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:
Plus, the technology our experts say is least ready for primetime.

Regardless of what 2025 was like in the U.S., the transition to clean energy is still progressing, both abroad and at home. It is not, however, advancing at the same pace across all clean energy sectors.
As part of our annual survey of energy world insiders, Heatmap asked dozens of climate experts which key decarbonization technologies they thought were furthest from widespread deployment.
By far the most common answer — with about two in five experts agreeing — was fusion energy.
As Heatmap’s Katie Brigham has reported, even the technology’s most optimistic proponents don’t expect fusion plants to hit the grid for at least another decade. And even if fusion becomes commercially ready, bringing down its cost to a level where it can compete with existing renewable sources of electricity will be yet another challenge.
“Even though scientifically we may get there in the next few years, I don’t know if it will result in a rapid shift in our power sector in a decade,” Ilaria Mazzocco, an expert in China’s energy policy, told Heatmap. “Can we restructure our entire power sector to deal with this completely novel technology then? And on top of that, can we make it cheap enough so that it makes sense?”
Another respondent who works in energy policy was more skeptical. “I won’t believe it ’til I see it,” they said.
Costa Samaras, the director of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University, named fusion as his pick, but said he hasn’t given up hope that it will one day come to fruition. “Having been part of the fusion energy leadership team at the White House,” Samaras said, “I'm a firm believer we should ramp up federal efforts to accelerate the fusion development timeline.”
Though sustainable aviation seems to be closer to deployment than fusion, experts don’t expect that industry to take off anytime soon, either. Both sustainable aviation fuel and electric aircrafts face significant challenges to getting off the ground — so to speak. SAF relies on scarce feedstocks, requires a lot of energy to produce, and costs far more than petroleum-based jet fuel. And batteries are heavy, making them impractical for commercial air travel.
Respondents also beefed, so to speak, with lab-grown meat and were reluctant to gas up on hydrogen. Cultivated meat technology has advanced rapidly, but key members of the Trump administration have no love for the product. Hydrogen has struggled to bring its cost in line with other energy sources such as natural gas, and the Trump administration has rolled back federal support for the technology.
There are a few companies, however, that are making advances in some key decarbonization technologies. When Heatmap asked experts which looked the best to them, geothermal energy companies took the top two spots: Fervo Energy, which is slated to open a 100-megawatt enhanced geothermal system next year, and Zanskar, a startup that utilizes artificial intelligence to find naturally-occurring reservoirs. Quaise Energy, which uses a process known as millimeter-wave drilling that involves using very high frequency radio waves to heat and vaporize rock, also scored a mention.
Respondents named more than two-dozen companies in total. Answers spanned an array of industries, from nuclear energy (Kairos Power and Westinghouse — “While they are a legacy company, if they engage successfully to scale their proven nuclear design, the impact could be massive,” Armond Cohen, executive director of Clean Air Task Force, told us), long-duration energy storage (Form Energy, Hydrostor, Antora Energy, and Rondo Energy), and grid software (GridAstra, which has created a digital platform to alleviate grid congestion, and ConnectDER, which manufactures meter socket adapters to accelerate clean energy device connection), to sustainable agriculture (Nitricity, which produces plant-based fertilizer, and Pivot Bio, which makes microbes that deliver nitrogen to plants).
Rather than naming just one company, one solar advocate chose the half-dozen leading Chinese solar panel and battery manufacturers. “These guys are together producing more energy now than the Seven Sisters of the oil industry,” they said.
Despite President Trump’s full-throated support, the U.S. oil industry hasn’t significantly boosted production in the past year. Faced with steep tariffs on supplies and equipment and increased production from OPEC+ countries, crude oil prices sank in 2025, which means that U.S. companies aren’t exactly rushing to ramp up drilling.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct Samaras’ professional affiliation.
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.
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.”