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:

At a recent rally for Donald Trump, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Howard Lutnick, the head of Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, took the stage together and contemplated the federal budget. “How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget?” Lutnick asked. “I think we could do at least $2 trillion,” Musk said, to the cheers of the crowd. “Your money is being wasted, and the Department of Government Efficiency is going to fix that.”
This idea — that there is $2 trillion of “waste” in the yearly federal budget that could be eliminated if only someone like Musk were given the power to do it — exemplifies his orientation toward government. It’s brash, shockingly ambitious, contemptuous of what most Americans need, and fed by Musk’s combination of arrogance and ignorance. And it will never happen — not because the deep state will prevent it, but because Musk, while brilliant in some ways, is not smart enough to know what he doesn’t know.
Tempting as it is to take seriously Trump’s proposal for Musk to head up a new cabinet department or a commission on government efficiency (it has been described both ways) if Trump becomes president, the idea that Musk will spend his days in a government building in Washington poring over budget details is laughable. Plus, we already have a department of efficiency; it’s called the Government Accountability Office, and it does excellent work. But Musk does stand to have extraordinary influence in a Trump administration. So when it comes to policy, what does he actually want?
To start, let’s do some math. Without going too deep into it, if you add up Social Security, Medicare, military spending, veterans’ benefits, and interest on debt in the fiscal 2024 budget — none of which will be cut — you get $4.4 trillion. That leaves $2.25 trillion, of which Musk thinks he could cut $2 trillion. That, in turn, would mean eliminating almost everything the federal government does, from controlling the border to issuing passports to running national parks to medical research to federal prisons to food inspections to … you get the idea.
Also in that $2.25 trillion is, of course, the money the federal government spends on the energy transition, something Musk doesn’t seem to have much enthusiasm for. It isn’t that he has embraced Trump’s climate denialism, but he also doesn’t talk much about government’s role in reducing emissions.
This represents a shift: When Joe Biden took office, Musk said, “I’m super fired up that the new administration is focused on climate.” Biden followed through on his pledges in both regulation and legislation, but Musk was less enthusiastic as time went on, and eventually embraced Trump wholeheartedly, despite the latter’s promise to undo essentially everything Biden has accomplished on climate change.
Tesla has been quietly lobbying to maintain subsidies for electric vehicles and in favor of regulations that could phase out the production of internal combustion cars, even as the candidate for whom Musk is spending tens of millions of dollars promises to eliminate those policies. But he’s not trying to change Trump’s mind, at least not publicly. On an earnings call with shareholders earlier this year, Musk said that if Trump keeps his promise to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, it would hurt Tesla “slightly,” but “long term, it probably actually helps,” since it would be “devastating for our competitors.”
In other words, Musk may want to address climate change, but that goal will always take a back seat to what’s good for Elon Musk — and what’s good for Musk just happens to be good policy, or so he seems to think. This is an occupational hazard for billionaires, who are inevitably surrounded by sycophants eager to tell them that any brain fart that comes tumbling out of their mouths is the height of wisdom.
This tendency shows up in Musk’s views on just about everything else, too. Like many a dilettante — albeit one with his own social media platform and 200 million followers there — Musk occasionally dips his thinking-emoji into policy issues without bothering to learn about what they actually entail, like his warning that Social Security is all but doomed. He worries a great deal about underpopulation, which few experts think is really a problem; his solution seems to be to distribute his own sperm as widely as possible.
But the most likely places where Musk will exercise influence in a second Trump presidency are not his grand notions of a remade American society, but rather in his own relationship with government. That largely means two things: He would like government to give him more money, and he would also like it to get out of his way.
On the first point, Musk is already a significant beneficiary of federal contracts. As The New York Times recently documented, Musk’s “companies were promised $3 billion across nearly 100 different contracts last year with 17 federal agencies.” How handy it would be if he were in charge of rejiggering federal spending! But on the flip side, “His companies have been targeted in at least 20 recent investigations or reviews, including over the safety of his Tesla cars and the environmental damage caused by his rockets.” In a second Trump term — especially one in which the architects of Project 2025 will no doubt be busily reconfiguring the government to place nearly absolute power in the hands of the president — Trump could easily repay the nine figures Musk has spent to get him elected by making all those investigations disappear.
Musk is also counting on the courts to make it easier for him to treat his workers however he likes. He has repeatedly clashed with the National Labor Relations Board, and SpaceX is suing to effectively have the entire NLRB declared unconstitutional. (Other anti-union companies including Amazon and Starbucks are seeking the same outcome.) Trump has publicly praised Musk for firing striking workers, which is illegal; and while it appears Trump was referring to Musk firing most of the staff of Twitter, who were not actually on strike, their shared contempt for collective bargaining and worker rights is amply clear.
That Musk is an egomaniac is barely disputable, so it’s not surprising that he believes government will either be a tool in his hands or the destroyer of worlds, with no in-between. “While I have many concerns about a potential Kamala regime,” he recently tweeted, “the bureaucracy currently choking America to death is guaranteed to grow under a Democratic Party administration. This would destroy the Mars program and doom humanity.” Apparently, only by giving Musk whatever he wants can we avoid extinction.
The truth is that if Harris wins, Elon Musk will be just fine, and so will humanity. The big difference will be that Musk won’t be able to pick up the phone and tell the president what to do. But I’m sure he will react to that with all the maturity and thoughtfulness we’ve come to expect from him.
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.”