of batteries, and drive train, chassis architecture, all this stuff. R2 will be a much lighter product, inherently.
And that's, I think, where you start to see where the vast majority of demand is going to be — that mid-size or smallish crossover and SUV space, where the vehicles are themselves smaller and therefore require less materials. This goes back to before the start of the company.
We also have to recognize that in order to drive electrification and to drive this transition, we have to be building products that are both just deeply desirable, but also respond to what customers want. So I talked before about what are the things that would block EV adoption? If we told customers the only way you can get an EV is if it's a small sedan, we're not going to sell a lot of EVs, you're going to see low penetration because customers want a vehicle that can fit all their kids, the gear, their stuff, they want larger SUVs —
And for energy density reasons, actually, the smaller the vehicle, the more likely it is to be fossil.
There's a lot of challenges. So I think what we're seeing is customers do want things that fit a form factor that applies what they've grown accustomed to. And we started with the large truck and largest SUV to do that.
The other thing just to note, and I think this is often missed, but if you're to pick the vehicles on the road, that from a carbon emissions point of view, you wanted to reduce carbon emissions by the largest percentage, you wouldn't pick the smallest vehicles in the road to replace, you'd go to the biggest, the least efficient. A 17 mile-per-gallon, 3-row SUV being replaced with a 80 to 90 mile-per-gallon equivalent R1S is a far better trade than a 45 mile-per-gallon ICE Vehicle being replaced with a 100 mile per gallon equivalent EV. Those deltas are really important.
And then I think the last part is — and this is something that I sort of lightly referenced — but there's so much amplified noise around the imperfections of electrification today that is creating a bunch of misinformation around the sustainability of an electric vehicle. No one, including ourselves, is saying an electric vehicle has zero footprint. Everything we do in our industrialized society has a footprint. If you use a light switch in your house, you have footprint. If you buy anything, or eat anything, for that matter, it has a footprint.
So the question is how do we approach a world that can be sustainable for generations upon generations, which means it needs to be a world that's powered by the sun. So that's either direct with photovoltaics or indirect with wind but either way it's sun powered. And that relies on us shifting off of an overall industrial economy that's running on fossil fuels.
And core to that is the things that need to move through stored energy. I think the vast majority [of that stored energy] will likely be in the form of batteries. There are hard problems like planes, but by the end of my lifetime, very few things on the planet will move with propulsion coming from fossil fuels.
And so the world is going to have a diverse set of needs. You're going to see everything from large trucks to buses, to large SUVs, to minivans to station wagons to hatchbacks to sports cars to — everything needs to be electrified.
And that means our vehicles are going to be a little heavier across the board because you know, the average vehicle weight is going to go up because everything's carrying a battery as opposed to a plastic fuel tank.
But you also get into a world where this becomes very circular. So we could talk about raw material extraction and some of the challenges with that. But in my lifetime, we'll also see a world where the source of our lithium is old lithium-ion batteries. And so you get this closed loop and it's why every lithium manufacturer, lithium processor in the world is focused, very focused on access to recycled content, and recycling becomes a really key feedstock as this system starts to reach scale.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Much of the world is once again asking whether fossil fuels are as reliable as they thought — not because power plants are tripping off or wellheads are freezing up, but because terawatts’ worth of energy are currently stuck outside the Strait of Hormuz in oil tankers and liquified natural gas carriers.
The current crisis in many ways echoes the 2022 energy cataclysm, kicked off when Russia invaded Ukraine. Then, oil, gas, and commodity prices immediately spiked across the globe, forcing Europe to reorient its energy supplies away from Russian gas and leaving developing countries in a state of energy poverty as they could not afford to import suddenly dear fuels.
“It just shows once again the risk of being dependent on imported fossil fuels, whether it’s oil, gas, LNG, or coal. It’s an incredibly fragile system that most of the world depends on,” Nick Hedley, an energy transition research analyst at Zero Carbon Analytics, told me. “Most people are at risk from these shocks.”
Countries suddenly competing once again for scarce gas and oil will have to make tough decisions about their energy systems, with consequences for both their economies and the global climate. In the short run, it is likely that many countries will make a dash for energy security and seek to keep their existing systems running, either paying a premium for LNG or turning to coal. In the long run, however, this moment of energy scarcity could provide yet another reason to turn towards renewables and electrification using solar panels and batteries.
The immediate economic risks may be most intense to Iran’s east.
About 90% of LNG from Qatar goes to Asia, with Qatar serving as essentially the sole supplier of LNG to some countries. Even if there’s more LNG available from non-Qatari sources, many poorer Asian countries are likely to lose out to richer countries in Europe or East Asia that can outbid them for the cargoes.
For countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, “The result is demand destruction, not aggressive spot purchasing,” according to Kpler, the trade analytics service.
LNG supply is “critical” for Asia — roughly a fifth of Asia’s power can be traced back to LNG from the Middle East, Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note to clients Thursday.
In its absence, coal usage will likely tick up in the power sector, leading to declining air quality locally and higher emissions of greenhouse gases globally. “For uninterrupted power, coal remains the key alternative to LNG and there is flex capacity available in South Asia, which has seen new coal plants open,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote.
In India, the government is considering implementing an emergency directive to coal-fired power plants to “boost generation and to plan fuel procurement to meet peak summer demand,” sources told Argus Media.
Anne-Sophie Corbeau, global research scholar at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, told me that she does “expect to see some coal switching,” and that she has “already seen an increase in coal prices.” Benchmarks have already risen to their highest level in at least two years, according to the Financial Times.
This likely coal surge comes as two of the world’s most coal-hungry economies — namely India and China — saw their electricity generation from coal power drop in 2025, the first time that’s happened in both countries at once in around 50 years, according to an analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. In much of the rich world, by contrast, coal consumption has been falling for decades.
At the same time energy insecurity may tempt countries to stoke their coal fleet, the past few years have also offered examples of huge deployments of solar in some of the countries most affected by high fossil fuel prices, leading some energy analysts to be guardedly optimistic about how the world could respond to the latest energy crisis.
In the developing world especially, the need to import oil for gasoline and natural gas for electricity generation weighs on the terms of trade. Countries become desperate to export goods in exchange for hard currency to pay for essential fuel imports, which are then often subsidized for consumers, weighing on government budgets. But at least for electricity and transportation, there are increasingly alternatives to expensive, imported fossil fuels.
“This is the first oil and gas crisis-slash-pricing scare in which clean alternatives to oil and gas are fully price-competitive,” Isaac Levi, an analyst at CREA, told me. “Looking at the solar booms, we can expect this to boost clean energy deployment in a major way, and that will be the more significant and durable impact.”
The most cited example for this kind of rapid emergency solar uptake is Pakistan, which has experienced one of the fastest solar conversions in history and expects this year to see a fifth of its electricity come from solar, according to the World Resources Institute.
The country was already under pressure from the rising price of energy following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when it was forced to hike fuel and power prices and cut subsidies as part of a deal with the International Monetary Fund. From 2021 to 2024, Pakistan’s share of generation from solar more than tripled thanks to the growing glut of inexpensive Chinese solar panels that were locked out of the rich world — especially the United States — by tariffs.
“Countries which are heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports are once more feeling very nervous,” Kingsmill Bond, an energy strategist at the clean energy think tank Ember, told me. “The interesting thing is we have two answers: renewables and electrification. If you want quick results, you put solar panels up quickly.”
Other examples of fast transitions have been in transportation, particularly electric cars.
Ethiopia banned the import of internal combustion vehicles due to worries about the high costs of oil imports and fuel subsidies. EVs make up some 8% of the cars on the road in the East African country, up from virtually zero a few years ago. In Asia, Nepal executed a similar push-pull as part of a government effort to reduce both imports and smog; about five years later, over three-quarters of new car sales in the country were electric.
But getting all the ducks in a row for a green transition has proven difficult in both the rich world and the developing world. Few countries have been able to electrify their economies while also powering them cheaply and cleanly. Ethiopia and Nepal are two examples of electrifying demand for power, particularly transportation. But while the two countries are poor compared to much of the world, they are rich in water and elevation, giving them plentiful firm, non-carbon-emitting electricity generation.
Pakistan, on the other hand, is far from being able to, say, synthesize fertilizers at scale with renewable power. In addition to being a power source, natural gas is also a crucial input in industrial fertilizer manufacturing. Faced with spiking costs, fertilizer plants in Pakistan are shutting down, imperiling future food supplies. All the cheap Chinese solar panels and BYD cars in the world can’t feed a chemical plant.
What remains to be seen is whether this crisis will be severe and enduring enough to lead to a fundamental rethinking about the global energy supply — what kind of energy countries want and where they will get it.
“Energy security crises produce the same structural response: the search for sources that do not require crossing borders and global chokepoints,” Jeff Currie, a longtime commodities analyst, and James Stavridis, a retired admiral and NATO’s former Supreme Allied Commander, argued in an analysis for The Carlyle Group. “Solar, wind, and nuclear are children of the 1970s oil shocks — with growth driven by security, not environmentalism.”
While the United States is not unaffected by the unfolding energy crisis — gasoline prices have spiked over $0.25 per gallon in the past week, and diesel prices have spiked $0.40 — its resilience comes from both its domestic oil and gas production and its solar, wind, and nuclear fleets. Much of this electricity generation and power production can be traced back in some respect to those 1970s oil shocks.
In 2024, the United States imported 17% of its primary energy supply, according to the Energy Information Administration, compared to a peak of 34% in 2006 and the lowest since 1985. Today, Asia still imports 35%, and Europe 60%, Bond told me.
“That’s massive levels of dependency in a fragile world,” Bond said. “It’s a question of security.”
On Galvanize’s latest fund strategy and more of the week’s big money moves.
This week brings encouraging news for companies on land and offshore, from the Netherlands to East Africa. First up — and in spite of a federal administration that appears to be actively hostile toward residential and commercial electrification and energy efficiency measures — California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer’s investment firm Galvanize just closed a fund devoted to decarbonizing real estate. Elsewhere, we have a Dutch startup pursuing a novel approach to clean heat production, a former Tesla exec rolling out electric motorbikes in East Africa, and an offshore wind developer plans to pair its floating platform with underwater data centers.
With electricity costs on the rise and war in Iran pushing energy prices further upward, energy efficiency measures are looking more prudent — and more profitable — than ever. Amidst this backdrop, the asset manager and venture firm Galvanize announced the close of its first real estate fund, bringing in $370 million as the firm looks to make commercial buildings cleaner and better able to weather price fluctuations in global energy markets.
Galvanize, co-founded by the billionaire Tom Steyer, is already doling out this money, investing in 15 buildings across 11 cities so far. The firm targets real estate in cities where demand is outpacing supply, performing decarbonization upgrades such as installing on-site solar generation and undertaking energy efficiency retrofits such as improved insulation and weatherproof windows.
Galvanize is betting that fluctuations and increases in energy prices will grow faster than the cost of upgrading buildings to be more efficient and lower-emissions, making its strategy profitable in the long-term.
While I’ve long followed thermal battery companies like Rondo and Antora, which use renewable energy to heat up hot rocks capable of delivering industrial heat, I was unaware of iron fuel’s potential to do much the same. That changed this week when the Dutch startup Rift announced it had raised $132 million to commercialize this technology.
The startup produces high-temperature heat by combusting iron powder with ambient air in a specialized boiler engineered to handle metal fuels. This process produces a flame that can reach 2,000 degrees Celsius without emitting any carbon dioxide. The resulting heat can then be delivered as steam, hot water, or hot air to industrial facilities, with the only byproduct being iron oxide (rust), which itself can then be collected and converted back into iron fuel by reacting it with hydrogen produced via low-carbon processes.
Rift’s latest funding comprises a $96.2 million Series B round involving several Netherlands-based investors, along with a $35.5 million grant from the EU Innovation Fund. Both pots of money will support the construction of the company’s first production facility for iron fuel boilers. Rift’s first customer is the building materials manufacturer Kingspan Unidek, with whom it’s developing a project that Rift says will result in over a million metric tons of avoided emissions over a 15-year period.
The electric vehicle transition looks pretty different in East Africa, where two-wheeled motorcycles dominate daily commuting and urban transit. These smaller, lighter vehicles are simple and cheap to electrify, and while their upfront cost is higher than gasoline-powered bikes, operating expenses can be 50% lower. This week, the market received a boost as e-motorbike startup Zeno announced a $25 million Series A round to scale production of its flagship bike.
The round was led by the climate tech VC Congruent Ventures, with support from other heavyweights such as Lowercarbon Capital. Zeno’s CEO Michael Spencer, who left Tesla in 2022 to start the company, sees a larger electrification opportunity in emerging economies than here in the U.S. As he told TechCrunch when Zeno emerged from stealth in fall 2024, “the Tesla master plan has more legs and more room to run with lower hurdles in emerging markets.”
Spencer saw particular potential to sell low-cost motorbikes with batteries that Zeno would own rather than the customer, meaning they can’t charge their bikes at home. Riders instead rely on swap stations where they can exchange depleted batteries for fully charged ones — much as the Chinese electric vehicle company Nio does with its cars.
Zeno designs and manufactures its own bikes and charging infrastructure, with 800 motorbikes sold and 150 charging and battery-swap stations installed across four cities across Kenya and Uganda. With this latest influx of cash, the company plans to fulfill its backlogged orderbook, which it says now has more than 25,000 retail and fleet customers.
Data centers developers are hitting bottlenecks securing energy, land, and social acceptance — so the startup Aikido wants to ship them out to sea, where it says “energy, cooling and space are abundant.” This week, the offshore wind developer revealed its novel floating turbine platform, designed to co-locate wind generation and battery storage with data centers submerged in compartments connected to the turbine itself.
The installation would still be grid-connected, but the idea is that the turbine and batteries will meet most of the data center’s energy needs, drawing on the grid mainly during the summer when the wind dies down. A 100-kilowatt proof of concept is already being developed in Norway, with the first commercial deployment slated for the U.K. sometime in 2028. Eventually, Aikido says it envisions building “gigawatt-scale” data centers at sea — an ambitious undertaking in a notoriously harsh environment.
But as CEO Sam Kanner reasoned in a press release, “before we go off-world, we should go offshore” — a likely jab at Elon Musk, who has repeatedly expressed his desire to launch data centers into space to rid himself of terrestrial concerns over real estate and energy.
A conversation with Center for Rural Innovation founder and Vermont hative Matt Dunne.
This week’s conversation is with Matt Dunne, founder of the nonprofit Center for Rural Innovation, which focuses on technology, social responsibility, and empowering small, economically depressed communities.
Dunne was born and raised in Vermont, where he still lives today. He was a state legislator in the Green Mountain State for many years. I first became familiar with his name when I was in college at the state’s public university, reporting on his candidacy for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 2016. Dunne ultimately lost a tight race to Sue Minter, who then lost to current governor Phil Scott, a Republican.
I can still remember how back in 2016, Dunne’s politics then presaged the kind of rural empathy and economic populism now en vogue and rising within the Democratic Party. Dunne endorsed Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid and was backed by the state’s AFL-CIO; Minter, a more establishment Democrat, stayed out of the 2016 primary and underperformed in the general election. It doesn’t surprise me now to see Dunne emerging with novel, nuanced perspectives on how advanced technological infrastructure can succeed in rural America. So I decided to chat with him about the state of data center development today.
The following chat has been lightly edited for clarity.
So first of all, can you tell our readers about your organization in case they’re unfamiliar?
We founded this social enterprise back in 2017 because the economic gap between urban and rural turned into a chasm. We traced the core reasons and it was the winners and losers of the tech economy. There were millions and millions of jobs created from the great recession, but the problem was that it was almost exclusively in urban areas, in the services sectors like consulting, finance, and tech. At the end of the day, we believe in the age of the internet there should be no limit to where high-quality technology jobs should thrive.
We work with communities across the country that are rural and looking to add technology as a component to their economy. We help them with strategies – tech accelerators, tech accountability programs, co-working spaces, all the other stuff you need to create a vibrant place where those kinds of companies can emerge so people can come back, come home. We work with 43 regions across 25 states that are all on this journey together and help them secure the resources to execute on that journey.
One of the reasons I wanted to speak with you is your history in Vermont. I went to the University of Vermont, and I loved living there, but there aren’t jobs to keep kids there which is still a huge disappointment to young folks who love living in the state.
At the same time the state reflects many of the same signals we see in Heatmap Pro data around advanced industrial development. Large land owners bristle at new projects regardless of their political party, and Democratic voters are more inclined to side more with locavorism than a YIMBY growth-minded approach.
How do your Vermonter roots inform your work, and do they affect the ways you see the conflicts over new advanced tech infrastructure?
What we’ve seen in Vermont after the Great Recession is that there’s lots of available space and a population that’s aged significantly.
This all impacted my outlook as a community development person, and now as a leader of a social enterprise. We need to be thinking proactively about what an economically healthy community looks like and how we ensure we have places importing cash and exporting value in a way that doesn’t destroy what’s amazing about these rural places. You pretty quickly land on tech, as well as maybe some design-related manufacturing where the ideas are local.
To make it clear, we’re building infrastructure for technology communities which is different from building technology infrastructure itself. That’s an important distinction. It’s about giving them the tools to stand up a tech accelerator and have a co-working space that creates community. A good co-working space has good programming, allows for remote workers to go to a place, and you can have those virtuous collisions that lead to something else. A collaboration. A volunteer project. Whatever it is. Having hack-a-thons, lectures or demonstrations on the latest AI technology that can be used. Youth programming around robotics. If you can create a space where that happens, you create a lot of synergy, which is important in smaller markets – you have to be intentional with all of this.
Okay, so considering those practices, what do you think of the way data center development is going?
For the record, I spent six and a half years at Google and was hired at first because of data centers. At the time, I saw Google try to build a big data center in a community of less than 10,000 people in secret, and it didn’t go well because it just doesn’t work, and that’s how I got my job there.
There is a right way to come into a community with a data center or frankly any kind of global company infrastructure project, and there’s a wrong way to do it. The right way is being as transparent as possible, knowing full well that when a brand name is mentioned, the price goes through the roof for the land. There does have to be some level of confidentiality when you’re ready to go, but once you can, you have to be proactive with it.
You have to be a really good steward on the impacts, whether they’re electrical demand or water demand. It’s about being clear, it’s about figuring out how to mitigate it, and it’s about maintaining your commitment to 100% renewable energy even as you’re bringing online data centers. Oh, and it’s about having a real financial commitment to make sure the community can economically diversify away from being overly dependent on the data center, on that one industry. The data center developers know full well that they’ll create a lot of construction jobs but that’s not going to be a good, sustainable employer. Frankly, the history of rural places is littered with communities that are too dependent on one industry, one company, and that hasn’t
What does that look like from a policy perspective and a community relations perspective?
I think there are models emerging, including from Microsoft, Google, and others, about what good entry and strong commitments look like. It would be great if someone put a line in the sand about 2% of capex going to a community to diversify the economy. It would be great if companies put a reasonable time horizon out there to replace potable water through technology or other kinds of supports. It would be great to see commitments to ratepayers that say people won’t have to foot the bill for increased demand.
Here’s the part we focus on more because we’re not as focused on site selection: Rural America is likely to shoulder the burden of data center infrastructure just like they shouldered the burden of energy production infrastructure. The question at the end of the day is, how do we make sure those communities see the upside? How do we make sure they can leverage tech capacity inside these data centers to be able to have more agency and chart their own economic futures? That’s what we’re really focused on because if you do that, it doesn’t have to be a repeat of the extractive processes of the past, where rural places were used for cheap land and low-wage workers. They can instead be places with lots of land available and incredible innovation, new enterprises and solving the world’s problems.