You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
“Do you ever think about electric cars?”

Between solar roofs, home batteries, and electric vehicles, Tesla could potentially “do more to fight climate change than any other company — perhaps any other entity — in the world,” Walter Isaacson muses in his much-anticipated biography of Elon Musk, out Tuesday.
But while the central character is at times painted as a heroic visionary (Isaacson’s previous subjects have included Steve Jobs, Einstein, and Leonardo da Vinci), the biography also makes it clear that Tesla’s mercurial CEO isn’t always the easiest to work with — or, in the blunter words of Bill Gates, he can be “super mean.” Here are some of the most surprising moments about climate and energy shared in Isaacson’s Elon Musk:
On Musk’s EV passion:
When Elon went with [Peter] Nicholson’s daughter, Christie, to a party one evening, his first question was “Do you ever think about electric cars?” As he later admitted, it was not the world’s best come-on line.
On education:
Musk also focused on electric cars. He and [his friend Robin] Ren would grab lunch from one of the food trucks and sit on the campus lawn, where Musk would read academic papers on batteries. California had just passed a requirement mandating that 10 percent of vehicles by 2003 had to be electric. “I want to go make that happen,” Musk said.
Musk also became convinced that solar power, which in 1994 was just taking off, was the best path toward sustainable energy. His senior paper was titled “The Importance of Being Solar.” He was motivated not just by the dangers of climate change but also by the fact that fossil fuel reserves would start to dwindle. “Society will soon have no option but to focus on renewable power sources,” he wrote. His final page showed a “power station of the future,” involving a satellite with mirrors that would concentrate sunlight onto solar panels and send the resulting electricity back to Earth via a microwave beam. The professor gave him a grade of 98, saying it was a “very interesting and well written paper, except the last figure that comes out of the blue.”
On investing in batteries:
Eager to keep the conversation going, [Tesla co-founder JB] Straubel changed the topic to his idea for building an electric vehicle using lithium-ion batteries. “I was looking for funding and being rather shameless,” he says. Musk expressed surprise when Straubel explained how good the batteries had become. “I was going to work on high-density energy storage at Stanford,” Musk told him. “I was trying to think of what would have the most effect on the world, and energy storage along with electric vehicles were high on my list.” His eyes lit up as he processed Straubel’s calculations. “Count me in,” he said, committing to provide $10,000 in funding.
On building the Gigafactory:
The idea that Musk proposed in 2013 was audacious: build a gigantic battery factory in the U.S. […] There was one problem, Straubel recalls. “We had no clue how to build a battery factory.”
So Musk and Straubel decided to pursue a partnership with their battery supplier, Panasonic […] Musk and Straubel were invited to Japan by Panasonic’s new young president Kazuhiro Tsuga. “It was a come-to-Jesus session where we had to make him truly commit that we were going to build the insane Gigafactory together,” Straubel says.
The dinner was a formal, multicourse affair at a traditional low-table Japanese restaurant. Straubel was fearful about how Musk would behave. “Elon can be so much hell and brimstone in meetings and just unpredictable as all get out,” he says. “But I’ve also seen him flip a switch and suddenly be this incredibly effective, charismatic, high-emotional-intelligence business person, when he has to do it.” At the Panasonic dinner, the charming Musk appeared. He sketched out his vision for moving the world to electric vehicles and why the two companies should do it together. “I was mildly shocked and impressed, because, whoa, this is not like how Elon usually was on other days,” says Straubel. “He’s a person who’s all over the map, and you don’t know what he’s going to say or do. And then, all of a sudden, he pulls it all together.”
On the origins of SolarCity:
“I want to start a new business,” Musk’s cousin Lyndon Rive said as they were driving in an RV to Burning Man, the annual art-and-tech rave in the Nevada desert, at the end of the summer of 2004. “One that can help humanity and address climate change.” “Get into the solar industry,” Musk replied. Lyndon recalls that the answer felt like “my marching orders.” With his brother Peter, he started work on creating a company that would become SolarCity. “Elon provided most of the initial funding,” Peter recalls. “He gave us one clear piece of guidance: get to a scale that would have an impact as fast as possible.”
On buying SolarCity:
When Musk announced the deal in June 2016, he called it a “no-brainer” that was “legally and morally correct.” The acquisition fit with his original “master plan” for Tesla, which he had written in 2006: “The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy.”
On hating SolarCity:
The solar roof project caused enormous friction between Musk and his cousins. In August 2016, around the time he was teasing the new product, Peter Rive invited Musk to inspect a version that the company had installed on a customer’s roof. It was a standing-seam metal roof, meaning the solar cells were embedded in sheets of metal rather than tiles. When Musk drove up, Peter and fifteen people were standing in front of the house. “But as often happened,” Peter recalled, “Elon showed up late and then sat in the car looking at his phone while we all just waited very nervously for him to get out.” When he did, it was clear that he was furious. “This is shit,” Musk explained. “Total fucking shit. Horrible. What were you thinking?”
On really, really hating SolarCity:
There were four versions [of solar roofs], including those that looked like French slate and Tuscan barrel tiles, along with a house that featured the metal roof that Musk hated. When Musk visited two days before the scheduled event and saw the metal version, he erupted. “What part of ‘I fucking hate this product’ don’t you understand?” One of the engineers pushed back, saying it looked okay to him and that it was the easiest to install. Musk pulled Peter aside and told him, “I don’t think this guy should be on the team.” Peter fired the engineer and had the metal roof removed before the public event.
On cutting solar roof installation time:
[…] Musk clambered up a ladder to the peak of the roof, where he stood precariously. He was not happy. There were too many fasteners, he said. Each had to be nailed down, adding time to the installation process. “Instead of two nails for each foot, try it with only one,” he ordered. “If the house has a hurricane, the whole neighborhood is fucked up, so who cares? One nail is going to be fine.” Someone protested that could lead to leaks. “Don’t worry about making it as waterproof as a submarine,” he said. “My house in California used to leak. Somewhere between sieve and submarine should be okay.” For a moment he laughed before returning to his dark intensity.
On talking climate with Bill Gates:
“Hey, I’d love to come see you and talk about philanthropy and climate,” Bill Gates said to Musk when they happened to be at the same meeting in early 2022. Musk’s stock sales had led him, for tax reasons, to put $5.7 billion into a charitable fund he had established. Gates, who was then spending most of his time on philanthropy, had many suggestions he wanted to make. They’d had friendly interactions a few times in the past, including when Gates brought his son Rory to SpaceX. [...] Gates argued that batteries would never be able to power large semitrucks and that solar energy would not be a major part of solving the climate problem. “I showed him the numbers,” Gates says. “It’s an area where I clearly knew something that he didn’t.” He also gave Musk a hard time on Mars. “I’m not a Mars person,” Gates later told me. “He’s overboard on Mars. I let him explain his Mars thinking to me, which is kind of bizarre thinking. It’s this crazy thing where maybe there’s a nuclear war on Earth and so the people on Mars are there and they’ll come back down and, you know, be alive after we all kill each other.”
On dismissing climate philanthropy:
At the end of the tour, [Gates and Musk’s] conversation turned to philanthropy. Musk expressed his view that most of it was “bullshit.” There was only a twenty-cent impact for every dollar put in, he estimated. He could do more good for climate change by investing in Tesla.
On Bill Gates’ betrayal:
There was one contentious issue that [Bill Gates and Elon Musk] had to address. Gates had shorted Tesla stock, placing a big bet that it would go down in value […] Short-sellers occupied [Musk’s] innermost circle of hell. Gates said he was sorry, but that did not placate Musk. “I apologized to him,” Gates says. “Once he heard I’d shorted the stock, he was super mean to me, but he’s super mean to so many people, so you can’t take it too personally.”
[...] When I asked Gates why he had shorted Tesla, he explained that he had calculated that the supply of electric cars would get ahead of demand, causing prices to fall. I nodded but still had the same question: Why had he shorted the stock? Gates looked at me as if I had not understood what he just explained and then replied as if the answer was obvious: he thought that by shorting Tesla he could make money. That way of thinking was alien to Musk. He believed in the mission of moving the world to electric vehicles, and he put all of his available money toward that goal, even when it did not seem like a safe investment. “How can someone say they are passionate about fighting climate change and then do something that reduced the overall investment in the company doing the most?” he asked me a few days after Gates’s visit. “It’s pure hypocrisy. Why make money on the failure of a sustainable energy car company?”
On rejection:
Gates followed up in mid-April, sending Musk the promised paper on philanthropy options that he had personally written [...] “Sorry,” Musk shot back instantly. “I cannot take your philanthropy on climate seriously when you have a massive short position against Tesla, the company doing the most to solve climate change.” When angry, Musk can get mean, especially on Twitter. He tweeted a picture of Gates in a golf shirt with a bulging belly that made him look almost pregnant. “In case u need to lose a boner fast,” Musk’s comment read.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Ford reveals a promising tidbit about its upcoming electric pickup.
When the Ford Fathom debuts in 2027, much of the attention will focus on its size and its price. As it should: The all-electric mid-size truck is promised to start under $30,000, and the success or failure of that car at that price will tell us a lot about the future of Ford, as well as mainstream America’s true appetite for EVs.
While we wait for our first real look at the truck and the full list of its specifications, Ford just revealed a promising tidbit. The automaker has been working in the background to make it simpler and cheaper for Fathom drivers to use bidirectional charging: the ability for power to flow both ways so that EV drivers can use the energy stored in the vehicle battery to power secondary loads, to back up a home power supply during a blackout, or even to feed back onto the power grid.
Specifically, Ford announced on Tuesday that the Fathom will be the first EV from a U.S. automaker with a starting price below $30,000 that does not need a separate wall-mounted inverter — the piece needed to transform the DC power stored in the car’s battery to the AC power used in the house. Instead, engineers built one into the truck’s “e-box” module that houses much of its electronics. That on-board unit is good enough to supply more than 10 kW of AC power to a home, Ford says.
Bidirectional charging isn’t new to American EVs or to Ford. The F-150 Lightning EV got this feature when it debuted five years ago. The trouble is that this game-changing technology doesn’t come cheap: The Lightning — now discontinued, soon to be revived as an extended-range EV — was an expensive ride starting above $50,000. The electrical hardware needed to connect the truck to one’s home power supply added thousands of dollars on top of the truck’s price.
The same was true for other EV makers. Two years ago, when I interviewed EV pickup drivers after Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina, I found F-150 Lightning and Tesla Cybertruck owners alike who hadn’t forked over more money for the extra tech needed to hook directly into the home. They got themselves through the blackout the Macgyver way, plugging the refrigerator and other critical appliances right into the power outlets in the back of the truck.
Ford’s Fathom, though, comes closer to giving the best of bidirectional charging to the masses. In addition to installing an on-board inverter, Ford says it will make the Ford Home Power Station and Home Backup Panel — the hardware that drivers will need to connect to the house — cost at least 60% less than the brand’s first-generation tech. The Detroit giant also says it’s working with a consortium of utilities, including American Electric Power, BC Hydro, Consumers Energy, Exelon, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to iron out how Fathom owners across the country will connect to their homes and the grid.
As Ford notes in its release: “There are more than 3,000 utilities across the U.S. and Canada with largely unique interconnection processes. Interconnection processes were primarily written for rooftop solar and stationary battery storage, which are fixed assets. Bidirectional EVs bring new considerations since they are vehicles first, not stationary equipment.”
Indeed, cooperation between car companies and utilities is suddenly a pressing matter as more EVs hit the roads, and the grid. Rivian and other electric car makers are trying to make their vehicles play nice with the power grid as a way for their customers to save money and reduce grid strain by having EVs charge when demand is low and electricity is cheap. And at some point, electric cars will become a major cog in virtual power plants — the ability of the power grid to pull energy from sources like EVs, backup batteries, and homeowner solar in times of need.
That day is finally approaching. Although bidirectional charging is a striking bonus feature for EVs, something so much more interesting and sophisticated than what a fossil fuel car can accomplish, the tech has flown fairly under the radar in the U.S. One could blame not only the lagging pace of EV adoption here, but also the fact that Tesla, far and away the market leader, has been slow to get on board. Just this month, it finally said that Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, the two best-selling electric cars in America, would get bidirectional capability.
The Ford Fathom, then, may do more than revitalize the lagging fortunes of Ford, which lost billions upon billions in its first forays into electrification and started up a skunkworks team to design the new truck in a totally different way. Their creation might also show Americans the EV’s enormous role in the home, and the grid, of tomorrow.
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Olana is headed for Hawaii with yet more flooding and powerful winds as the state continues to recover from previous storms • Tropical Cyclone Arnab is strengthening into a “severe” storm as it approaches the northern coast of India’s Andhra Pradesh state near the port city of Visakhapatnam • In-fa has become a typhoon, en route by the end of this week to the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. territory that took the brunt of this month’s Super Typhoon Champi.
Call it Anthropic’s magnum Opus 5.5. The Claude maker filed its public paperwork Monday ahead of its planned stock market debut. Aside from the basic details of how the company makes money and what risks its technology may pose to humanity itself, Anthropic mentions the word “energy” at least 14 times in the section of the document outlining the risks to its business. “Climate” and “climate change” are mentioned just four times. The overarching concern, per my colleague Matthew Zeitlin’s rundown of the S-1 filing, is that the company “might not get enough power for data centers running its large language models,” and that “the pace of the energy infrastructure build-out “is generally behind the need.
Brazil’s national oil company, meanwhile, had a brutal day of trading on the stock market following left-wing Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s surprise surge to reelection in Sunday’s runoff. Shares of Petrobras plunged 14% on the New York Stock Exchange by the time trading ended Monday evening. While conservative candidate Flávio Bolsonaro had promised more privatization and fewer environmental regulations, Lula has ramped up drilling, particularly offshore, as he seeks to capitalize on South America’s oil boom.

EQT Corporation bills itself as “America’s only large-scale, vertically integrated natural gas producer.” Soon it will also be the largest gas company in the nation. On Monday, the company announced plans to acquire Range Resources Corporation in a deal to create a North American gas giant worth more than $50 billion. The all-stock transaction would also establish the biggest gas producer in the U.S. by output. Combined, EQT and Range pump out 9 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent per day. The next largest shale gas producer in the U.S. is Expand Energy, at 7.5 billion cubic feet per day. The merged company would also command a network of pipelines and other midstream infrastructure that tops 3,700 miles. “This transaction brings together two of the highest-quality, longest-duration asset bases in North America and creates a company uniquely positioned for the next era of natural gas,” EQT CEO Toby Z. Rice said in a statement. “We believe this combination creates a must-own energy company capable of generating durable, through-cycle free cash flow while compounding value for shareholders for decades to come.”
The deal is a sign “U.S. gas consolidation is accelerating,” Salih Yilmaz, a senior oil analyst at the consultancy Bloomberg Intelligence, wrote in a post on X. “The bigger theme is consolidation: scale, concentration, and infrastructure control are becoming increasingly important in US gas, especially as LNG exports and power demand grow.”
U.S. orders for wind turbines vaulted to 2.8 gigawatts in the second quarter of this year — the highest since the end of 2023 — as developers scrambled to meet the deadlines to qualify for expiring tax credits, according to a new market analysis by the consultancy Wood Mackenzie. New Mexico saw the biggest surge as the SunZia megaproject, the largest wind farm ever built in the U.S., came online, raising the state to the top of the list of capacity additions. Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to kill or slow walk permits for wind projects, the industry is on track to add 39 gigawatts of new onshore wind farms by 2030. More than half the projects set to come online over the next two years are already under construction, meaning there’s little risk of disruption. Offshore wind, by contrast, tops out at 5 gigawatts, all of which is on course to be delivered in the next two years. “Policy is the variable with the greatest impact on wind installations,” Wood Mackenzie analyst Tyler Gifford said in a statement. “With tax credit expirations on the horizon, developers are prioritizing projects that can be operational by 2030, so the five-year onshore wind installation outlook remains stable.”
On the other side of the Atlantic, exports of wind turbines are booming. While Europe is still debating how to deal with the sudden rise of China’s wind companies, as I told you last week, the European Union's exports of wind turbines spiked by nearly 11% to $3.4 billion last year, Renewables Now reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The climate movement, as virtually anyone involved will tell you, is broken. Even those who are part of it want to stop talking about “climate change,” according to the results of this year’s Heatmap Insiders Survey. Clean Air Task Force, one of the more pragmatic groups in the policy arena fighting for clean energy, is out with a new memo detailing the strategy it plans to use through the end of the decade. Dubbed CATF Forward, the plan is “designed to drive the global adoption of climate solutions, orienting around three clear impact priorities and rooted in the attributes that have made” the group “uniquely effective” since its launch 30 years ago. “The world’s increasingly complex climate and energy challenges require sober thinking and sharper focus,” Armond Cohen, CATF’s founder and executive director, said in a statement. “How do we protect climate in a world turned upside down?”
His answer:
All of that seems fairly straightforward. But the document is defined as much by what it omits as what it includes. Amid a growing debate over whether climate activists should keep targeting fossil fuel infrastructure, which my colleague Robinson Meyer aired out nicely on a recent episode of our podcast Shift Key, CATF isn’t pushing for boycotts of fossil fuels or, you know, committing crimes in the name of saving the planet.
India’s solar factories have boomed in recent years as the world’s most populous country turns to photovoltaics to meet surging domestic electricity demand and supply overseas buyers looking for alternatives to China. But the subcontinent has struggled to take on China’s dominance of the solar supply chain’s upstream elements. On Monday, Noida-based Jakson Solar announced plans to invest over $525 million into manufacturing solar cells, ingots, and wafers. The company plans to commission a 3-gigawatt cell factory by the end of next year, managing director Ivan Saha told Reuters on the sideline of a conference. The company then plans to stand up a 3-gigawatt ingot and wafer plant by the third quarter of 2028. That will all feed into Jakson’s existing 1.2-gigawatt module-making factory.
Indonesia and Malaysia have launched more than 100 cloud-seeding missions this year in an attempt to engineer rain to quench parched lands as El Niño worsens droughts. The worst wildfire season in decades has shrouded the region in devastating toxic smog. But the high cost of the effort, including using dry ice to break up warm air that traps smog on the ground, “have so far brought little in the way of lasting results,” Bloomberg reported. “Sometimes, there’s a lot of political pressure to do things that may not be really well-founded scientifically,” Steven Siems, a professor at Monash University in Melbourne and the co-chair of an expert team on weather modification at the World Meteorological Organization, told the newswire.
It’s amazing what you can do with a repurposed car engine.
Venture capitalists love a system that fits inside a shipping container. But that kind of modularity has been hard to pull off in the low-carbon fuels industry, where producers have generally remained yoked to the prevailing wisdom of economies of scale as the key to profitability. That’s led to enormous, capital-intensive facilities packed with complex, custom-built machinery churning out fuels and chemicals like hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
But Massachusetts-based startup Emvolon thinks it can upend this model with its compact, prefabricated chemical plants powered by the likes of repurposed car engines. Its modular systems convert methane captured from landfills and other sources into energy-dense liquid methanol on-site, making it easier to transport to customers. On Tuesday, the company announced $22 million in new funding — an undisclosed mix of Series A equity and non-dilutive federal and state grants — to build its first commercial-scale system at a landfill near Houston, in partnership with biogas company Montauk Renewables.
The approach aims to solve a persistent logistics problem. Economics dictate that commodity producers typically locate near a high-volume source of feedstock or a pipeline that can deliver it. But for captured methane — a potential feedstock for lower-carbon fuels, chemicals, and fertilizers — that’s often not an option. The potent greenhouse gas escapes from geographically dispersed landfills, farms, and wastewater treatment plants, many of which are too small to support a large gas-to-liquids facility and too far from existing pipelines. Trucking the gas to a centralized plant is generally prohibitively expensive, often leaving operators to either flare it or let it escape unabated.
“We are really kind of burning money, creating a lot of emissions when we could be capturing this and making high-value products,” Emmanuel Kasseris, Emvolon’s CEO, told me in an August conversation about the company’s technology, which it spun out of MIT.
“We really try to flip the script completely,” Kasseris said of the startup’s modular approach. Rather than one large facility, the company aims to produce “a few tons to maybe tens of tons per day” of methanol for the $40 billion global market. For comparison, conventional gas-to-liquid facilities can produce hundreds of times more product daily.
Emvolon’s technology is “engine agnostic,” running on repurposed engines from used cars and diesel generators as well as new builds modified for the startup’s purposes. The engines take in captured methane from landfills, farms, or gas-flaring sites. But instead of burning the fuel completely like a standard combustion engine, Emvolon limits the oxygen supply, triggering only partial combustion of the methane to produce a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide known as syngas. The company then feeds that mixture into a conventional reactor, where a catalyst converts it into liquid methanol that can be shipped in standard tanker trucks.
The process requires relatively few modifications to standard internal combustion engines, Kasseris told me, thereby bringing the economics of mass production to small-scale chemical production. “You’re taking something that comes from an assembly line, you repurpose it — changing sensors, controls, simple things that require a lot of [intellectual property] but are not expensive — and you build the plant around it,” he explained. The goal is to offer customers a four-year payback period sans low-carbon fuel subsidies.
Emvolon is now attempting to push that logic a step further. For the second stage of the conversion process, the company is working to swap out its conventional reactor with another modified engine in order to “replace even more one-off process equipment” with mass-produced components. The Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy awarded Emvolon a $2.3 million grant to develop this part of its system.
But the startup doesn’t need to have this additional piece of technology dialed in to start securing customers. In August, global commodities merchant Freepoint Commodities signed on as the startup’s primary buyer, securing priority rights to purchase at least $450 million worth of Emvolon’s biomethanol for use across maritime shipping, aviation, heavy transport, and specialty chemicals. The agreement also gives Freepoint priority rights to invest in or lend to future Emvolon projects, a provision Kasseris described as the anchor for the startup’s project financing platform.
The company’s first commercial projects are designed to produce up to 50,000 metric tons of biomethanol annually across multiple sites, with the Freepoint agreement structured to scale that output to 300,000 metric tons per year. Because each plant should cost only “a few million dollars,” Kasseris said, the company can spread out its risk rather than bet on “the half a billion dollar e-fuels plant” common to the alternative fuels industry. If one plant runs into trouble, the setback should be manageable, and the company can keep churning out and deploying its modular units elsewhere.
“This is great for scaling,” Kasseris told me. “It’s just very different. It’s just more boxes.”