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 new vehicle — with a price tag just shy of $30,000, all in — represents the storied U.S. automaker’s big swing at winning entry-level buyers.
Ford’s electric moonshot, the mid-size pickup truck that would get it back into the EV race, finally has a name: Fathom.
The Detroit giant announced the name of its long-anticipated, highly mysterious vehicle on Thursday, alongside its price and some of its specs. The Ford Fathom will cost $28,350, not including delivery and destination fees that take its price right up to the 30-grand mark — $29,945, to be precise. Ford says it will start taking reservations early next year and deliver the first pickups later in 2027.
We don’t yet know the battery range or, crucially, what it’ll look like, as Ford is holding back the visual reveal. What we can say is that, as a mid-size pickup, the Fathom should be around the size of the gas-powered Ford Maverick, which has a near-identical starting price. Without getting into dimensions, Ford promises it will have more passenger volume than Toyota’s ubiquitous RAV4 SUV, with a frunk and a truck bed to boot.
Ford says every Fathom will be BlueCruise-capable, referencing the company’s hand-free driving assistant for highway travel. Fathom will also feature bi-directional power capability, enabling the battery to double as home energy storage, as well as embedded Apple Maps on its large touchscreen. Importantly, it will retain compatibility with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, which has become a dealbreak for many drivers.
Fathom will be the first EV produced on Ford’s Universal EV Platform, the technology setup that has been under development at the company’s skunkworks operation in Long Beach, California. I visited there this spring to see the team that was, far from the glare of the suits in Detroit, trying to reinvent the company’s EV manufacturing strategies so it could make better and more affordable electric cars. Even then, though, I couldn’t get a look at the Fathom — or any other car designs that may or may not be under way there, as they were all still under wraps.
The skunkworks project is all about process. Ford was losing billions on its previous generation of EVs, led by the Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E, despite the relatively high sticker price of those cars. Engineers tried to mimic some of the stripped-down, iterative strategies of smaller firms and startups — such as stripping miles of wiring out of the vehicles — to work faster and simplify manufacturing, thereby cutting costs.
That work has allowed Ford to start the Fathom at effectively $30,000, placing it smack within the range of America’s most affordable electric vehicles. Its most obvious competitor would be the Slate EV truck, which has just begun to take reservations. Slate starts at about $25,000, but that price gets you a bare-bones pickup with roll-up windows and a plain gray exterior. Add enough a la carte features to make the truck technologically competitive with something like the Fathom and it, too, would cost around $30,000.
At the price, the Ford Fathom is also directly competitive with entry-level EVs like the new Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf. But as a mid-sized truck, Fathom would be more spacious and practical than a vehicle like a Bolt, while coming in well below the $35,000 starting cost of a bigger crossover like the Chevy Equinox EV.
Ford, in its announcement, ruminated on the meanings behind the “Fathom” moniker. The company wanted its crucial new EV to have a name, not an alphanumeric code like the Ford F-150. Fathom was chosen because of its twin meanings: the classical unit of measure for water depth, and the verb meaning to deeply and fully understand something.
The implication is that the Fathom EV is meant to comprehend the customer and what they want out of an electric truck. How Ford’s pickup measures up to their aspirations depends greatly on details about this vehicle that are not yet known. But just putting out a battery-powered pickup truck for under $30,000 is a great start.
Current conditions: The heat dome in the American Southwest is worsening, with temperatures in Phoenix set to climb as high as 110 degrees Fahrenheit • The wildfires in Greece have killed at least five people as thermometers in Athens near the triple digits • Sri Lanka’s sprawling capital of Colombo is in the midst of a week of intense thunderstorms.
The Department of Defense halted reviews of onshore wind projects in May on national security grounds, a move that my colleague Jael Holzman described at the time as “extrajudicial” and that would ultimately “murder an American industry.” Now the judiciary is getting involved. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, indicated that she would likely find in favor of a coalition of renewable energy groups that sued the Trump administration to restart reviews. At the start of a two-hour hearing, Courthouse News Service reported from the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, Immergut said there was “strong evidence the government had violated statutory and regulatory deadlines” when the Pentagon stopped carrying out routine reviews needed to progress federal permits for wind turbines to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Trump administration is preparing to impose new tariffs and minimum import prices on polysilicon in a bid to prop up a domestic supply chain for the primary ingredient in semiconductors and solar panels. The decision, due out after the market closes today, will set a tariff of at least 15% on imported polysilicon and set baseline prices for each component in the supply chain, from the raw material derived from purified quartz to solar wafers, cells, and modules, sources familiar with talks told me, confirming broad details first reported by Reuters and Bloomberg. The Department of Commerce plans to delay implementation to allow domestic manufacturers that rely on imported components time to adjust, and provide offsets to companies that make major investments in the U.S. The policy will serve as a key lifeline to solar manufacturers, who lost one of their main incentives to buy made-in-America panels when the investment and production tax credits for solar effectively ended last month. But industry sources told me that the new trade restrictions would likely fall short of incentivizing new manufacturing, and would require more support on the demand side. The dynamic mirrors what my colleague Matthew Zeitlin called the “paradox of Trump’s critical mineral crusade,” whereby the administration pulled out all the stops to boost mining of rare earths and lithium while eliminating the landmark electric vehicle tax credit that ensured a domestic market for those metals.
It’s hardly the only protectionism the Commerce Department is attempting this month. On Thursday, the agency plans to publish a temporary final rule that would block exports of battery scraps and tungsten waste without a special waiver from the Bureau of Industry and Security. Producers of the materials, E&E News reported, would be required to sell in the U.S. for one year. The move comes a week after President Donald Trump signed a memo blocking exports of mineral-rich waste as the White House seeks to shore up supplies of metals for weapons production. Tungsten, as the Bloomberg “Odd Lots” podcast explained nicely in a recent episode, has a very high melting point, making it ideal for artillery and ammunition. While it’s typically in demand in low amounts during peace time, soaring interest is a sign of widening global conflicts.
For retail investors, Oklo emerged as the face of the small modular reactor industry in 2024 after the Silicon Valley nuclear darling debuted on the stock market. But the company hadn’t yet split atoms. Last night, the company’s low-power test reactor in Texas sustained a reaction for the first time. The milestone makes Oklo the fifth company in the Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program to achieve criticality, but the first to do so on private land. Oklo boasted that the company had erected the facility at a previously undeveloped greenfield site in less than a year, demonstrating that “American nuclear deployment timelines can be measured in months rather than years,” the company said in a press release.
The move comes five months after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which notoriously rejected Oklo’s first attempt at gaining approval for its power plant reactors, approved the company’s plans to produce medical isotopes from low-powered reactors, as I exclusively reported in this newsletter at the time.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Two House Democrats formally referred Secretary of Energy Chris Wright to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution, accusing him of lying to Congress when asked whether the agency canceled green grants for partisan reasons. In a letter published Wednesday in The Hill, Representatives Zoe Lofgren of California and Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, alleged that Wright lied when he testified his blocking of billions in climate spending had nothing to do with the money going to states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. In a federal lawsuit related to the same award terminations, Energy Department lawyers admitted that “the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state” Wright previously testified that politics had no role in the decisions. “Secretary Wright lied to the Committee with his statements, which sought to prevent us from learning the truth: that the October award terminations were an act of political retaliation,” Lofgren and Amo wrote in the letter, addressed to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “In doing so, he violated 18 USC §1001, which bars individuals from making ‘any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation’ to Congress. We have no choice but to refer Secretary Wright to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution in this matter.”
In 1978, the U.S. used millions more tons of coal than today. Yet miners in Appalachia are facing rates of pneumoconiosis — the incurable, fatal disease known as black lung — at exactly the same levels today. That’s the finding of new data published Wednesday in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Miners in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia who had spent at least 25 years working underground had by far the worst rates, with one in three testing positive in X-rays conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a federal agency. “I’m disgusted,” Scott Laney, a NIOSH research epidemiologist who is the lead author of the research letter, told NPR. “This is not going to get better because of all the disease that’s already in the pipeline. These guys are being treated like disposable widgets, not human beings. … We’re watching them die right before our eyes.”
Your humble correspondent is due for a series of flights this afternoon. I lose little sleep over my personal carbon footprint; I don’t find it a useful metric, and even if I did, I live in New York City, so my family’s life in dense housing and reliance on public transit already places me well below most Americans. But I can’t help but think of it when I’m riding multiple planes in one day. Which makes this new Bloomberg feature so exciting. In Brazil’s Minas Gerais state, more than 200 researchers are working to commercialize jet fuel made from the oil-rich fruit of the macauba palm tree. Across 356,000 acres, the Abu Dhabi-based biofuels producer Acelen Renováveis plans to start processing macauba oil as part of a $3 billion project. The effort is meant to help the push to reduce airlines’ carbon intensity, but — as with biofuels in general — it’s worth considering the climate benefits with healthy doses of skepticism until detailed analyses come out.
Rob talks “tough tech” with Engine Ventures’ Katie Rae.
At this point, when you hear “venture capitalist,” you probably think of … software. Or artificial intelligence. Or cryptocurrency.
The Engine Ventures, which spun out of MIT a few years ago, is different. It tries to fund what it calls “tough tech,” a somewhat nebulous category that includes companies working in energy, decarbonization, health, and infrastructure. As such, it’s backed some of the most interesting “climate tech” companies in business today, such as Form Energy, Commonwealth Fusion.
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob chats with Katie Rae, the CEO and managing partner of Engine Ventures. They chat about what’s missing from America’s innovation ecosystem, how close fusion is to succeeding, and whether AI is a bubble (whatever that might mean).
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: So this category of technologies, you guys call it tough tech. Sometimes you hear deep tech. What is different about investing in it from, let’s say, the classic VC playbook? And how is the engine ventures like built for that? What do you even kind of consider under tough tech, let’s say?
Katie Rae: Yeah, such a great question. First of all, this is the original form of venture capital, right? Which is that you are investing into things that have substantial intellectual property that took probably a long time to develop in academic or national labs and that are true breakthroughs. So a substantial leap forward in how we know things to work, which then can develop entire industries. Right. This is a very pure sense of venture capital. Over the years, you, in the generation you come from, think of it as software investing, where there’s very little technical risk and it’s all market risk.
So what tough tech is, is that you are taking on, I wouldn’t say in general scientific risk, but you are taking on the engineering risk of building something of physical instantiation. And that kind of risk is very different than software marketing risk. But it doesn’t mean it’s different forms of venture capital. One is taking the risk that a thousand other startups could do exactly the same thing and you’re going to be the one to break through and win. And the kind of venture capital in tough tech is that you really do understand the engineering and how to scale it up and how to get it to market and partner. But it is that engineering risk phase that we’ll call tough tech.
And that is more capital intensive in the beginning because it’s physical. But maybe not more capital intensive over time, but they’re just different forms of venture risk. One is you’re competing with a thousand people. And the other is there are probably one or two teams in the world with the knowledge base and ability to build this thing. And so your likelihood to win if you can gather the capital and the people and the expertise is actually pretty high, but very few people could make that happen. So that’s why a place like MIT, where you have this incredible group of humans who know how to collaborate globally on the cutting edge, is an incredible place to start something like the Engine Ventures, where you have a higher likelihood of being able to form these teams and get them out to market, and therefore a higher likelihood to win.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
From Heatmap: Commonwealth Fusion Systems Wins Over New Class of Investors With $1 Billion Raise
Previously on Shift Key: Why John Arnold Is ‘Very Optimistic’ Permitting Reform Will Pass This Year
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Discover the Yale Clean and Equitable Energy Development online certificate program at the Yale Center for Business and the Environment. In this fully online, 5-month program, you’ll learn from leading experts, develop practical skills, and grow a powerful network. Visit cbey.yale.edu to learn more and apply.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.