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:
“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.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Just look at Heatmap’s latest poll results.
A few times a year, Heatmap News surveys a few thousand Americans on the biggest questions driving the world of energy, environment, and climate change. We’ve spent the past few days writing up the results of our latest poll, which was in the field in late May and which I thought was particularly striking.
It’s worth taking a step back to look at the biggest results together, because the American view of data centers is essentially in free fall:
The upshot of these findings: The public‘s turn against artificial intelligence and AI infrastructure is real, widespread, and cross-partisan. It doesn't matter whether Americans started out tolerating data centers or having no opinion about them; they now seem to resent them en masse.
Sign up to receive Heatmap Daily in your inbox:
These results also suggest Americans see little distinction between data centers as energy users and data centers as the physical embodiment of AI and Big Tech. At Heatmap, we can be a wonky and energy-focused bunch, and so we tend to think about data centers primarily as large-scale electricity users. I think most approaches to come up with “data center policy” do the same. We know data centers are distinctive in some ways, of course — an AI data center might require more on-site batteries or power generation than, say, an EV factory — but fundamentally it is just another air polluter, large-scale power user, and light-industrial land user.
But the public does not see things this way. Americans understand data centers in the context of the much broader AI policy conversation about jobs, growth, alignment, and even human extinction. And so, I should add, do politicians: Senator Bernie Sanders has framed his data center moratorium proposal as a response to rapid AI development as much as anything having to do with energy affordability. For that reason, I wonder how long the distinction between these two policy conversations — data centers here, and AI policy over there — can persist.
One last thought on this topic: Is the public’s resentment starting to affect the AI boom overall? I think it might be. It was hard for me not to think of our polling results — or our analysis of canceled data center projects — as I read about a recent JPMorgan analysis that found America’s data center boom is “falling way behind schedule,” in the words of The Wall Street Journal. More than 60% of the data center capacity that is supposed to come online next year has yet to break ground, according to the bank; another 7% is “delayed.”
That’s partially due to equipment and labor shortages, but it also might be what a siting-and-permitting bottleneck would look like. Much like renewable developers or venture capitalists, data center developers work by picking a number of sites and trying to develop on all of them. If only a few sites work out, they’re still in the money. But if a falling share of projects are working out — if building anything, anywhere, is getting harder, everywhere — then it might materialize as delays.
Plus more of the week’s big money moves in critical minerals and electric vehicle charging.
Two of climate tech’s hottest sectors — fusion and critical minerals — dominated this week’s funding headlines. Helion led the pack with its $465 million Series G, helping to push the startup with the sector’s most aggressive commercialization timeline one step closer to putting power on the grid. The round follows last week’s news that German fusion startup Focused Energy secured a $240 million Series A, making it Europe’s most valuable fusion company.
Then there’s the critical minerals. Shortly after venture firm Gigascale Capital announced the close of its $250 million fund targeting the physical clean energy economy, it announced one of its first investments: Red Metals, a startup working to bring copper refining back to the U.S. Terra AI, which is using artificial intelligence to identify promising sites for mineral extraction, also landed fresh funding. Rounding out the week’s deals, EV charging and energy services company InCharge also raised a new round as it looks to expand into a broader suite of energy services.
Leading fusion startup Helion has nearly tripled its valuation with its latest $465 million Series G round, which aims to help the company deliver commercial fusion power this decade — the most ambitious timeline in the industry. Per the terms of the power purchase agreement Helion signed with Microsoft in 2023, the startup plans to turn on its first commercial reactor just two years from now. That’s far sooner than even its most precocious competitors, who aim to put fusion power on the grid by the 2030s at the earliest.
Joshua Kushner’s venture firm Thrive Capital led the round, which also included participation from new investors including Lux Capital and Alta Park Capital. Thrive now values the company at $15.5 billion.
“The investors that have joined this round, it’s institutional capital, some very marquee investors,” Helion’s CEO David Kirtley told me, explaining they were willing to back an unproven technology thanks to a series of recent milestones that Helion’s latest prototype reactor, Polaris, achieved. “Polaris earlier this year set records for temperature and fuel. We’ve also reduced a lot of the business risk on the regulatory front, the commercial front, and the actual supply chain, too.” In February, Polaris became the first reactor developed by a private fusion company to operate on deuterium-tritium fuel — the most common fuel in the industry — and to achieve a plasma temperature of 150 million degrees Celsius.
Helion differs from many of its peers pursuing more established reactor concepts such as tokamaks, stellarators, or laser-driven inertial confinement. Instead, Helion’s tech uses powerful magnets to collide and compress two fusion plasmas together, generating temperatures over 100 million degrees Celsius and triggering a fusion reaction. It then seeks to capture the electricity this reaction generates via electromagnetic induction — no steam turbine required — similar to the way regenerative braking works in an electric vehicle. If successful, the approach could enable smaller, more modular fusion reactors than conventional designs would.
While the company had originally aimed for Polaris to demonstrate electricity production from fusion in 2024, that date came and went with no new goal set. Kirtley told me that Helion remains on track to meet the terms of its agreement with Microsoft, however. The startup broke ground on its commercial reactor site last year in Malaga, Washington, where it already has access to a substation and grid interconnection from a dormant aluminum smelter. In addition to building out this facility, Helion also plans to use its new funding to boost production at its electrical component manufacturing plant in nearby Everett, which Kirtley said opened earlier this year.
As investors pour billions into artificial intelligence and the infrastructure supporting it, former Meta CTO Mike Schroepfer has raised an inaugural $250 million fund for his venture firm, Gigascale Capital, which is focused on the physical clean energy economy. This represents Gigascale’s first institutional fundraise since its founding in 2023; until now, the firm’s investments have come entirely out of Schroepfer’s own pocket.
The fund will target early-stage companies working in clean energy, grid infrastructure, critical minerals, and AI-enabled design and manufacturing, while reserving capital to continue backing its portfolio companies as they scale. Gigascale has already backed a number of big names in the space, including Commonwealth Fusion System, iron-air battery developer Form Energy, solid-state transformer company Heron Power, and clean baseload power startup Arbor Energy.
It’s also already begun investing out of this new fund, announcing this week that it led a $10 million seed round for critical minerals company Red Metals, which also included participation from JB Straubel, founder and CEO of the battery recycling company Redwood Materials. The company aims to help reshore copper refining in the U.S., and will use this fresh capital to support the development of a $70 million refining facility in Charleston, South Carolina. Red Metals says its process can convert copper scrap directly into a finished copper product, bypassing several of the costly and emissions-intensive intermediate steps typical of conventional refining.
The investment offers a window into the kinds of companies Schroepfer is most interested in — businesses that might lack the glamor of an AI startup but represent bipartisan opportunities to address core industrial bottlenecks. Copper, for example, is essential to all sorts of clean energy infrastructure, including transformers, power lines, and anode battery materials, but also critical for defense technologies such as radar systems and ammunition. Yet American copper production has been on the decline, with analysts projecting that the U.S. will face a refined copper shortage of over 2.5 million metric tons annually by 2035.
Sustainability-focused firm S2G Investments has been on a roll recently, announcing a $1 billion fund last month that aims to fill climate tech’s “missing middle” and backing Goshe Energy Storage with up to $40 million in strategic financing last week. Its latest move is leading a $46 million strategic investment round for InCharge Energy, an EV charging and distributed energy management company.
InCharge got its start installing and managing electric vehicle charging stations, and is now operating more than 30,000 assets across North America. Through its software platform and network of technicians, the company handles all monitoring, diagnostics, and on-the-ground repairs, taking on a charger’s full lifecycle to minimize downtime. With this new capital, InCharge plans to expand beyond EV charging and leverage its software and field service network in adjacent industries, including electrical infrastructure work such as panel upgrades and wiring repairs, as well as distributed energy resources like rooftop solar and battery storage systems.
“EV charging was the entry point, but our customers increasingly need help operating more complex energy infrastructure,” Rich Mohr, InCharge’s CEO said in a press release. “This investment from S2G accelerates our evolution into a full energy solutions provider and allows us to advance smarter technology and strengthen our service capabilities nationwide.”
It’s a hot week — nay a hot year, for critical minerals and subsurface exploration startups, especially for those pairing geology with artificial intelligence. AI-powered mineral exploration company KoBold Metals has raised about $1.2 billion to date, while geothermal exploration startup Zanskar has brought in about $220 million.
Now, another entrant is attracting investor attention. Terra AI has raised a $20 million Series A led by Khosla Ventures to help do it all — use AI to identify prospective sites for critical minerals mining, next-generation geothermal development, and permanent carbon sequestration.
Terra’s platform integrates vast geological and geophysical datasets to generate 3D subsurface models, as well as risk assessments that allow teams to evaluate a range of potential geologic scenarios. From there, the team can identify the best sites for exploratory drilling and thus reduce risk and uncertainty much sooner in the project’s lifecycle. The company even uses what it calls “geology reasoning agents” to help operators create their exploration plans, all with the goal of drastically reducing the notoriously long timeline between discovery and production, which can stretch to nearly two decades for many subsurface projects.
“Minerals sit at the center of every major technology and infrastructure transition, but today’s exploration results are not keeping pace with demand,” Terra’s CEO John Mern posted on LinkedIn. “Our mission is to advance the frontier of AI into the geosciences and help supply the metals and resources the next generation needs.”
One of the biggest fusion funding rounds of the year landed last week, and somehow much of the media — including me — missed it. German fusion startup Focused Energy raised a whopping $240 million Series A led by RWE, one of Germany’s largest energy companies. Yet unlike most deals of this magnitude, it arrived with little fanfare: No press release in my inbox nor a flood of headlines. So in the interest of making up for lost time, here are the details.
With this latest round, which also includes participation from the German Federal Agency for Breakthrough Innovation, the European Innovation Council Fund and Prime Movers Lab, Focused Energy has become Europe’s most valuable fusion company. Like several other leading players, including Inertia Enterprises and Pacific Fusion, Focused Energy relies on an approach known as inertial confinement fusion. This involves using powerful lasers to compress a tiny fuel target, creating the extreme pressures and temperatures required for a fusion reaction. To date, inertial confinement remains the only approach to have demonstrated net energy gain, with Lawrence Livermore National Lab achieving this milestone in 2022.
The startup plans to use this latest funding to build out a demonstration plant in the German state of Hesse, at a site where RWE formerly operated a nuclear fission plant. The company ultimately aims to build a commercial reactor by the mid-2030s.
Catching up with the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Ray Long.
Today’s chat is with Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. We first discussed the odds of permitting reform a year and a half ago, for one of the first Q&As in The Fight. Flash forward and we’re still in the same situation, but now also wrestling with added demand for electricity to power data centers. I wanted to talk again about whether he thought the rise of artificial intelligence would increase the odds of some federal deal happening any time soon. The result: a wide-reaching conversation about the future of the electric grid, the struggles to win community buy-in and the sclerotic nature of the U.S. Congress.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Do you think the buildout of our energy grid is entwined with the rise of the nation’s data center buildout?
When you look at what we need over the next four years — 166 gigawatts, 15 times the peak load of New York City — that’s a lot of power to build. Roughly half of that is for data center and AI growth.
There are five things we can build in the next four years at scale to address that collective amount. First, it’s transmission — the transmission buildout will help to get a modern grid to enable power flow to where it’s needed in a much more effective way. That’s the first step because if we just build all that power, the current grid can’t handle it.
Second, there are four supply technologies that can be built: solar, batteries, wind, and natural gas. All four of those technologies, we know there’s enough equipment here in the U.S. available for purchase that we can build at volume. And I’ll say this — natural gas is only about 10% of all those gigawatts because of the availability of turbines from suppliers. You can’t get enough over the next four years. So when I talk about decarbonization, most of what is built to address this issue is zero-carbon resources, renewable energy resources.
If you were to compare the current conversation around data center development to the debate over developing renewable energy in the U.S. — or energy in general — do you see any similarities or differences?
There are always issues with permitting projects. Communities are always going to have concerns about what’s built in their backyards.
What’s new — and your polling shows this — is the level of concern communities have. But here’s the thing: Most of this can be overcome by developers going in, listening to what the needs of the communities are, then responding and through the permitting process addressing those concerns. You can’t do that 100% of the time. But my experience is, when you take that sort of approach, you can overcome a lot of it.
Most of the large data centers are actually doing the things I’m discussing — going in and saying, Look, we want to be grid interconnected because grid connection at the end of the day means the resources we’re bringing to bear are also going to make a stronger grid. Number two, it's investing in power generation sources like the ones I said — and those power sources will be on the grid, so they’ll solve for the increased power demands of a community.
Third, water. They should bring the water solutions. You’re seeing data centers coming in and saying it head on now, that they have closed-loop systems or whatever the solution is. At the end of the day, the communities they’re proposing these in have a real negotiating opportunity to make sure they’re holding the data center developers accountable to the needs of the community.
For a community to say we don’t want it here misses a real opportunity for those communities to get the power they need, the grid they need, and the ability to bring down energy costs.
How is the data center debate affecting permitting reform conversations in Washington, from your perspective?
Permitting reform in the U.S. at the state and federal level has been broken for years. The SunZia transmission project? It took 17 years to permit. Ribbon-cutting is in a week or two and there’s still litigation around it. From a business perspective, it’s just untenable, and it’s a miracle that the project is getting built. Developers need a chance to come in and have their project evaluated. Both the community and the developer should be able to get to a go or no-go in a couple of years on one of these projects.
How is data center growth affecting the permitting reform discussion? It’s a very hot issue right now. Right now I think in part because the data center issue is so huge — because we’ve only got four years to solve for the first really big tranche of power we need and prices across the board for electricity are escalating — this is coming to a head. The data center load is a part of the catalyst to get people talking about it [permitting reform].
Do you expect legislating in Congress on permitting reform this year? Anything beyond more conversation?
My hope is that we get a bill. A few weeks ago someone from the administration was quoted as saying they wanted a framework for a bill by the end of May, and it’s June now. We haven’t seen both sides or the administration coalesce around a final project yet.
We’re in a midterm election cycle. Typically it’s very difficult during these cycles to move bills like this. At the same time, with electricity prices increasing and the need to build more, to fix this, I’m very hopeful something will come together. And look at the Senate — you’ve got Republicans and the Democratic ranking members talking about this. It’s all good signs.
If everyone’s talking about energy and affordability during this election, isn’t that a good thing for action in the next Congress?
I’ll say this: You’re seeing the catalyst for it right now with prices rising, and almost every grid operator around the country has raised concerns about shortages at some point this year or next year. It’ll hopefully be enough to have policymakers do something about it this year.