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:
It’s the unofficial start of COP28.

Today marks the start of international climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany that will set the stage for COP28, the much splashier, more decisive U.N. climate meeting in Abu Dhabi this November.
The Bonn talks are an annual affair, something like a prep meeting for the main event. Heads of state don’t typically attend, and the meetings don’t attract crowds of climate activists the way COPs do. But the rest of each country’s team of experts and negotiators will be there to pick up where the previous COP left off and start to hammer out how to continue the progress at the next one.
“This is when the work gets done,” explained Mandy Rambharos, the vice president of global climate cooperation at the Environmental Defense Fund. Rambharos was a negotiator for the South African government for 20 years before joining the U.S. nonprofit. “You get down to the nitty gritty of it, in preparation for further negotiations at COP — the idea being that we should get to as much agreement as we can between the parties.”
The main item on this year’s agenda has a grandiose title — the first global stocktake. As part of the Paris Agreement, countries decided to come together every five years, starting in 2023, to do a comprehensive assessment of how much progress has been made toward its goals on climate mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Bonn sessions will finish up what’s called the “technical dialogue” on the global stocktake.
“It really is like standing up in front of the class and presenting your homework and getting criticized on it,” said Rambharos. Delegates will discuss what policies they’ve implemented, what emissions reductions or adaptation solutions they’ve achieved, and what can be done to close the gaps.
You may have come across reports from the United Nations or groups like Climate Action Tracker that evaluate just how behind countries are on the Paris Agreement goals every year. Rambharos said the global stocktake is much more granular, with countries reporting not just what they have or haven’t accomplished, but what they need in order to go further. In that sense it could create a more precise picture of the financial and technological needs of developing countries, which are still waiting for the $100 billion per year they were promised by rich countries for climate solutions. Last week, Reuters published an explosive investigation finding that some of the funds distributed thus far have gone to irrelevant projects like chocolate shops, a hotel, and a feature film.
Ultimately, if the Bonn talks are a success, negotiators will leave having identified gaps in implementation, and will be able to bring recommendations to the table at COP28. When the global stocktake officially ends in December, it will hopefully conclude with a new set of goals and decisions about what to do next, said Rambharos. But it could also end with nothing. The outcome will largely be determined by the president of COP28, Sultan Al Jaber of the United Arab Emirates, who will be under pressure to produce concrete results.
Al Jaber, who is also the CEO of the UAE’s state-owned oil company, one of the largest in the world, has been the subject of intense controversy since he was picked for the job. More than 130 members of the European Parliament and U.S. Congress recently issued a joint letter calling for the removal of Al Jaber from the post. He risked “undermining the negotiations,” they wrote.
The Bonn talks will be a litmus test for the UAE and Al Jaber, and some expect it to reveal climate advocates’ worst fears. Germanwatch, an environmental nonprofit based in Bonn, issued a press release Friday warning that the conference is likely to “ring in challenging months of negotiations” where the UAE “will try to massively push its agenda to prolong the oil and gas age.”
The global stocktake is just one of many agenda items in Bonn. Delegates will also be working through next steps on the momentous “loss and damage” agreement reached in Egypt at last year’s COP. Rich countries finally agreed to provide funding to developing countries to cope with the catastrophic climate damages they have already experienced, like the drought in East Africa and the flooding in Pakistan. But there’s still a lot of details to work out, like the amount of funding to be distributed, and when and how and to whom.
The same goes for the carbon trading agreement reached at COP26 in Glasgow. Delegates have yet to nail down a system to make sure that when one country pays another country to plant trees or switch to electric vehicles, for example, those emission reductions are accounted for accurately and are not counted by both parties.
Bonn isn’t the last chance to make progress before COP28, but it is an important benchmark.
“If we don't get a breakthrough at the Bonn session,” said Rhombaros, “then you can be about 80% sure that we will have a really difficult six months in order to achieve something at COP. If we achieve something at COP.”
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.”