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:
C’mon Ford. Don’t let me down.

Automakers sit at the towering heights of global capitalism. Nearly every important industry or commodity — steel, rubber, chemicals, semiconductors, minerals, and, of course, oil — feeds into car-making. Car companies receive so much government support that their brands often come to symbolize the state itself: Volkswagen, Toyota, and Ford are arguably more tied up with their countries’ national histories than, say, currywurst, sushi, or cheeseburgers.
Undertaking the construction of a wholly new car is such an expensive and arduous challenge that multiple automakers will often collaborate on it, creating a “platform” that involves a shared chassis and a set of interlocking components.
So it would be folly — if not outright delusion — to look at one of these companies and tell them that they should make a car for no reason other than that you want them to. Surely Ford Motor Company has better things to do than read a column and decide to shift its product line accordingly.
But that is what I’m going to do.
Ford should take its compact Maverick pickup truck — the smallest truck in their fleet — and release it as a plug-in hybrid. Here are the seven reasons why.
I like little trucks. I realize this is a character deficiency, and a somewhat unusual vice for my demographic: I’m a city-dwelling climate-change reporter who has no particular love for the canyon-face monsters that make up most modern pickup lines. But it’s hopefully a forgivable one.
Forty years ago, if you wanted a compact pickup, you could have bought the trusty little Ford Ranger, a 15-foot bear cub of a truck that weighed a mere ton and could haul up to 1,600 pounds. The Ranger was a revolution, signaling that American automakers weren’t content to cede the compact pickup market to Japanese brands like Mazda and Toyota.

Then compact pickups began to vanish. Toyota’s sprightly Tacoma, once a tail-wagger of a utility vehicle, slowly became super-sized. Ford stopped making the Ranger in 2012. By the middle of the 2010s, essentially no small trucks were available on the American market
Recently, compacts have started to come back. Ford brought back the Ranger, although the new model is as sleek and functional as a linebacker. Hyundai has released the Santa Cruz, the closest thing in America to the venerable Australian ute. Then in 2021, Ford started making the Maverick. At 16-feet long and 3,600 pounds, it’s bulkier and heavier — but not much bigger — than the chipper Rangers of yore. The Maverick is so popular that Ford had to stop taking orders for it last year. And while the Mav is currently offered as a hybrid … Ford could do better.
I take it as a given that Ford will eventually release an all-electric Maverick. But in the meantime, a plug-in hybrid would be potentially more useful. Here’s why.
A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or PHEV, is just what it sounds like: a car or truck that has a gas tank and a battery that gets a little bit of range — maybe 30 miles. That larger battery differentiates a PHEV from a conventional hybrid, like the Prius (or the current Maverick hybrid), whose battery can only propel the car shorter distances or regenerate energy during braking.
PHEVs are more expensive than hybrids, and they have a reputation for being, well, the jazz choirs of power trains: By trying to do too much at once, they don’t do anything well.
Theoretically, you can use the gas tank in a PHEV as a backup power source, making short errands using only the battery. But a recent study from Transport & Environment, a European think tank, found that some PHEVs fell short of their advertised electric range, and therefore emitted five to seven times as much CO₂ in cities as claimed. And because of the weight of their batteries, PHEVs also require more gasoline than conventional hybrids.
But for all their downsides, PHEVs remain the best way for city-dwellers like me who don’t have EV chargers at home to take part in the EV revolution. I also only drive a few times a month — probably not often enough to justify locking up precious (and still scarce) EV metals in a vehicle that will mostly sit around on the street. Most of my trips are to the grocery store, which has charging in the parking lot. For a certain kind of consumer — i.e., me, the city-dwelling compact-pickup lover — a PHEV is ideal for right now.
According to MotorTrend, someone spotted a Ford Maverick last year with all-wheel drive and a PHEV power train. So it’s out there. It might be sitting in a Batcave-style basement somewhere in Michigan, but someone has done it.
“There’s no current need for a PHEV,” Mike Levine, a Ford spokesman, told me in an email, when I told him I was writing this story.
The “Maverick hybrid is incredibly efficient (40 mpg city) and affordable. The EPA estimates that Maverick hybrid’s total annual fuel cost is just $1,500,” he said. On top of that, Ford only sells one PHEV at the moment: a Ford Escape variant that goes for about $40,000. The Maverick, by comparison, starts at about $22,500.
Let’s stipulate a few things. The first is that even if the United States aggressively ramps up the rollout of electric vehicles, gasoline — which is a fossil fuel! — will be available for a long time. The Biden administration hopes that EVs will make up 50% of new car sales in 2030 and 66% of new sales in 2032. That means that gas-burning cars will by definition make up half of the new car fleet in 2030 and one-third of the fleet in 2032. Under the EPA’s current proposal, most new heavy-duty trucks sold in those years will burn gasoline or diesel, too.
A rollout that quick may be delusional — you can make a plausible case that the EV transition will go faster or slower than the government believes. But if we assume that it’s a plausible base case, then we can also conclude that gas-burning cars will remain on the road well into the late 2040s. They might be costly to run and face extremely high fees in some places; driving one may incur some social stigma, like smoking indoors today; gasoline itself may even become a specialty rural fuel. But without a mandatory federal buy-back program of internal-combustion cars, it will probably be no rarer to see a gas car in the year 2050 than it is to see, say, a Subaru Baja today.
And that will be bad. Fossil fuels cause climate change. We should aim to eliminate them from society as soon as possible. But if you are alive in the 2040s, God willing, then you probably won’t be running to the Wal-mazon Mart in a gas car. Most vehicle miles traveled in the year 2050 probably won’t involve gasoline or diesel.
But it’s plausible that you, you Aging Millennial, may — you just may — have a gas-powered truck in your garage, one that you almost never use but that reminds you of your younger, freer days. One that mostly sits there, smiling idly, til you take it out to give the grandkids a ride around the farm or haul the occasional stump. A trusty, plastic-cladded friend. A golden retriever of a vehicle.
A plug-in hybrid Ford Maverick.
Can you help your friend move with a Prius Prime? Can you carry some flat-packed bookshelves home from an Ikea run? Can you carry an unused mattress to the dump? Don’t answer that because you actually can do all three things with a Prius. But it would be way more fun to do it with a truck.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Last Energy’s milestone, California CCS, and RFK Jr. vs. microplastics
Current conditions: The summerlike heat in the Northeast is set to drop by double digits as cold Canadian air blows southward, sending temperatures in Boston as low as 50 degrees Fahrenheit by Saturday • Temperatures are nearing 100 degrees in Cordoba, Spain, as Western Europe’s record-breaking heatwave continues • Juba is also nearly 100 degrees as heavy thunderstorms roll into the capital of conflict-riven South Sudan.
Last year, in a move so bold it made Biden administration officials jealous, President Donald Trump took an equity stake in MP Materials, making the federal government the largest shareholder in the United States’ only active domestic rare earths producer. The deal became a trend, with the U.S. government taking minority ownership stakes in at least a dozen more companies that produce or process critical minerals, of which China controls the global supply. In January, USA Rare Earth, a manufacturer of rare earth magnets that aims to eventually mine and process fresh ore in Texas, became the second large rare earths-focused company in the Trump administration’s portfolio. Now America’s two champions in the war against China’s metal monopolies are instead battling each other. On Wednesday afternoon, the Financial Times reported that MP Materials had filed a lawsuit against USA Rare Earth, accusing its rival of “stealing” its technology for making the permanent magnets that go into everything from phones and electronics to electric vehicles to fighter jets. “USA Rare Earth has repeatedly failed to meet its commercial and performance targets and is now resorting to stealing technology to dig itself out,” MP Materials alleged in a complaint filed last week in Texas court. In response, USA Rare Earth said: “MP Materials’ complaint has misrepresented our company, our culture, and our people, and we will defend ourselves vigorously.”
Yet another U.S. reactor startup hoping to build a prototype plant under the Department of Energy’s reactor pilot program has won the agency’s approval for its safety blueprint. On Thursday, Last Energy plans to announce the regulator’s official endorsement of the microreactor developer’s preliminary documented safety analysis — a key procedural step known as PDSA — for its 5-megawatt demonstration reactor at Texas A&M University. The reactor, set to be a quarter the size of Last Energy’s commercial-scale model, is designed to show regulators the technology can safely split atoms and generate heat for electricity production. The approval is only from the Energy Department and limited to the pilot project. To produce commercial electricity, Last Energy still needs to go through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license. But the data from this pilot project is likely to count for Last Energy’s eventual application to the NRC for its first commercial plant. “Last Energy’s PWR-5 uses the same physical reactor geometry as the company’s commercial PWR-20, with reduced fuel enrichment scaled for 5 megawatts of electrical output,” the company told me. “The PWR-5 pilot project is a direct bridge to Last Energy’s commercial PWR-20 deployment.”
The approval makes Last Energy at least the fourth company so far to pass the PDSA phase after rival microreactor developers Antares, Radiant, and Deployable Energy. But it isn’t the only one. On Wednesday afternoon, an official at the Idaho National Laboratory posted on LinkedIn that he had approved the PDAS for two reactors in the Energy Department’s pilot program. It wasn't immediately clear which company was the second after Last Energy. “I couldn’t be prouder of the exemptional nuclear safety review team,” wrote Bob Boston, the Energy Department’s Idaho operations manager. “The public can rest assured that any and all approvals for new reactors under DOE will be safe.”
Two of the most populous states in the nation’s largest electric grid just released new rules for data centers looking to set up shop. In Pennsylvania, the largest state in PJM Interconnection, Governor Josh Shapiro issued a new set of standards for companies seeking to fast-track development, including requiring developers to generate their own electricity, give out millions of dollars in local support, and follow stricter sustainability rules on water. The Democrat, per the public radio station WVIA, “also wants to change a tax exemption program for data center owners and operators” to require companies to meet the new standards to qualify for tax breaks. The idea mirrors a proposal from Searchlight Institute senior fellow Jane Flegal, who argued last month for conditioning tax incentives on meeting best-practice industry standards for data centers. In New Jersey, the sixth-largest of PJM’s 13 states, Democratic Governor Mikie Sherrill released her own set of guidelines for data center companies that includes requiring public reporting of water and electricity usage and plans to develop “strong statewide standards” that provide “state resources to ensure municipalities can negotiate from positions of strength, ensuring data centers address impacts like light, noise, and pollution while making meaningful local investments” and “delivering good-paying jobs.”
Meanwhile in Alaska, where the Trump administration is clearing the way for all kinds of new infrastructure, the Anchorage-based startup Stak Energy is proposing one of the largest data centers in the nation on the Arctic North Slope. The $500 million project would take up an entire square mile with multiple buildings off the Dalton Highway, where proponents say cold temperatures and an abundant supply of land and natural gas for power can bolster the facility. The project could, according to the Northern Journal, produce up to 3 gigawatts of power for its own use, “making it competitive with some of the largest data centers under development in the Lower 48.” In a Tuesday segment on Alaska Public Radio, Northern Journal reporter Nathaniel Herz said the below-freezing average temperature on the North Slope meant the project would “be using what they expect to be 90% less water than a facility in the Lower 48.” Perhaps the biggest benefit though is the sparse population in the Arctic. As Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer explained of the latest Heatmap Pro data, the number of data center projects being canceled due to public backlash is soaring.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Deep under California’s traffic-clogged streets, rolling farmland, and sprawling deserts are vast caverns — many the legacy of wells drained of oil during the heyday of Chevron’s Great Depression-era homestate drilling bonanza — capable of storing carbon dioxide captured before it enters the atmosphere. Until now, the state could only theoretically return carbon to the Earth’s crust. But on Tuesday, the oil and carbon management developer California Resources Corporation injected its maiden load of carbon dioxide into a depleted oil reservoir, marking the first time a carbon capture and storage project has come online in the state’s history. The project, called Carbon TerraVault I, is located in Kern County, the vast inland stretch northeast of Santa Barbara that’s home to California’s largest active oil fields. The site will draw out the dregs of oil left in the depleted wells in the Elk Hills Field by permanently returning up to 30 million tons of carbon dioxide to the formation roughly a mile deep underground. It’s part of a vertically integrated operation. California Resources Corporation, which calls itself CRC, operates a nearby cryogenic gas plant. The company captures the carbon dioxide from the facility and ships it to the so-called Class IV well in the oil and gas field. The first injection “demonstrates that California can lead on climate solutions that are practical, scalable, and cost-effective,” CRC CEO Francisco Leon said in a statement. Investors remain skeptical. Shares of CRC fell nearly 3% yesterday.
With gas turbines selling faster than manufacturers can keep up, technology that could capture carbon from gas-fired plants and thus preserve their value even in a scenario where the government prices emissions commands a new premium. It wasn’t long ago that activists uniformly dismissed the technology as a “false solution,” and experts cautioned that carbon capture and storage would be limited to hard-to-abate industrial sectors. But last October, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported, Google backed a project to build a gas plant with CCS, launching what may be one of the most promising efforts yet to commercialize the technology.
Fresh off wrangling a biting pair of eastern racer snakes he grabbed off the patio of Dr. Oz’s vacation home, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is trying to find ways to round up and get rid of the microscopic plastic particles circulating in Americans’ bodies. A new $144 million program, launched last month but featured in E&E News on Wednesday, aims to measure, understand, and remove micro- and nanoplastics, and marks the biggest federal investment to date in a field of study that coalesced just five years ago.
While the move was “welcomed by researchers, industry, environmental, and Make American Healthy Again advocates as well as online wellness gurus promoting nascent ‘detoxification’ methods,” the newswire quoted Kennedy’s own experts, who said the controversial health government chief was “focused on the wrong questions.” Marcus Eriksen, a marine plastics scientist who heads up the nonprofit 5 Gyres Institute and has advised Kennedy for years, said: “Getting it out of our bodies? That seems extremely tough to me.” So, why put resources there? Well, Eriksen said, it’s politically easier to sell than cracking down on the fossil fuel companies with growing businesses producing the ingredients for plastics. “I get that’s kind of the narrative that’s going to fly with this administration — focus on the downstream stuff, less on the prevention side,” he said.

For all the hype around small modular reactors, only two of the 440 some-odd commercial nuclear reactors in operating in the world today would qualify. One of them is a high-temperature gas-cooled plant in China, which generates 210 megawatts of electricity. (The cutoff for what qualifies as an SMR is widely agreed to be under 300 megawatts but over 20 megawatts, the threshold for microreactors.) The other was the world’s first SMR: Russia’s floating nuclear plant on a barge in the Siberian Arctic, capable of generating 70 megawatts of power. Nearly seven years after the vessel Akademik Lomonosov started producing electricity, Russia’s state-owned nuclear firm is preparing for another floating nuclear station. On Wednesday, World Nuclear News reported that Rosatom had finished manufacturing a 58-megawatt reactor for a serialized floating power station set to power a copper mining complex in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, in the country’s northeasternmost corner. “Rosatom continues to expand its range of floating power units, and the completion of the first reactor for the lead floating nuclear power unit is a significant milestone,” Alexey Likhachev, the director general of Rosatom, said in a statement. “Today, Russia is the only country with an operating floating nuclear power plant, and we intend to maintain our leadership in the development of small-scale technologies.”
An investment boom is exploding in outer space. Investors have thrown their backing behind space-based solar power, orbital data centers, and even extraterrestrial power grids. SpaceX is pursuing an IPO — potentially the largest the world has ever seen — in part to fund its own off-Earth data center ambitions. The Space Foundation reported that the global space economy reached $613 billion in 2024, combining commercial revenue and government funding, while PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the sector could grow to reach $2 trillion by 2040, largely driven by private sector innovation and support.
Different though they may be, these technologies all leverage the vast unknown outside our atmosphere to monitor, manage, and optimize terrestrial energy and climate systems.
This boom comes after roughly a decade of sharply falling launch costs, which has fueled a surge in satellite deployments for telecommunications and remote sensing applications. Together, these shifts have expanded the scope of what’s technically and economically possible in space — and in turn, broadened the range of systems and services needed to make this off-Earth infrastructure work.
“We’ve got over 14,000 satellites in space already, and that’s growing every day. It’s going to triple over the next five, six years,” Jeff Johnson, a general partner at the venture firm B Capital, told me. “And if you look at the other trend that’s happening, the power requirements for what’s going up in space have been growing dramatically and will continue to do so.” As Johnson explained, that’s because we’re asking satellites to do more — and to do it faster — than ever before: deliver high-speed internet globally, extend cell coverage in remote areas, and perform onboard data processing before transmitting imagery and other information down to Earth.
SpaceX, of course, has been the dominant force driving down launch costs while dramatically increasing the scale of satellite deployments with its partially reusable Falcon 9 rockets. More recently, it’s laid out an ambitious plan to put 100 gigawatts of “AI compute satellites” into orbit each year, with launches beginning as soon as 2028. As the company wrote in its S-1 filing ahead of its pending IPO, “we believe orbital AI compute is an incredibly difficult technical challenge that only we can solve at scale in the near term.” It also acknowledged, however, that the effort involves “significant technical complexity, unproven technologies, or technologies that do not exist,” and that ultimately, “such initiatives may not achieve commercial viability.”
It’s a startlingly frank assessment of an industry that holds both great potential and significant uncertainty. Much of SpaceX’s growth strategy — and likely the prospects of numerous other companies looking to launch large infrastructure into space — hinges on the success of its next-generation rocket called Starship. Designed to be fully reusable and much larger than any rocket built before, Starship will be capable of carrying roughly five to six times the volume and over eight times the massas Falcon 9. Throughout its 12 test launches so far, the rocket has seen both success and failures, accumulating mounting delays along the way.
The uncertainty around Starship’s future is one reason Johnson’s firm invested in Star Catcher, a startup that bills itself as “the first power grid in space.” He doesn’t view the startup’s value proposition as dependent on Starship’s success, betting that it can serve as critical infrastructure for satellites already in orbit today — not just for the bigger and better systems that future launch vehicles could enable.
Founded less than two years ago, Star Catcher is developing a laser-based system to beam solar energy to satellites in low Earth orbit, supplying additional power directly to their solar arrays even when they’re in Earth’s shadow. This enables satellites to perform ever more power-intensive operations. It also addresses a fundamental constraint of satellite design: A satellite is only as powerful as the size of its solar array, which must be small enough to fit inside a rocket and also degrades over time.
“The average satellite in the Earth’s orbit has like 1,500 watts of power generation, which is as much as my kids’ gaming computer uses,” Andrew Rush, Star Catcher’s CEO, told me. “But we’re saying that satellite is going to be a cell tower, it’s going to be a data center, and those are multi-kilowatt, tens of kilowatts, hundreds of kilowatts applications. There’s a big disconnect there.”
B Capital led Star Catcher’s oversubscribed $65 million Series A round, which closed earlier this month. The fresh capital will help the company demonstrate its system in orbit and move towards commercialization. Star Catcher plans to launch its own constellation of power node satellites with the sole purpose of harnessing energy from the sun — or, as Rush quipped, “the greatest fusion reactor known to humankind.” Each node will then beam that energy to other power-hungry satellites by directing concentrated, near-infrared laser light at their solar panels. This type of light can deliver far greater power density than diffuse sunlight, providing satellites with a roughly 10-fold increase in power capacity compared to what they would generate alone.
As Rush explained, this then enables both satellite and rocket companies to “shrink the size of the solar arrays, and therefore, shrink the size of the spacecraft — actually make it less complex, less massive, and therefore less costly to field.” Already, he said the startup has signed seven power purchase agreements with satellite companies such as Loft Orbital and Astro Digital, as well as agreements or letters of intent with “almost every orbital data center startup” including Starcloud, which wants to begin offering cloud computing in space by early 2027.
For its part, Star Catcher aims to scale commercially by the end of the decade. Rush argues that just as bringing data processing closer to mobile users on the ground speeds up browsing and streaming, the growth of satellite broadband will create demand for the same infrastructure in space. That means everything from caching streaming content to running AI inference and processing satellite data in orbit, thus reducing the latency involved with routing everything to space and back.
While Star Catcher is focused on providing grid infrastructure for conventional satellites and orbital data centers, another recently funded startup, Cowboy Space, wants to build those data centers itself — and the rockets that will bring them to space. The company was founded in 2024 under the name Aetherflux, with the goal of beaming solar energy from space down to Earth. But with its latest $275 million Series B fundraise earlier this month, the company unveiled both a new name and a new mission.
Modern rocket designs from SpaceX — Cowboy Space’s most formidable competitor — pair a reusable lower section with a disposable upper section that carries satellites into orbit mounted at the rocket’s tip. After that upper section releases the satellite into orbit, the now purposeless component drifts through space, eventually burning up as it reenters Earth’s atmosphere. But Cowboy Space aims to transform what would otherwise be discarded debris into an orbital, 1-megawatt data center, integrating hundreds of Nvidia chips into the rocket’s upper section.
“We started with a blank sheet of paper with a goal of packing as many GPUs as tightly and densely as possible, and getting them to space,” Joseph Yaffe, the startup’s COO, told me over email. “We believe that this is a first-of-its-kind approach — the launch vehicle and the orbital data center designed as a single integrated system from day one.”
He told me that existing launch providers couldn’t offer the launch capacity or flexibility that Cowboy Space needs, and that the economics just wouldn’t pencil unless they did it themselves. Of course that’s an extremely tall order. SpaceX currently dominates the market for private rocket launches, a sector notoriously littered with failures. Only a few other private companies have even managed to make a dent in the space, and they’re still far behind Elon Musk’s industry giant.
Yaffe naturally thinks his company is well-positioned to become the exception, and prominent backers such as Index Ventures, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, and Andreessen Horowitz seem to agree. The startup is targeting the end of 2028 for its first proprietary rocket launch. Eventually, Cowboy Space plans to deliver processing power on par with conventional data centers, with Yaffe explaining that “abundant solar power and radiative cooling in orbit are what make that cost structure achievable.”
It’s true that space-based data centers would not require the same energy- and water-intensive fans, chillers, or cooling towers used on Earth, instead dissipating heat into space via infrared radiation — essentially emitting thermal energy as invisible light. But using today’s technology, power dense satellites can’t radiate heat quickly enough to sustain AI workloads, and how Cowboy Space plans to overcome this remains an open question. Even Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang acknowledged the difficulty, remarking in a recent keynote address at the GPU Technology Conference in San Jose that “we have to figure out how to cool these systems out in space.”
But if Cowboy Space and others can overcome these technical hurdles, there are some clear advantages to putting data centers into orbit. For one, building these energy-hungry behemoths has become a fraught political issue on both sides of the aisle, with local opposition exploding this year. Then there are the familiar constraints of limited power availability and interminably long grid interconnection queues, which are preventing hyperscalers from ramping up their AI efforts as quickly — and cleanly — as they’d like.
“AI demand is growing faster than terrestrial infrastructure can scale,” Yaffe argues. He’s betting that this dynamic will hold even if policy fixes such as permitting reform eventually materialize. “Orbital data centers aren’t a replacement for terrestrial infrastructure. The long-term opportunity is about expanding total compute capacity.”
Likewise, Johnson of B Capital doesn’t see the primary value proposition of orbital data centers as alleviating power or permitting constraints. “The reason why things are moving to space isn’t because we don’t have telecommunications that work right on Earth, it’s because new use cases are getting unlocked that are better,” he told me. “The first time you’re on a plane and use Startlink, you see that. The first time you need to be somewhere that isn’t really served well by Wi-Fi, and you use it, you see that. So there’s use cases that are transformational that can get unlocked by the space economy”
Not everyone is as bullish, however. Luigi Scatteia, the lead of PwC’s global space practice, told me he expects there to be “some form of data relay in orbit.” That might look more like space-based computing networks processing data from Earth observation satellites, as we’re already seeing the beginnings of today. But full-on data centers with the capabilities of terrestrial server farms? Launched from rockets? “I’m just going to say what my professor in university always used to tell us: Anything you do on Earth is always going to be more difficult in space.”
He, too, thinks the real unlock for orbital data centers and beyond would be “if Starship really works as intended,” he told me. “If you really want to do massive things in space — if you want to have a paradigm shift, a Copernican change — you need to drastically raise the capacity and lower the cost to orbit.”
No question these are two incredibly difficult tasks, not just for SpaceX but for the broader ecosystem of emerging space startups betting that private industry can fundamentally reshape the space economy. But according to Rush of Star Catcher, investors are now increasingly willing to take that bet too, in a way they weren’t when he first entered the industry a decade ago.
“Now, there’s the full spectrum of capital available, from seed all the way through IPO and beyond,” Rush told me. And that money is flowing to “really every flavor of space company. And so just by that metric alone, this is the golden age to build in space.”
Current conditions: The French government has recorded at least seven deaths linked to the record early heatwave roasting Western Europe • New York City’s springtime temperature swing is surging upward to about 85 degrees Fahrenheit before dropping back into the 60s later this week • Temperatures in Berbera, the prized Red Sea port city in the de facto independent state of Somaliland, are revving up to 100 degrees today.
The Trump administration is considering handing over leftover weapons-grade plutonium that was set to be buried to companies that aim to use the highly radioactive material as reactor fuel. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy selected five finalists to submit plans to safely transfer the plutonium from a government stockpile. The companies include fuel maker Standard Nuclear, waste reprocessor Exodys Energy, fusion company Shine Technologies, and reactor developers Flibe Energy and Oklo. The move is sure to draw criticism from non-proliferation experts who worry that, unlike the low-enriched uranium used as fuel in conventional reactors, plutonium increases the threat of a rogue actor obtaining material for a bomb. “Countries have tried this before, and they concluded that, as nice as it would be to use that plutonium as fuel, it’s really just a liability and we need to dispose of it permanently,” Scott Roecker, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told The New York Times. In an emailed statement to me, Shine Technologies CEO Greg Piefer said the access to fuel solves “one of the hardest problems in the advanced reactor industry right now.”

China is constructing more reactors at home than any other country by far, and it’s gotten quite good at building its standardized designs for large light water reactors faster and more cheaply than anyone else in the business. Yet Beijing has been slow to make export deals, so far selling just six reactors to two separate power plants in Pakistan. But the People’s Republic is stepping up. With a growing number of countries now seeking to build their first or latest nuclear stations, China is now bidding on major projects. Beijing went head to head with Washington in Riyadh when offering to build Saudi Arabia’s first atomic power station. Now China has submitted what Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic called “an incredible proposal” to build what would be the country’s first nuclear project in a European country, according to NucNet. It’s part of a broader investment scheme that includes $1.1 billion to boost production of artificial intelligence, automobiles, and robots, Bloomberg reported.
That’s far from the country where green technology is finding ways out of China. On Tuesday, InsideEVs reported that Jeep-owner Stellantis is considering manufacturing Chinese-branded cars in Mexico and Canada. Stellantis already owns a majority stake in the Chinese joint venture Leapmotor, and maintains a small North American factory footprint for the brand. The company is using one of its factories in Spain to produce Leapmotor cars in Europe, and now it’s also in talks with the Chinese automaker Dongfeng about adding its more expensive Voyah models to its lineup in France. Still, Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa warned that such vehicles won’t be hitting American streets anytime soon. “I believe that there is space in Mexico. There is, maybe, space in Canada. We’ll see,” Filosa told CNBC. “Now there is no space in the United States. We don’t see that.” Maybe not for long. As Heatmap contributor Andrew Moseman put it in January: “Chinese EVs are at the gates.”
The United States achieved energy dominance over Europe as the continent started buying loads of liquified natural gas from America to replace pipeline fuel that once flowed west from Russia once the war in Ukraine began. The Iran War looked set to only deepen that advantage as the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz kept shipments of Qatari LNG at bay. But North America’s other big energy producer is muscling in. On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Canada had struck a deal to export up to a million metric tons of LNG to Germany each year from a Pacific Coast terminal in British Columbia. The first deliveries would be due in the early 2030s, and the contract would continue for 20 years. Officials told the newspaper the deal would be announced today.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last week, I told you about Otovo, a U.S. -Norwegian startup that billed itself as a kind of AAA for rooftop solar panels and other home energy systems. Founded by the former chief executive of the bankrupt solar installer Sunnova, Otovo aims to serve the very customers “orphaned” by the Chapter 11 and left without a go-to company to fix faulty panels, batteries, or generators. So far, Otovo has built a base of about 30,000 customers subscribed to its repair service, two-thirds of whom are in Europe. On Wednesday morning, I can report exclusively for this newsletter, the company plans to announce that it acquired the customer book from SunSystem Technology. The customer base covers nine U.S. states, nearly tripling Otovo’s footprint to 14 states in total. The deal marks Otovo’s seventh acquisition since its relaunch less than a year ago.
Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published an interim final rule axing a key step from the environmental review process for large, federally-backed developments. Environmental assessments conducted by HUD staff on projects with more than 200 units will now, according to E&E News, “no longer need an additional review by the field environmental clearance officer.” The change, set to take effect June 22, is meant to streamline affordable housing construction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s effort to smooth the permitting rules for companies looking to start a whole new sector the deep seafloor is similarly picking up pace. The Metals Company, the U.S.-Canadian startup that helped pioneer the latest effort at establishing a global industry, is the well-known frontrunner racing for U.S. approval, even as the United Nations body that regulates commerce in international waters has yet to lay out its own ground rules for tapping the ocean floor for minerals. As I told you back in March, that U.N. entity, the International Seabed Authority, promised to broker a deal for a global permitting regime this summer. In the meantime, E&E News reports that at least eight ventures are now vying for federal permits in the U.S.
Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft were among the companies to sign onto a new initiative designed to support investment in next-generation energy and materials technologies meant to reduce the environmental impact of data centers. The Data Center Innovation Initiative, organized by the nonprofit investor group Elemental Impact, “will test and validate critical technologies in data center environments, creating potential pathways for future adoption across broader energy and industrial sectors.” Other participants include Salesforce and Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy. “Data centers are uniquely positioned to serve as catalysts for clean energy and sustainable building materials,” Nat Sahlstrom, Meta’s vice president of energy and sustainability, said in a press release. “By sharing what we learn together, we can support entrepreneurs to scale faster and move these innovations to real-world impact.”
Update: This article originally misidentified a signatory of the Data Center Innovation Initiative. It has since been corrected. We regret the error.