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:
If you want an EV with great range, just drive slowly.

The last gas car I owned was underpowered. Equipped with a four-speed stick shift and an undeserved spoiler, the 1994 Ford Escort eked out all of 100 horsepower. It got you there, but it huffed a little on the way.
My current vehicle has no such struggles. The Tesla Model 3 accelerates happily thanks to its 269 horsepower, a figure that lives toward the lower end of modern EVs. It zips away from a red light thanks to the physics of a battery-powered car.
“The nice thing about electric vehicles is, they can provide full torque at zero speed, which internal combustion vehicles can't do. And that's one of the reasons why they have those improvements in terms of acceleration,” says Heath Hofmann, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Michigan who has consulted with companies including Tesla.
The tale of my two cars is the story of the last half-century of auto engineering. Carmakers got good at delivering more power, so much so that someone behind the wheel of a family car today has as much horsepower at their feet as some sports cars of the late ‘80s and early 90s. Americans came to expect it. And now, in the burgeoning EV space, automakers chase Tesla’s success in selling electric vehicles on muscle and sex appeal by cranking out a new slate of EVs with lightning-fast zero-to-sixty times.
The green machines meant to reduce our transportation carbon emissions have become speed demons. But the specter of Americans driving mostly amped-up, super-heavy electric vehicles that are more dangerous to everyone around them has led many experts — including the chief of the National Transportation Safety Board — to fret about the direction of the EV revolution. It’s enough to make you wonder whether the swole EV could, or should, be tamed.
All that quickness comes in handy during a highway merge, sure. But like a lot of current combustion cars, the new electric vehicles are overpowered for daily driving situations, capable of acceleration bursts and top speeds that are impractical or illegal on public roads. At the same time, they also have a range problem. Extending how far they travel per charge would enhance driving quality of life, allowing people to drive further, and use their energy for ancillary applications, with less anxiety about running out.
Could the car companies churn out EVs that are optimized to go far instead of fast? Well, they could. Hofmann explains that an EV’s power depends not only on how much energy it can draw from the battery at a given time, but also on its drivetrain components, especially its electric motors. The most straightforward way to rein in an electric vehicle — to emphasize range and battery life at the expense of acceleration — would be to give it smaller motors that simply wouldn't allow for inefficient, aggressive driving. It’s (roughly) analogous to putting a smaller engine in a combustion car as opposed to a snarling, gas-guzzling block.
There are a couple of problems with that, though, starting with the car market. Last week, GM CEO Mary Barra said that electric cars under $40,000 still aren’t profitable, which is why there are so few. Vehicles that command prices above that mark are typically big, powerful machines, not economy cars whose zoom-zoom has been curtailed. Americans won’t pony up for wimpy cars.
Hofmann says there’s also an engineering quirk to consider. It turns out, he tells me, that larger electric motors tend to be more efficient than smaller ones. As a result, you might actually save a little energy by having big motors in your car, but using them conservatively, than by installing small motors that constrain your lead-footedness.
This leads us back to a familiar axiom: It’s not the car, but the driver. Much of the old wisdom about efficient driving is as true for EVs as it was for gas-burners: Driving slower saves energy, as does properly inflated tires, maintaining a constant speed instead of frequently stopping and starting, and turning down energy-sucking applications like climate control. Many new EVs reveal this truth in real time: They calculate exactly how many miles of battery life you cost yourself by driving 10 mph over the speed limit or running the air conditioning at full blast.
Speed is the big one, Hofmann says. Given that larger motors can be more efficient than small ones, the best thing to do for promoting EV range and efficiency may be to give drivers the power and hope they use it cautiously. The top-down way to make EVs go farther and drive safer would be for governments to change speed limit laws or mandate vehicles be electronically prevented from exceeding certain speeds, which unearths draconian memories of the “I Can’t Drive 55” 1970s and 80s.
It works. When I’ve driven my own EV on slower state highways — and stuck to the speed limit — I’ve been taken aback by how much I stretch the battery. That doesn’t mean a nation of speed limit flouters would happily comply.
“Really, if you wanted to force the cars to be efficient, you would limit them to go no faster than 55 miles an hour, right? Not too many people are gonna be okay with that,” Hofmann says.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”