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:
Trump’s first administration supported it. But now there’s a new crowd coming into town.

The first Trump administration helped advance the dream of cultivated meat grown from animal cells. The second Trump administration might try to kill the dream.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who could control the fate of cultivated meat in America as President-elect Trump’s nominee for health secretary, has suggested that it’s an unsafe and unnatural corporate science experiment designed to enrich techno-billionaires. Vice President-elect JD Vance has called cultivated meat “disgusting,” Donald Trump, Jr. has proposed banning it, and Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump’s rumored backup choice for Pentagon secretary, has already banned it in Florida.
The timing is brutal for a potentially climate-friendly new industry that had hoped to start competing with conventional meat in 2025. Cultivated meat executives are trying to project optimism about the next four years, pointing out that President Trump’s aides created a constructive regulatory framework for their products during his first term. Republicans who support innovation, competition, and economic nationalism, they argue, ought to support high-tech manufacturing startups in the U.S. Trump ally Elon Musk’s own startup, SpaceX, has flown cultivated meat into space, while his brother Kimbal, an investor in the cultivated meat venture Upside Foods, once cooked its slaughter-free chicken on stage at a CNN event.
Still, the industry is clearly nervous. Trumpworld is divided on food issues between “Make America Healthy Again” techno-skeptics like Kennedy and conventional Republicans aligned with traditional livestock industries, but there’s opposition to cultivated meat on both sides of that divide. Cultivated meat executives met with their regulators from the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture last month at Tufts University, and while several attendees told me the discussion focused on how to get safe cultivated products to market, everyone in the room knew that road might get blocked on January 20.
San Francisco-based Mission Barns is waiting for FDA approval to blend its cultivated pork fat into plant-based meatballs and bacon; it already has photos on its website of the boxes it intends to sell in supermarkets. But its leaders are keenly aware that Kennedy may soon oversee the FDA — and that he’s expressed the same kind of doubts about “lab-grown meat” that he’s expressed about food dyes, genetically modified grain, and heavily processed foods in general.
“The election really shouldn’t affect our safety review. We know these folks care about protecting the American economy and ensuring American self-sufficiency,” Bianca Lê, the head of external affairs for Mission Barns, told me. “Obviously, though, anything can happen.”
One source close to Kennedy told me he probably wouldn’t propose banning what he calls “lab-grown meat,” but he’s likely to create regulatory hurdles that could keep startups like Mission Barns in perpetual limbo. When I asked if that meant making applicants for FDA approval jump through a million hoops, the Kennedy ally replied: “Maybe half a million.”
Growing meat from animal cells without killing animals was just a science-fiction fantasy until 2013, when the Dutch scientist Mark Post unveiled a burger patty he grew in his lab from bovine cells. That single burger cost $330,000 to produce, but investors poured more than $3 billion into hundreds of cultivated meat and seafood ventures over the next decade. Since then, they’ve brought down their costs per pound by about 99.99%.
Culturing cells into meat is still not as cheap as growing meat inside animals, but the startups are only making tiny quantities, and they’re confident they can approach price parity with animal products once they can scale up their production. The Israeli firm Believer Meats is building America’s first commercial-scale cultivated meat plant in North Carolina, and several other startups are planning to build U.S. factories once they receive regulatory approval.
But that’s been a slow process.
Trump’s first-term FDA head, Scott Gottlieb, and Agriculture Secretary, Sonny Perdue, worked with cultivated meat startups as well as conventional meat interests to create a joint regulatory process that almost everyone liked. In 2023, the Biden administration gave the Bay Area startups Upside (with investors including Cargill and Tyson as well as Kimbal Musk and Bill Gates) and Good Meat (the cultivated spin-off of the plant-based egg company Eat Just) the go-ahead to sell cultivated chicken filets.
But both companies envisioned the filets as proof-of-concept marketing plays to demonstrate that slaughter-free animal meat was real, not mass-market products they could take to commercial scale. Both sold their chicken to a limited number of diners in just one restaurant, and both ended the promotions this year.
So cultivated meat is currently unavailable in America. It’s illegal in Florida and Alabama, which both enacted bans in May. That leaves more than two dozen companies, including Upside and Good Meat, waiting for FDA approval for less expensive products they can take to market. Upside hopes to sell a product mixing cultivated chicken shreds with plant proteins at a price point competitive with organic chicken. Startups like Blue Nalu, which is cultivating bluefin tuna toro in San Diego, and Wildtype, which is cultivating salmon nigiri in San Francisco, believe they’ll be able to compete with high-end seafood as soon as they can get the federal go-ahead and build commercial factories.
The industry’s party line is that its products are safe, it’s been cooperative with regulators, and it has no reason to expect political meddling by the new political appointees.
“I don’t see the Trump administration doing bold nanny-state policy that interferes with consumer freedom,” Suzi Gerber, a nutrition scientist who leads the Association for Meat, Poultry and Seafood Innovation, an industry trade group, told me. “I think they’re going to end up on the side of American businesses and innovators, supporting the American dream.”
Globally, the strongest arguments for cultivated meat have usually emphasized the downsides of animal agriculture. Livestock operations use about a third of the land on Earth, driving much of the world’s deforestation, and cattle are a leading source of planet-warming methane. Cultivated meat would avoid those problems — as well as concerns about the mistreatment of animals and slaughterhouse workers, the overuse of antibiotics, and the fouling of rivers and lakes with manure.
But Trump doesn’t seem concerned about any of those problems, and even tech icon Musk, who used to talk a lot about climate change when his main focus was Tesla’s electric cars, falsely claimed on Joe Rogan’s podcast that the idea that animal agriculture contributes to global warming is “hot bullshit.” So the alternative protein sector, like the clean energy sector, is learning to speak the MAGA language of economic nationalism, arguing that if the U.S. regulatory process bogs down, nations like Singapore, Israel, and China will dominate the future of literal factory farming.
“The first Trump administration was very clear that it wanted this kind of innovation to stay in this country,” Upside founder and CEO Uma Valeti told me. “This isn’t about getting rid of animal meat. It’s about creating the next great American industry.”
The second Trump administration seems more likely to pick on any industry associated with the kind of climate concerns aired by Democrats. It doesn’t help that cultivated meat is also considered a threat by cattlemen and other livestock interests who reliably support Republicans. And then, of course, there’s RFK.
“I can’t remember ever seeing this level of uncertainty,” Eric Schulze, a molecular biologist and former FDA regulator who consults for several cultivated meat startups, told me. “The new team will have to decide if it supports typical Republican values of free enterprise and entrepreneurship, or if they want to create an over-regulatory environment that would be a first for the FDA under conservative leadership. The honest answer is we don’t know.”
The Biden administration isn’t rushing to approve applications before leaving office, and there’s not much the companies can do except wait. After the frenzy of interest and venture funding around cultivated meat several years ago, some once-promising startups have shut down, including New Age Eats and Sci-Fi Foods.
Wildtype raised more than $120 million during the initial burst, and it’s got a nice story to tell about producing nutritious salmon without pesticides, antibiotics, or microplastics in the U.S., instead of depleting wild salmon stocks or relying on environmentally damaging fish farms overseas. CEO Justin Kolbeck is confident that once it reaches commercial scale, growing fish filets from cells in a brewery will be more efficient and cheaper than feeding fish that have to swim, poop, and grow guts, tails, and bones that people don’t eat. But he’s got 85 employees, and he’s burning through his cash.
“How long can we wait? Not forever, that’s for sure,” Kolbeck told me. “But we try not to get too spun up about stuff we can’t control. Startups have a million ways to die, and regulatory delays are just one of them.”
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 conversation with anti-tech extremism researcher Mauro Lubrano on Sam Altman, Tesla protests, and 5G.
A spate of headline-grabbing attacks motivated by anxiety over artificial intelligence have rattled nerves across the U.S.
On Friday, I wrote a story about whether developers should be worried about violence after a shooting in Indiana targeted a city councilman who had voted in favor of a local data center. Almost at the same time the story published, news broke that an attacker had attempted to firebomb OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s house. On Monday, the Justice Department filed charges against a 20-year-old from Texas for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at the AI executive’s house. The Houston Chronicle reported that the individual charged had a Substack where they posted several anti-AI screeds; while I have reviewed the blog and can verify it exists, I cannot confirm the author’s connection to the individual charged.
As if that wasn’t enough, just days after the alleged firebombing, two people shot at Altman’s house.
To attempt to make sense of such chaotic brutality, I spoke with Mauro Lubrano, a lecturer at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom and author of the new book Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Tech Extremism. Lubrano has for much of his career studied the rise of a global decentralized movement against tech infrastructure, including energy and transportation systems. Last year, for example, he published a detailed examination of the spate of attacks against Tesla vehicles, dealerships, and factories, calling them “insurrectionary anarchism” rooted in “anti-tech extremism” that “spans multiple ideologies — from eco-extremism to eco-fascism.”
Lubrano and I discussed how a prevailing pessimism about the future, AI acceleration, and climate anxiety is making people more likely to launch physical attacks on devices representing a perceived techno-apocalypse. Lubrano said we should expect more people to attack things linked to electricity itself, and that the solution to the violence is not eco-modernism or optimistic thinking, but rather society finally working through the hard questions raised by AI, climate change, economic inequality, and the other ills vexing so many today.
The following conversation was lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
We’ve seen these movements against tech infrastructure — attacks, threats — for a while. The concept goes back a long time. For a lot of folks in the U.S., there’s analogues here ranging from the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO to ecoterrorism attacks on pipelines and other forms of energy infrastructure. How would you characterize the forces driving these recent attacks on executives and politicians supporting AI data centers?
When we look at anti-technology violence, we tend to see two main patterns of violence: attacks on tech executives, personalities, and so on; and attacks on critical infrastructure. This is related to a worldview that technology is not a collection of individual devices, but part of an interconnected system. Some anti-tech extremists will refer to the “mega-machine,” one that has three main manifestations. There’s an ideological one — the general idea that progress is inherently good. There’s the material manifestation, which is the technologies we interact with every day. And there’s the human component. People become cogs. So by targeting cogs in the machine, you contribute to the collapse of the machine itself.
There’s a propaganda element to all of this, too, targeting individuals who for one reason or another are prominent so it sends shockwaves to the tech community, to make some people change minds or join them in their anti-tech fight, or to just deter people from pursuing research on technology.
Then there’s also critical infrastructure. It comes back to this vision of the mega-machine, where instead of targeting individual technologies you target those critical for the machine to function. They want to strike those first because they will create a domino effect, where they affect all the technologies and the collapse of the system. You will find the attacks tend to cluster around specific targets.
How do you define technology here? Do you mean any kind of tech application? I’m hearing what you’re saying and thinking this may apply to more than AI.
Oh, of course. It’s not just AI. When these people think of technology they are not just thinking of devices but know-how, the ideology of progress, of social forces shaping society and how it works and how labor is organized. Technology is a complex entity, in a way.
In the early 2010s, for example, you saw attacks on facilities after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. More recently, you had attacks on companies making semiconductors and microchips, so if you take out microchips you cripple the system. And data centers have been discussed for quite some time — I wouldn’t be surprised if we see something happen there, as well. It’s about identifying technologies that all other tech depends on.
There’s an argument some of them make that there’s only one technology all the other depend on, which is electricity. That’s why we’ve seen attacks on power plants, on different targets related to power.
Are you speaking about organized groups? Discussions and forums? I’m sure you’re referencing people you know of, but help us get a better understanding.
When we look at the violent side of the coin we need to acknowledge first that these networks, these movements, reflect trends we’ve seen in political violence over the last few decades, trends that show us we’re in a post-organizational era of political violence. We have names, we have acronyms, but these names are not as important as they used to be. These are decentralized networks, often leaderless, that operate without solid hierarchies or chains of control. We’re not talking about organizations like Al-Qaeda or the Irish Republican Army. We’re talking about networks in which militants often do not know each other because they interact online.
Some of the networks that have been involved in these kinds of attacks are the Informal Anarchist Federation. It formed in 2003 in Italy and became a global entity around 2011. There’s the Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei, which emerged in Greece and then became international. And then there’s a series of ad hoc groups that have emerged over the decades, sometimes who are only known because they’ll release a communique after an attack. Like there’s Vulkan Group, which has carried out a series of attacks on Tesla factories in Germany. Or Individualists Tending to the Wild.
An affiliation to a network is not motivated by gaining material or support or leadership. It’s almost an identity factor because again, when these individuals carry out attacks on their own, they don’t rely on existing networks for support. They might also only be around for one or two attacks because it’s not the group that matters — it’s the network.
Is it just the rise of modern technology driving this violence? Are there other factors at play inciting events, creating this current wave of attacks?
One of the remarkable qualities of anti-tech extremism is that it’s quite flexible. The way this decentralized system works, especially on the anarchist or eco-extremist side, is one side will carry out an attack in a communique they publish online and then make a call for similar attacks on similar targets. Whether or not attacks occur is up to others in the network. If a campaign is considered not really appealing, this might not take place. If instead it’s deemed appealing, you’ll see more attacks.
Last year there was a campaign a French group started called Welcome Spring, Burn a Tesla, which resulted across Europe in a lot of Tesla dealerships being torched. There was some confusion because there was also a campaign against Elon Musk and Tesla, but that wasn’t carried out by people motivated by anti-tech violence, but instead Musk’s role in the U.S. government.
There can also be things people say that incite. In this case, there was an interview recently where Sam Altman basically said if AI is going to steal all the jobs, then maybe those jobs weren’t “real” in the first place. That type of statement is likely to make a few people annoyed. It’s hard to consider what type of development might constitute a catalyst for violence.
I’m struck by the way you’re describing this movement and the rhetoric and signals. I think about Alex Jones and, for example, the idea that 5G is going to brainwash people on behalf of globalists. Do you see anything in global politics providing kindling to this fire?
This is an interesting question because conspiracy thinking is widespread amongst these groups, that there’s this obscure force at work determining outcomes. But on the other hand it depends. In certain groups of people, there’s such a rejection to anything conventional that you’d find disagreement between those people and the political figures. In others, you might argue influencers or politicians who spread rumors about COVID vaccines or 5G that this idea resonates. For example, I don’t see anarchists paying attention to what a politician says because they’re a part of the problem to begin with.
What can be done to counterbalance this? Is there an oppositional force against this rising tide of anti-tech violence? I’ve been stunned to see the absence of any widespread outrage online at what’s transpired so far. Almost all the commentary has been “good, I’m glad this is happening.”
I’m not surprised you’re saying this about the commentary. I’ve been researching violence for years now, but this is the first time I’ve seen the narratives of extremists reflecting some objective concerns amongst people. It doesn’t mean all those other people are participating in the violence themselves, but concerns about AI are real. People are afraid and scared of these developments they don’t understand. But what they do understand is that it’ll have impacts on their lives, to the extent they’re able to comprehend it.
I think demonizing these concerns driving the violence would be a very foolish thing to do. It’ll confirm narratives of surveillance and control.
Right. I mean, some of these are valid concerns. Water, electricity, job loss, surveillance. All of that. But if demonizing this isn’t the right call, what can be done?
Short term, don’t securitize these concerns but do something to limit the violent manifestations. Most of the solutions will be long term. That’s not what people want. People want solutions with immediate effect.
You can divide the solutions into two groups. The first one is, stakeholders and those who develop technologies have to be responsibilized. Going back to that Altman interview, these kinds of comments are not doing us a favor in trying to solve the violence — not to mention other stakeholders can be even more incendiary. You can also limit the problem in how the technologies are used. If we see AI is used to monitor people at protests and demonstrations, acquire and execute attacks in warfare, it can only get worse from here. These applications of AI don’t do us a favor.
Then on a philosophical level, we all need to change the way we relate to technology. We need to go from a position where we think, “What does this allow me to do?” We need to instead think, “Within those activities, let’s select those that will further our connections with one another and with nature.”
What about eco-modernism? Techno-optimism? Are those ideologies solutions or antidotes? Or are they inadequate to address the sheer degree of pessimism and anxiety driving this violence?
From what I can see, doomerism and pessimism is now so widespread that I don’t think those ideologies can work. A lot of people in younger generations believe we are doomed. They believe climate change is going to ruin our lives. There’s wars, geopolitical conflicts. We’re stuck with dystopian visions of the future. This isn’t confined to anti-tech stuff, so therefore optimism has very limited effects.
What gives you hope?
That’s funny because I’m working on a project that concludes there’s no hope.
I didn’t think that was going to be a hard question.
There’s a growing acknowledgement that people may be too dependent on technology. Hopefully we’ll manage to be less dependent on technology and more conscious of what it’s doing to us. An awareness that AI has tremendous environmental impacts.
With acknowledgement is where you need to start. That’s the little hope I have.
Current conditions: A wave of summer heat is headed for the East Coast, with midweek temperatures surpassing 90 degrees Fahrenheit in Washington, D.C. • Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are bracing for winds of up to 190 miles per hour as Super Typhoon Sinlaku bears down on the U.S. territories • At least 30 people have died in floods in Yemen, which just recorded its highest rainfall in five years.
The Trump administration is holding up some funding for grants at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Hill reported. On April 1, the University of Colorado put out a statement saying that a federal pause on funding had put scientists who collect data about the atmosphere “at risk for elimination” after the White House Office of Management and Budget had “not released these funds.” The university’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences said that roughly 30 days before running out of funds to pay scientists, “we were informed that NOAA has put a pause on all grant actions.”
As I told you back in December, the Trump administration is also working to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, an institution credited with many of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of weather and climate over the past 66 years since its founding. In a post on X at the time, Russell Vought, the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, called the institute “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country,” and said the administration would be “breaking up” its operations.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is scheduled to testify Wednesday morning before the House Committee on Appropriations to defend the White House’s latest budget request for his agency. He’s not the only chieftain of a federal agency with relevance to Heatmap readers who’s coming before Congress this week.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection plans to launch the first phase of what’s called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries tool in the agency’s automated commercial secure data portal to allow companies to request refunds of Trump administration tariffs the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unlawful earlier this year. Solar companies are among the thousands of American businesses that filed complaints with the U.S. Court of International Trade for refunds prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Those, according to Solar Power World, include American Wire Group, Canadian Solar, GameChange Solar, Fluke, Hellerman Tyton, Kinematics, JA Solar, Jinko Solar, Longi, Merlin Solar, Qcells, and Trina Solar.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Established in early 2021, California Community Power is a quasi-governmental organization formed out of nine power providers across the Golden State. On Monday, the agency inked a series of deals with geothermal power developers to expand what’s widely considered one of the most promising clean-energy sources for California, which has some of the continent’s best hot-rock resources. XGS Energy, the Houston-based startup promising to build next-generation closed-loop geothermal systems, announced a deal to build 115 megawatts of power in the state. Zanskar, the geothermal company using AI to locate untapped conventional geothermal resources, also signed an agreement with the agency.
Zanskar in particular ranked among the most promising climate-tech startups on the U.S. market in Heatmap’s poll of experts earlier this year. The company last year announced its biggest find yet, Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported last year. XGS, meanwhile, is drawing support from the nuclear industry, as I previously reported for Heatmap.
The developer behind a major Massachusetts offshore wind farm is suing its turbine manufacturer in a bid to keep the company from backing out of the project. By February, the Vineyard Wind project off Cape Cod had installed 60 of the project’s 62 turbines, as I reported at the time. Yet the parent company behind GE Renewables, the maker of the project’s turbines, said “it would be terminating its contracts for turbine services and maintenance at the end of April,” the Associated Press reported. GE Vernova, the parent company, says Vineyard Wind owes it $300 million already.
The war in Iran is taking a toll on Central African minerals. Miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are curbing output of copper and cobalt as the war cuts supplies of sulfuric acid needed for leaching minerals out of rock, Reuters reported. Mine managers are reducing cobalt production to conserve chemicals.
The deal represents one of the largest public-private partnerships in the history of the national labs.
I’ll admit, I thought I might be done covering fresh fusion startups for a while. In the U.S., at least, the number of new industry entrants has slowed, and most venture capital now flows towards more established players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion. But in February, a startup called Inertia Enterprises made headlines with its $450 million Series A raise. It’s aiming to commercialize fusion using the physics pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the only place yet to achieve scientific breakeven — the point at which a fusion reaction produces more energy than it took to initiate it.
That achievement first came in 2022 at the lab’s National Ignition Facility in Berkeley, California. On Tuesday, Inertia announced that it’s deepening its partnership with Lawrence Livermore, creating one of the largest private sector-led partnerships in the history of the national lab system. This collaboration involves three separate agreements that allow Inertia to work directly with the lab’s employees on research and development, while also giving the startup access to nearly 200 Lawrence Livermore patents covering fusion technology.
The startup’s team isn’t merely a group of enthusiasts galvanized by the national lab’s fusion milestone. Alongside Twilio’s former CEO Jeff Lawson and fusion power plant designer Mike Dunne, Inertia’s other co-founders is Annie Kritcher, a senior employee at Lawrence Livermore who has led the physics design for NIF’s fusion energy experiments since 2019.
“We’re not starting from zero,” Kritcher told me, putting it mildly. “And that was really, really important to me when I decided to co-found this company.” Or as Lawson told me after the company’s fundraise in February, “the government put 60 years and $30 billion into NIF trying to get that thing to work.”
The technical approach pursued by Lawrence Livermore — and now by Inertia — is called inertial confinement fusion. In this system, high-powered lasers are directed at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, typically a mixture of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium. The laser energy rapidly compresses and heats the pellet to extreme temperatures and pressures, driving the nuclei to fuse and releasing enormous amounts of energy. But NIF didn’t build its system for commercial purposes. Rather, its primary mission is to support the domestic nuclear weapons stockpile by recreating the extreme conditions inside a nuclear detonation, allowing scientists to study how U.S. weapons perform without conducting explosive tests.
To translate the lab’s research into a commercially viable device, Kritcher explained, Inertia must significantly increase the lasers’ efficiency and power output, targeting a system roughly 50 times more powerful than existing lasers of its class. The startup is also working to scale production of its fusion targets to drive down costs and enable mass manufacturing.
Inertia is not the only company attempting to commercialize this general approach, however. Back in 2021, as Lawrence Livermore moved closer to its breakeven moment, the future founders of the startup Xcimer Energy were taking note. Convinced that the fundamental physics of inertial confinement had been proven, they thought, “if we’re going to do this, we have to do it now,” Xcimer's CTO, Alexander Valys, told me a few years ago. He and his co-founder quit their day jobs, and Xcimer went on to raise a $100 million Series A round in 2024. Others joined in on the hype, too — the Fusion Industry Association reports 13 fusion companies that were founded or emerged from stealth between summer 2022 and summer 2023, a record for the sector.
Kritcher told me that none are adhering as closely to NIF’s successful design as Inertia. “There are fundamental technical differences between us and the other laser approaches,” she told me, explaining that while Xcimer and others are using broadly similar methodologies to produce a hot, dense plasma, the underlying physics behind their plan diverges significantly. Xcimer, for instance, is developing a novel laser architecture that hasn’t yet been demonstrated at scale, along with a different fuel capsule design than the one validated by NIF.
Kritcher will be allowed to continue her work at the lab thanks to what the company describes as a “first-of-its-kind agreement” enabled by the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, which allows scientists at the national labs to participate in commercialization efforts with the goal of accelerating the transfer of knowledge to the private sector.
For the fusion engineer, it’s the ultimate dream come true. She first arrived at Lawrence Livermore as a summer intern in 2004, just before her senior year at the University of Michigan, and “fell in love with the lab and the NIF project,” which was still under construction at the time. She opted to attend the University of California, Berkeley for her masters and PhD in nuclear engineering so that she could continue her work there.
“I was starstruck by the possibility of fusion energy and [it having] such a big impact on humanity, and that really kept me going for a long time,” she told me. But after the NIF facility was finally completed in 2009, it failed to achieve ignition by its initial 2012 target.
By then, Kritcher was a postdoctoral fellow, and attention at NIF began to shift toward supporting the nation’s nuclear stockpile. Fusion energy was “always in the back of my mind, driving me day to day,” she said, “but you sort of forget about it, and you lose a little bit of that excitement and spark.” Under her guidance, NIF ultimately reached that watershed moment, which has since been replicated numerous times. And when it did, "it just reopened all those old inspirational feelings and motivations and excitement and it was like a 180 turning point where we all just go, oh, fusion energy is possible again with this approach.”
Many of the lab’s employees feel similarly, she said, and this close collaboration will allow some of the nation’s foremost experts in inertial confinement to work with the startup across a range of technical capabilities, including “the laser side, the target fabrication side, the simulations team side, the code development side, our physics design side,” Kritcher enumerated.
Inertia is looking to bring its first pilot plant online in the “2030s to 2040s,” she told me. By contrast, Commonwealth Fusion Systems — the most well-capitalized company in the sector — plans to connect its first plant to the grid early next decade, while Xcimer is targeting 2035. Kritcher is unfazed, though. While she acknowledges that other companies might complete their facilities sooner, she argues that Inertia still has an upper hand given that NIF effectively serves as the startup’s demonstration plant, something no other company has built.
Not to mention that all of the sector’s projected timelines remain highly speculative. There are serious technical and economic challenges that would-be fusion energy companies will have to overcome — Inertia not excepted — and the industry’s status 10 years down the line remains anyone’s guess. What’s crystal clear, however, is that a serious new contender has entered the race.