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:
The losers are myriad and most definitely include Gulf oil producers.

Exactly what is going on between the United States, the Gulf States, Israel, and Iran is legitimately unclear. While the U.S. and Iran have said they agreed to a Pakistan-broked ceasefire and want to reach a permanent agreement to end the war, there have been reported strikes in Lebanon, Iran, and several Gulf States. The Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, has accused the United States of violating “three key clauses” of the “framework” the country says the U.S. has agreed to, while Iranian media said earlier today that tankers were halted from passing through the Strait of Hormuz — which has, in theory, reopened — due to Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
While the outcome of planned negotiations between the United States and Iran over the two-week ceasefire announced Tuesday evening remains anybody’s guess, we can start to evaluate which industries, countries, and regions stand to benefit from the new era inaugurated the war, and which stand to suffer.
China’s neighbors got a crash course in the dangers of fossil fuel dependence for their essential energy needs. The vast majority of oil and gas that generally flows out of the strait is bound for Asia, leaving countries to embrace some mix of rationing, higher costs, and finding new supplies.
Going forward, these Asian countries may want to reduce their fossil fuel import bill, either by developing solar power and storage to replace gas-fired electricity generation or by expanding electrification to reduce reliance on gasoline (or both!). No matter what path they pick, it will likely be Chinese companies selling the solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles necessary to traverse it.
China itself, despite its heavy use of Persian Gulf petroleum, was able to weather the crisis far better than its neighbors. While the country is the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels, it has spent decades preparing for this type of crisis, building up the world’s largest oil stockpiles and an electric grid that largely relies on its own coal, as well as nuclear, renewables, and hydropower.
The nuclear industry has often flourished in response to crises in the oil markets. Much of the Japanese, French, and American nuclear buildouts occurred in the wake of the 1970s oil shocks. Already, the Hormuz shock has revived Asian nuclear power. Taiwan shut down its last operating nuclear reactor last year, but already the utility Taipower has applied to restart a nuclear plant. Vietnam and Russia signed a deal to develop Southeast Asia’s first operational nuclear power plant, while the South Korean government announced plans to accelerate the restart of several reactors.
While in the long run the Hormuz crisis could spur Asian economies to embrace nuclear, storage, renewables, and electrification, in the short run they need to keep the lights on. Capacity limits on coal-fired power plants have been lifted across Asia, and prices for coal have risen accordingly. And while Taiwan for example, is reembracing nuclear power, it’s also looking to boost its coal output.
When the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie modeled the effects through 2050 of a “a major geopolitical escalation beginning in early 2026 [Editor’s note: wink wink], disrupting 15–20% of global oil and LNG supply,” the analysts found that “coal plays a larger role in the near term as countries respond to supply shocks by maximising domestic energy sources and delaying plant retirements.”
(“Over the longer term,” the report continued, “nuclear expands significantly, providing stable, fuel-secure baseload power as new capacity comes online from the 2030s.”)
As national governments get more concerned about energy security and reliance on fuels that come through geopolitically sensitive chokepoints, major coal exporters like Australia, Indonesia, and South Africa stand to benefit. And even if countries pursue electrification in order to get off of oil, this can still benefit coal exporters, at least in the short to medium term.
The shale revolution has birthed a diverse, sprawling ecosystem of independent exploration and production companies that can cover their operating expenses when oil prices are below $50 and profitably drill new wells at $70. If global oil prices are permanently higher due to tolling in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as due to hundreds of millions of barrels of shut-in production never reaching the market, then these companies are likely to see permanently higher profits.
Even if oil prices fall substantially as the crisis subsides, these producers have likely experienced the past six or so weeks as a pure profit-taking opportunity, with anxious investors keeping the leash on new exploration. And if the crisis continues and the strait continues to be closed, they can either profit from their existing operations or choose to profitably drill new wells.
As long as the Strait of Hormuz remained closed, about a fifth of the world’s LNG supply wasn’t reaching its largely Asian customers. Even if the strait fully reopens, Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facility has sustained damage that will take years to fix. While this supply shock will mean higher spot prices for other LNG exporters — most notably the United States — future LNG investment will likely be chilled by this reminder of the fuel’s essential geopolitical instability.
Even if LNG flows resume for the duration of the shaky planned ceasefire, analysts at BloombergNEF estimate that “the combined loss of supply could remove roughly 16 million tons” of LNG from the market this summer. (Qatar’s total LNG capacity is 77 million tons per year.) “Hormuz crossings remain the critical variable driving prices in the coming days. If vessel transits accelerate, the market will price in improving availability. If crossings stall, risk premiums will rebuild quickly, reinforcing the view that even a ceasefire is insufficient to restore reliable Hormuz transit,” BNEF analysts wrote in a note Wednesday.
Already, the Vietnamese conglomerate Vingroup has proposed scrapping a planned LNG import project and replacing it with renewables and batteries. Chinese LNG imports already dropped in 2025, indicating that the Asian growth the LNG industry was counting on may not end up redounding to its benefit.
The Gulf states are supposed to be the central players in the world oil market. They can produce oil cheaply at scale, and Saudi Arabia especially is considered the world’s “swing” producer, able to ramp up and ramp down oil production to respond to market conditions
Now, no matter what happens in the Strait of Hormuz, hundreds of millions of barrels of oil have been shut-in and won’t reach global markets. Gulf states will likely have to embark on expensive pipeline projects to lessen their dependence on the strait, and their ability to diversify their economies by attracting tourism or high-end service industries may be permanently imperiled by six weeks of drone and missile assaults from Iran.
The necessary reconstruction may also pull capital away from their Gulf producers’ high-profile overseas investment projects, whether in movie studios or green energy, forcing these states to be more insular and less ambitious in forging overseas economic and political links that were supposed to keep them safe.
And while a higher floor on oil prices may help refill these states’ coffers, to the extent that Asian economies electrify in response to the Hormuz shock, it could mean that oil demand begins falling faster than expected.
While the United States has not been wholly insulated from the war’s economic effects — gas prices have risen dramatically — it has managed to benefit from oil exports and its electricity sector has been largely unaffected thanks to natural gas prices staying basically unchanged since the war began.
The story is different on the West Coast and in Hawaii. California is essentially the furthest east section of the Asian energy complex, meaning that its refineries and gas stations have had to compete for scarce supplies of oil and gasoline thanks to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile Hawaii, which depends on oil for the bulk of its electricity generation, will soon see price hikes.
Even if traffic is restored through the strait, the shockwaves from its closure will still hit the United States’s westernmost points.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new analysis by a one-time atomic energy opponent makes a bull case for big reactors.
If you know anything about the cost of nuclear energy in America, you probably are aware that the most recent reactors built — the only two new ones designed, planned, and constructed since the 1990s — were budget busters. Units 3 and 4 of Southern Company’s Alvin W. Vogtle Generating Station in eastern Georgia were the first of a new generation of reactor technology ever to be deployed in the U.S. Construction delays, changes to the design, and corporate bankruptcies ultimately sent the price of the pair of Westinghouse AP1000s — the Ford Mustang of American nuclear technology, with safety features that essentially make them not just powerful but also meltdown-proof — to nearly $40 billion, or about $16,350 per kilowatt.
But the U.S. once built reactors for half that — and it did so in the chaotic aftermath of the nation’s worst civilian nuclear accident, when mounting regulations made atomic power construction more onerous than ever before.
That’s the landmark finding of a new report by a veteran nuclear researcher, who quantified and broke down the cost of constructing nearly every civilian atomic power station the U.S. built in the 20th century. Adjusting the dollar figures using the Handy-Whitman Index, a specialized formula for calculating inflation in the utility sector’s construction costs, the analysis — shared exclusively with Heatmap — concluded that 47 reactors built in the U.S. between the 1979 partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant and the turn of the millennium came in at an average of $8,200 per kilowatt.
“Costs are only going to come down from that,” Charles Komanoff, the economist and energy policy analyst whose consultancy conducted the study on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force, told me.
The paper carves out a pathway down the cost curve that runs counter to the industry’s broader consensus at the moment on the best way to make nuclear less of a luxury choice compared to other generating sources. Billions of dollars have flooded into companies promising to commercialize small modular reactors that generate 300 megawatts or less. The concept is a bet on what Komanoff calls the economies of duplication, meaning that if customers need more individual reactors, developers can ride that repetition to lower prices. But the paper suggests that the way developers have historically reduced nuclear costs — through economies of scale — achieves the same per-kilowatt savings with one gigawatt-sized, water-cooled reactor as 20 smaller reactors would net.
Some small and microreactor developers say that using alternative coolants — molten salt, liquid sodium, high-temperature gases such as helium — could further raise the efficiency of their technologies, allowing them to make up for whatever they lose on economies of scale. But large, traditional reactors such as the AP1000 are “a proven technology” that, unlike next-generation reactors with far less operating experience, won’t have to overcome “teething problems” to reach maximum efficiency levels, Komanoff told me.
There are other options to the AP1000, such as the ABWR that the parent companies of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy built in Japan and Taiwan in the 1990s. One was planned for Texas, but abandoned a decade ago amid declining interest in nuclear power post-Fukushima. The technology is approved by the NRC, but GE-Hitachi has since turned its attention to its 300-megawatt BWRX-300. Given that no ABWR was built in the U.S., James Boucher, the former Deloitte nuclear consultant who co-authored the paper, said the AP1000 is the reactor best positioned to replicate the country’s successful buildout of the 1980s.
“We have two AP1000s. They're fully built. They’re operating. They’re doing, as far as I can tell, quite well. And they are like these reactors in our sample,” Boucher told me. “If we wanted to build 20, 30, 50 more AP1000s, I think we’d have a good shot.”
The Nuclear Company, a startup developer that hired much of the team behind the Vogtle buildout in a bid to become the go-to project manager for future AP1000s, called Komanoff’s report “promising because it demonstrates how cost can come down when we don’t focus on building first-of-a-kind projects.”
“There was a 30% overnight capital cost reduction just moving from Unit 3 to Unit 4 on the Vogtle project — there is no reason we can’t continue down the learning curve on the next AP1000s built in this country,” Joe Klecha, The Nuclear Company’s chief nuclear officer and president, told me after reviewing the report I sent him. “Especially with our mix of experience building these reactors and advancements in technology we’re leveraging to scale, achieving below $10,000 per kilowatt is just the beginning for us. We believe we can execute safer, faster, and at lower cost than we’ve achieved in the past.”
Back in the 1980s, the military-like regimentation common at nuclear plants and construction sites wasn’t yet as ingrained in the industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had replaced the Atomic Energy Commission, which was seen as too deferential to the companies it oversaw, and spent the decade tightening rules on constructing and operating nuclear plants. New accident scenarios were being discovered, requiring new plants and existing ones up for relicensing to change operating protocols, upgrade equipment, and conduct additional research.
Komanoff was among those pushing for the changes. In reports he authored on behalf of Greenpeace, an arch opponent of nuclear power, he dissected the fiscal woes atomic energy developers faced, making the economic case for shutting down electrical stations that his fellow activists battled on ecological or moral grounds. Eventually, Komanoff moved on to advocating for a carbon tax as the fairest and clearest way to guide the economy away from fossil fuels and toward decarbonization. While serving as director of the Carbon Tax Center, which he co-founded, he noticed a trend among nuclear plants: They were getting better at operating.
The regulatory changes that followed Three Mile Island succeeded in raising the operating efficiencies of nuclear plants. In the 1970s, reactors had a capacity factor — a measure of how frequently a generating source actually produces electricity — of about 50%. Yet by 1991, that number had risen to 70%, putting atomic energy on par with the most efficient fossil fuel and hydroelectric plants. In 2002, that national average hit 90%. In 2019, it rose to 94%. When the final reactor at Indian Point, the nuclear station that served Komanoff’s native New York City, closed in 2021 due to political opposition to its relicensing, it had just set a world record for an uninterrupted 753-day run of electricity production.
Gradually, Komanoff came to see nuclear power as a vital tool for decarbonization. But, ensconced in the climate movement through his carbon tax advocacy, he found it easier to stay mum on his conversion, lest he ruffle the feathers of fellow activists who remained stalwart anti-nuclearists. After all, he thought, if a carbon tax passes, nuclear plants will benefit, so why bother speaking up specifically for atomic energy? Indian Point’s early shutdown, however, caused Komanoff pangs of regret.
“It just forced me to confront the consequences of not advocating for nuclear power,” he said. “I felt the way I imagined I would feel if a climbing partner — I used to be a sort of mountaineer — had died because of some negligence on my part. I really took personal responsibility because I imagined that — and maybe I’m just in a complete fantasy about my shamanistic power — as someone who had argued 40 years ago for shutting Indian Point, that if I had gone public say ‘Don’t do it,’ that I might have been able to begin turning the tide.”
While $8,200 per kilowatt is half of what Vogtle cost, it’s still nearly four times the cost of building a new natural gas-burning power plant with combined-cycle turbines, which itself rose to $2,157 per kilowatt last year from less than $1,500 in 2023. But the “regulatory churn” that kept the price of nuclear high, Komanoff said, is unlikely to return for new nuclear plants using proven designs such as the AP1000.
“Part of my optimism about nuclear being less subject to regulatory churn going forward is because it’s not a whipping boy,” he said. “It’s really hard to overstate the aura of incompetence that surrounded the nuclear power sector in the United States in the ‘70s into the ‘80s. But when you’ve got plants that are averaging 90% or higher capacity factors, things change.”
Current conditions: Oman’s Ayn Athum Waterfalls burst to life this week as rain battered the Gulf nation’s southwestern Dhofar governorate • Severe monsoon flooding has deluged parts of the American Southwest, including Navajo Nation, where at least three people have died • Tropical Storm Dujuan is barreling toward Japan, where it threatens flooding and landslides in Tokyo and Chiba.
When the Houthis stormed Yemen’s Red Sea coast last week, the Iran-backed rebels gained new ground from which to attack boats passing through the vital shipping lane, extending Tehran’s reach from the Persian Gulf’s hotly contested Strait of Hormuz to the waterway on the opposite side of the Arabian peninsula. In response, oil prices surged. But the price per barrel of crude is slipping again as the United States has rebuked Saudi Arabia’s requests for help routing the militants, instead seeking a deal that keeps the Bab al-Mandab Strait open to American and Israeli ships. Over the weekend, U.S. diplomats met with Houthi officials in neutral Oman, Reuters reported. Following the talks, the Times of Israel reported that Houthis promised not to attack any Israeli or commercial ships of any kind, only those linked to Saudi Arabia, which has funded the Yemeni government’s campaign against the rebels.
Satellite images published by the investigative site Hunterbrook showed workers building a bypass on Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, its main conduit for circumventing oil exports around the Strait of Hormuz, to get around the pumping station damaged by a Houthi attack. But the promise of free movement through the Red Sea sent the price of oil down by between 1% and 4% on Thursday.
Just yesterday, I told you that the Trump administration had moved to drastically change how the government interprets the Endangered Species Act to only consider deaths of protected animals illegal if the creatures were intentionally targeted. Such a shift would exclude the vast majority of deaths linked to energy companies, such as when birds land in toxic oil ponds or collide with wind turbines. Whether federal enforcement ultimately reflects that interpretation depends on the outcome of a forthcoming lawsuit. Already, Earthjustice has vowed to file litigation challenging the Trump administration’s legal memo directing federal agencies on its new view of the nation’s bedrock conservation law. “The government’s new legal position is a prescription for extinction. It says that as long as you claim you didn’t mean to kill an endangered species, the law can’t and won’t stop you,” Earthjustice attorney Ben Levitan said in a press release. “That’s ridiculous — and a totally illegal, active misreading of the Endangered Species Act. We’ll see the Trump administration in court about this.”
The toll wind turbines take on migratory birds is a favorite talking point of the energy source’s opponents. But relief from the responsibility to avoid killing birds would be cold comfort to the wind industry as developers wait for the Trump administration to follow a court ruling requiring it to continue processing applications for turbines. As my colleague Jael Holzman wrote yesterday, the administration has continued delaying. At least one other legal fight within the offshore wind industry has, meanwhile, come to a conclusion. Vineyard Wind and its turbine supplier GE Vernova, announced an “amicable settlement” this week that resolves “all outstanding litigation,” the New Bedford Light reported. The developer sued the supplier in April, accusing GE Vernova of an $800 million breach of contract following a blade failure in 2024.

The U.S. needs more long-term energy storage, and few technologies are better tested by time than using excess electricity to pump water into a reservoir, where it can be released downhill and run through turbines to generate huge bursts of power when it’s needed. Back when the U.S. had lots of nuclear power, pumped hydro plants harvested the unused electrons during the night. With solar now producing more electricity during the day in some parts of the country than the grid demands, pumped hydro is seeing a potential renewal. But the U.S. hasn’t built any pumped hydro facilities since the 1990s. A project that looked likely to break that dry spell is now on pause as the Trump administration heeds opponents’ concerns and orders a new study on its environmental impact.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has delayed its decision on whether to license the $3 billion project to add a pumped hydro facility to the Seminoe Reservoir, a lightning bolt-shaped waterway in southern Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management said it will conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement and open the door to more public comments and input from local officials. “This feels like a small victory,” CiCi Oliver, a fly-fishing shop owner who opposed the project over its potential disruptions to the ecology of the reservoir, told WyoFile this week.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
At the start of the Iran War, some interpreters of President Donald Trump’s supposed four-dimensional geopolitical chess moves suggested that shutting down the Strait of Hormuz was an intentional move to show China’s vulnerable underbelly: Beijing’s dependence on oil imports. And yet, China’s vast oil stockpiles and refining capacity, plus its array of alternative energy sources, allowed the country to slash oil purchases by 23% in the first six months of the war compared to the same period last year, according to a New York Times analysis of customs data. “This is a power that nobody thought China had,” said Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “Going forward, it’s going to be really interesting to see: What does China do with this newfound power?” The heaviest answer to that question now weighing on Western officials involves China considering the ramifications of a potential invasion of Taiwan to be less worrying than before.
That’s especially true because Taiwan, by contrast, is more vulnerable to losing access to oil and gas imports than ever before. After completing its decades-long mission last year to shut down the nuclear fleet that powered the island’s 20th century transformation into the world’s premiere chipmaker, Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party — which advocates for the republic’s continued de facto independence — left the nation dependent on imported liquified natural gas and crude for the vast majority of its energy. Now, according to Nikkei, the government is hastening its efforts to potentially bring at least one nuclear station back online.
Yet another state is considering a moratorium on data centers — one close to the epicenter of the artificial intelligence boom. Maryland, which shares a grid and a border with northern Virginia’s data center megacluster, could see a ban come into effect as early as next year if state legislators pass a bill in the next session. Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, said he “will absolutely sign” a statewide ban “if it’s coming from local legislators.” Speaking to Punchbowl News, he suggested that any moratorium would come with loopholes for projects that meet high standards. “I believe local jurisdictions should have a say. There are certain local jurisdictions who want it,” he said. “I just need them to understand I have very strict guidelines for what is actually going to get state approval.”
A startup founded by members of the team of U.S. government scientists that first achieved net-energy gain from a fusion reaction has hit a new milestone that should raise the eyebrows of even skeptics of the so-called holy grail of clean power. Less than two months after publicizing its roadmap to commercial fusion, Inertia Enterprises ran a simulation demonstrating that its first commercial plant will be capable of producing 25 times more energy than the laser needed to trigger the reaction, the company told my colleague Katie Brigham in an exclusive.
The company using the only technology proven to achieve breakeven has simulated net energy gain.
Less than two months after publicizing its roadmap to commercial fusion, Inertia Enterprises has checked step one off its list. The startup ran a simulation demonstrating that its first commercial facility will be capable of producing over 25 times more fusion energy than the laser energy put into it, Inertia told Heatmap exclusively.
This is actually the second milestone Inertia has achieved on its 10-point roadmap to building a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s — the startup announced last month that it had cut the manufacturing time for its fusion fuel pellets from days to minutes. But for the lay fusion observer, this latest achievement may be the more striking of the two. So far, the only entity to achieve breakeven — the point at which a fusion reaction produces more energy than it consumes — is Lawrence Livermore National Lab’s National Ignition Facility.
Inertia, founded last year by current and former Lawrence Livermore scientists, is now building on that result under a formal research partnership with the lab, using the same technical approach as NIF: firing high-powered lasers at a tiny pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it until the nuclei fuse and release enormous amounts of energy.
The new results, which Inertia said it’s submitting for peer review, demonstrate that the company’s first commercial-scale plant ought to generate over 250 megawatts of electricity for the grid. But because the startup’s machine has yet to be built, the projected energy gain and power output come from a so-called “virtual shot,” a high-fidelity computer simulation that uses the same design codes Lawrence Livermore has used for its own successful ignition experiments, and is thus calibrated and benchmarked against real results.
“We are simulating all the things that we know happen in a fusion experiment, and it’s using the validated models — the best, highest-fidelity physics models that have been validated to NIF ignition experiments — to project where we will be with Inertia,” the startup’s co-founder, Annie Kritcher, told me. The simulation accounts for factors such as “target defects, variations in laser performance, laser delivery, [and] injection tolerances,” she explained.
Even when variables like these fluctuate, Kritcher said, the machine’s energy yield should barely change. That sets Inertia’s system apart from NIF’s, which operates right on the so-called “ignition cliff,” where small imperfections in the fusion fuel target or slight variations in laser performance can determine whether the system achieves ignition at all. But because Inertia designed its system to operate far above that threshold, minor flaws should translate only to modest dips in performance.
Other fusion startups have run simulations demonstrating the validity of their underlying physics and — in industry leader Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ case — even projecting their ability to exceed breakeven. But Kritcher argues that Inertia’s “virtual shot” is a more meaningful achievement because the startup’s plant design replicates the underlying physics validated by NIF, the only fusion experiment yet to cross breakeven in the real world. “The extrapolation risk for the other validation simulations is much, much, much higher,” she told me.
Kritcher has experienced this risk firsthand during her many years running experiments at NIF. When the facility fired its first real shots at ignition in 2011, she was working as a post-doctoral researcher at the national lab, and sincerely believed these early experiments would be a success. But the shots turned out to be “orders of magnitude off” from achieving their goal, thanks to the “unknown unknowns and the physics that weren’t included” in the team’s initial modeling.
Other companies that haven’t yet proven their physics on a real-world machine still face those “unknown unknowns,” she explained, whereas Inertia has been able to unveil and eliminate as many as anyone has yet found. The startup’s plant design is by no means an exact replica of NIF, however. For starters, its fusion targets will be twice as large, and its lasers roughly five times as powerful. The facility will also fire 10 shots per second, compared with NIF’s roughly one shot per week, using thousands of individually adjustable laser beams rather than NIF’s fixed 192. So as is nearly always the case when scaling up, some unknown unknowns likely remain.
But Kritcher is confident that the virtual shot will translate to real world performance — a level of certainty she admittedly hasn’t always had in her decades of nuclear engineering research and practice. In addition to her role at Inertia, Kritcher remains a senior scientist at Lawrence Livermore, where she has led the physics design for NIF’s fusion energy experiments since 2019.
A few years before the lab ultimately achieved breakeven in 2022 — more than a decade after its first attempts — Kritcher was beginning to doubt that they would ever get there. Then, in 2021, NIF reached a breakthrough that went largely unnoticed outside the ranks of dedicated fusion observers: It fired a shot that produced 70% as much fusion energy as the reaction consumed, bringing the facility within striking distance of net energy gain. And while it didn’t reach that threshold, the scientists said the experiment demonstrated ignition — a self-sustaining fusion burn.
The result gave Kritcher assurance that the lab was on the cusp of energy gain. Now, she feels a similar level of confidence that Inertia can translate its simulated 25x energy gain into a real world commercial facility. “The change that we made going from that first ignition result — the 0.7x gain to the [net energy] gain result — that’s the kind of change I feel like we’re making here,” she told me. “It’s working now, and we’re just making it bigger and better.”