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:
Tesla has dealt with quality control issues before — but never with a robotaxi on the horizon.

You have to give TikTok user el.chapito1985 credit for not panicking. In a video posted a few days ago, he explained how the cover on his Tesla Cybertruck accelerator pedal came loose and then wedged itself in just the right spot to leave the pedal stuck in floor-it position.
The poster said he managed to stop the truck by slamming the brake, which overrode the accelerator, and putting the vehicle in park. But his experience certainly explains Tesla’s newest predicament: It will recall all the Cybertrucks currently on the road to fix the sticky accelerator issue.
Today’s mess feels like it’s adding insult to self-injury for Tesla. The company seems to be adrift after spending so much energy on the roundly mocked Cybertruck and canceling its planned $25,000 electric vehicle; now, its long-standing problems with build quality are coming back to bite it in the bumper.
During Tesla’s rise to EV dominance, some of the loudest objectors to its cars have been reviewers (and then owners) griping about manufacturing defects. YouTube abounds with videos pointing out uneven panel gaps and thin paint jobs and decrying the use of cheap plastics in such an expensive vehicle.
The thing is, none of this prevented the company from becoming the world’s most valuable automaker. Tesla may have developed a reputation among automotive insiders for shoddy or rushed workmanship, but millions of people who wanted a Tesla bought one nonetheless.
Tesla is the most-recalled vehicle brand, according to Autoweek, but many of those issues could be solved via over-the-air software updates. For instance: Earlier this year, the automaker had to recall millions of cars because fonts on the braking system software were too small. It solved this with a software patch, so owners did not have to deal with the hassle of bringing in their car and driving a rental in the interim. Because of this dynamic, the company downplayed a lot of technical issues, suggesting it’s not really a “recall” if you can fix it with a little bit of code.
A stuck pedal is a different story. There are few things scarier to a driver than “sudden unintended acceleration,” the stoic name for that feeling when your car seems to have developed a death wish.
If you’re old enough to remember the first decade of this century, you probably recall alarmed TV news segments about this problem in Toyota and Lexus vehicles, which killed a reported 89 people during from 2000 to 2010. The giant carmaker initially denied any manufacturing problem, attributing the issues instead to “pedal misapplication” — a polite euphemism for times when the driver hits the gas thinking it’s the brake. In the end, Toyota had to recall millions of cars when it determined that floor mats could have caused the pedal stuckness. That still didn’t cover all the stuck pedal issues, though, according to news reports, and the federal government ultimately issued more than a billion dollars in fines.
Tesla's problem with the Cybertruck pedal is nowhere near that scale, simply because, well, they’ve sold so few of them — just 3,878, according to the recall documentation. Tesla had already slowed the vehicle’s production, perhaps because it knew from early reports that this manufacturing problem was on the horizon, which gives the company a chance to correct things before the Cybertruck starts selling in bigger numbers (presuming it ever does).
Still, the news bodes ill for the future Elon Musk envisions for the company. Thousands of Tesla employees lost their jobs earlier this week, just as Musk appears to be going all-in on the “robotaxi” that would entirely drive itself.
It’s an appealing vision, sure. I would much rather put my feet up, read a book, play with my phone, do anything other than pilot a car through another frustrating, traffic-clogged trip down the highway. But turning over control to the robotaxi would mean trusting Tesla’s hardware and software not to fail mid-journey. A driver in the driver’s seat can do what el.chapito1985 did: slam on the brakes if the accelerator pedal gets stuck and pray that frantic stomping stops the car. A robotaxi owner would be just a passenger, with little recourse if a part suddenly got stuck or the AI suddenly misunderstood its environment. The robotaxi won’t even have a steering wheel — or, at least, that’s the plan.
There may come a day when autonomous vehicles are safer than those piloted by distracted, tired, angry, or indifferent humans, and car accident deaths drop because we turned over the chore of daily transportation to the machines. But with every software bug that calls for an over-the-air fix, and every defect that requires a recall, Tesla gets further from the consumer confidence it would need for a robotaxi to steer the company back on track.
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.”