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 vibes are shifting yet again.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one already, but the supposed EV sales slump isn’t real. The overall growth rate has slowed somewhat, crushing any fantasy that America would accelerate to mostly electric driving in just a few years. But electric vehicles sales have been steadily rising amid a negative narrative, and they rose yet again in the third quarter of 2024.
Carmakers sold 346,309 of them from July to September, a 5% increase over the second quarter of this year and an 11% jump year-over-year. EVs reached 8.9% of all vehicles sold in America in the third quarter, prompting Cox Automotive (which owns Kelley Blue Book) to opine that 10% looks well within reach.
A look inside the numbers behind the news tells us a few important things about the state of EVs.
A lightning rod on wheels, the Cybertruck became a focal point for the anger and contempt lots of very online people feel toward Elon Musk and his support for Donald Trump. But as I noted a year ago for Heatmap, plenty of people want this car — either out of genuine affection for what it is and what it can do, or for the political statement they can make by owning one.
The numbers don’t lie. Despite a slow start, Tesla sold 16,692 Cybertrucks during the third quarter. That made it the number three EV in America behind Tesla’s Model Y and Model 3. The Cybertruck’s emergence, combined with better sales by a refreshed Model 3, helped to stop a slide at Tesla earlier this year caused by falling sales of the aging Models S, X, and Y.
As Tesla goes, so goes today’s EV market. Its slump in 2024 had hampered the growth of the industry at large; a rumored update to the industry-leading Model Y would be a shot in the arm for everybody. Yet even with Tesla stabilizing, Elon Musk’s dominance isn’t what it once was. The company’s market share, which hovered in the 70% range in 2019 and 2020, has fallen below 50%. With a growing slate of competitors, it may never cross above that threshold again.
Korean brands Hyundai and Kia had been the non-Tesla success story of the past year-plus, with American EV shoppers falling in love with the quirky Hyundai Ioniq 5 in particular. But General Motors seized second place in Q3 as some of its plans finally came to fruition. Chevy sold nearly 8,000 Blazer EVs and almost 10,000 Equinox EVs last quarter. That latter figure is particularly impressive given that the $35,000 base-level Equinox, which could fall below $30,000 after incentives, didn’t hit the market until October. The Cadillac Lyric found a niche. Even the preposterous GMC Hummer EV saw a big sales bump.
GM’s solid numbers don’t include the remarkable success of its partnership with Honda, who borrowed GM’s Ultium platform to build its first American EV, the Prologue. That vehicle sold 12,644 in the third quarter, outpacing GM’s own EV crossovers. (Perhaps the legion of loyal Honda buyers in America were just waiting for the brand to sell them an electric car.)
Chevy and Honda’s success came at the expense of some brands whose electric crossovers aren’t quite so new and exciting anymore. The Ioniq 5 dropped a tiny bit compared to the third quarter of 2023, just 0.5%. However, Ford’s Mustang Mach-E dropped by nearly 10% year over year, while the Volkswagen ID.4 tumbled by 57.8%.
Speaking of Ford, it wasn’t all bad news for GM’s rival. Ford’s EV division did better than Wall Street expected. Overall sales actually rose, with gains from the E-transit van and F-150 Lightning pickup truck balancing out falling numbers from the Mustang Mach-E. Even so, Ford is losing billions of dollars on its electric vehicles. The blue oval brand faces a double challenge: It needs to get a new EV on sale to juice sales while figuring out how to dramatically cut manufacturing costs.
Watch any car commercial and you’ll be reminded that incentives aren’t the sole domain of EVs. Brands and dealerships offer all kinds of rebates and discounts to move gasoline cars off the lot. Yet because of the size of the federal and state tax credits and rebates for buying electric, those incentives retain an outsized impact on sales. Cox points out that incentives made up 12% of the average price of an EV sold in the third quarter of this year, compared to just above 7% for other kinds of cars.
What’s especially dramatic, though, is the incentive-driven rise of the leased EV. Overall, Americans lease just over 20% of their new cars, not far from where the figure stood two years ago. At the end of 2022, less than 10% of Americans who got a new EV leased it. But in December of that year, the federal government announced many EVs that weren’t ineligible for tax credits when purchased outright would be eligible for those incentives if people leased them. Cox’s chart paints a stark picture, showing leases rocketing from about 9% to 43% of EV sales.
In their own EV makeup, that is. There are six car brands that have 10% of their U.S. sales or more from EVs: Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Jaguar, Audi, and Cadillac — luxury brands all — are five of them. (The other is Mini.)
This makes perfect sense, of course. Luxury brands sell fewer vehicles overall, so it’s easier for EVs to make a big dent in sales. They sell expensive cars, which makes it easier for buyers to swallow the higher cost of EVs. Their drivers have always been more likely to lease cars, even before leasing EVs in particular became so appealing.
In sum, it means that the luxury car brands — while selling fewer overall EVs than Chevy and Honda will eventually sell — will be the first to experience what it’s like for a legacy car brand when the scales tip to more EVs than not.
On floating offshore wind, a new ‘Lancet’ report, and collectible footwear.
Current conditions:At least 51 people were killed by flash floods in Spain yesterday • Rapidly intensifying Super Typhoon Kong-rey is barreling toward Taiwan • Mount Fuji has yet to see snow this year, marking the latest date the mountain has been bare in 130 years.
British medical journal
The Lancet’s annual report tracking climate change and public health paints a stark picture of worsening heat-related deaths, food insecurity, and exposure to life-threatening diseases. The authors find that 10 of their 15 indicators for climate change-related health hazards “reached concerning new records.” These impacts are, of course, not hitting everyone equally. Heat-related deaths among people over 65 were 167% higher last year than in the 1990s. The global population also lost 6% more sleep due to heat than the average between 1986 and 2005, with the worst impacts seen in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.
The authors warn that that oil and gas companies are reinforcing global dependence on their product. “The relentless expansion of fossil fuels and record-breaking greenhouse gas emissions compounds these dangerous health impacts, and is threatening to reverse the limited progress made so far and put a healthy future further out of reach,” Marina Romanello, executive director of the Lancet Countdown
told The Guardian.
An offshore wind lease sale in the Gulf of Maine yesterday ended with two bidders offering a combined $22 million for the rights to develop projects on four ocean tracts. While that’s only half of the leases that were up for sale, the results were better than many local advocates had hoped for considering the uncertainty for the industry related to the upcoming election. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin has written, “Trump has special contempt for wind energy in all its forms — to him, all wind turbines are bird murderers, but offshore turbines are especially deadly.” Trump has promised to shut down the industry on “day one.”
If fully developed, the leases could generate 6.8 gigawatts of electricity, or enough to power about 2.3 million homes, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. But that part of the ocean is deep, and the projects will need to utilize still-nascent floating offshore wind technology.
The Biden administration announced the winners of the Clean Ports program on Tuesday, a $3 billion grant program created by the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce toxic air pollution and carbon emissions at the nation’s shipping hubs. The 55 grants across 27 states and territories will support the electrification of cargo handling equipment, drayage trucks, trains, and ferries, as well as solar power projects and EV charging infrastructure. The projects are expected to cut more than 3 million metric tons of CO2 over the first 10 years of implementation. For context, the three largest U.S. ports emitted more than 2.5 million tons of CO2 in 2019.
A report from the American Lung Association published this morning highlights the potential for satellites to improve our understanding of air quality. New methods for translating measurements of various gases and particles into estimates of ground-level pollution can help fill data gaps in communities that don’t have local air quality monitoring systems. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. counties lack monitoring stations, the report says, whether due to cost constraints, low population density, or rapid land use change. The authors identified 300 counties with incomplete or no monitoring data that likely had unhealthy levels of air pollution in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
The indefatigable Ben Elgin at Bloomberg has uncovered yet another problem in the carbon market. Twenty years ago, Nike created millions of carbon credits tied to the sneaker brand’s efforts to stop using sulfur hexafluoride, a powerful greenhouse gas that was previously pumped into its soles. Now, ACR, formerly known as the American Carbon Registry, has disclosed that more than a million of those credits are in its “buffer pool,” which is supposed to provide insurance for buyers. If a forestry project in the registry burns, for example, credits set aside in the buffer pool can be cancelled to make up for the loss.
But Nike’s credits were basically meaningless to begin with — the decision to change the shoes had nothing to do with the carbon market, Nike confirmed to Bloomberg — and they’re even more meaningless 20 years later. “It was a somewhat notorious project for those of us in the North American carbon market 15 years ago,” Derik Broekhoff, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, told Elgin.
Driverless Waymo vehicles now complete more than 150,000 passenger trips per week. “If ‘driverless Waymo car’ were a transit system, it would be the nation’s 11th most used, between Miami Metrorail and the Staten Island Railway,” according to NYU Stern professor Arpit Gupta.
A self-driving Waymo on the streets of Los Angeles. Mario Tama/Getty Images
It’s not a thermal battery, but it’s also not not one.
Decarbonizing industrial processes such as paper and pulp production, chemical manufacturing, or food processing is a tough sell. As it so often goes, that’s largely due to the efficacy and low cost of natural gas, which can cheaply and efficiently provide the high heat required for these industries. But a number of innovative battery companies are looking to shake up that dynamic, and the latest, Redoxblox, just gained a big vote of confidence.
Today, the San Diego-based startup announced the close of its $40.7 million Series A round, which it raised in two tranches. The first $9.4 million tranche, back in 2022, was led by Khosla Ventures, with participation from Breakthrough Energy Ventures. The latest $31.3 million raise, announced today, was led by the climate tech investor Prelude Ventures, with participation from Imperative Ventures and New System Ventures, alongside BEV and Khosla. While Redoxblox didn’t respond to an inquiry about why it raised these two tranches so far apart, an SEC filing reveals that the company initially aimed to raise $22.4 million in 2022, indicating that it fell far short of its original goal.
Now though, the company looks poised for growth, and has announced the appointment of a new CEO, Pasquale Romano, formerly the CEO of ChargePoint, which operates a network of EV charging stations.
Redoxblox’s technology is known as “thermochemical energy storage,” as the system stores energy both chemically and as heat. “What the founders have discovered is a real scientific breakthrough,” Scott McNally, the company’s vice president of development, told me. He said that Redoxblox is mistakenly lumped in with thermal storage startups such as Rondo or Antora all the time. But the company’s thermochemical solution is a new class of energy storage entirely. “Yes, we store energy as heat, but we also store energy in chemical bonds. That's why fossil fuels are so widely adopted, is because the amount of energy contained in a chemical bond is enormous,” McNally explained. This allows Redoxblox to achieve both very high energy density and very high temperatures.
The system uses grid electricity to charge when prices are low or when there’s excess renewable generation. As electricity passes through the company’s proprietary metal oxide storage pellets, they’re resistively heated (like a toaster!) up to 1,500 degrees Celsius. When they hit a certain temperature, this drives a “redox reaction,” which is a kind of reaction in which electrons are transferred between two substances. In Redoxblox’s case, the pellets release pure oxygen gas and absorb heat, which is stored as chemical energy. To discharge that heat, a pump blows air across the hot pellets; as the air heats up and the pellets absorb oxygen from it, that oxygen-depleted air can then be delivered as heat to power various industrial processes or to gas turbines to generate electricity.
The redox reaction the company relies upon has been understood since the 1800s — what’s exciting is the proprietary metal oxide the company’s founders discovered, which can cycle through this reaction again and again. “The problem with fossil fuels is you can't take a lump of ash from burning coal, run electricity through it, and make coal again. But with this, you actually can,” McNally told me. “We've cycled our material through that more than 1,000 times with no loss of energy density, no degradation.”
Redoxblox’s Series A funding comes in addition to about $17 million in non-dilutive capital that the company has already received from an ARPA-E grant, as well as more recent grants from the Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission, which will go towards building the company's first industrial demonstration projects. The $6.7 million DOE grant supports RedoxBlox’s partnership with Dow Chemicals, in which the startup will retrofit a gas-fired steam boiler with its thermochemical battery at Dow’s manufacturing plant in Charleston, West Virginia. And the CEC grant will support the buildout of a 3 megawatt-hour long-duration energy storage system for UC San Diego’s medical campus, which will provide 24 hours of electricity in the case of a power outage.
Romano told me that Redoxblox also has partnerships with a paper mill and a dairy production operation in Europe, where natural gas is magnitudes more expensive, and thus the startup’s technology is much more economically competitive. Ultimately of course, Redoxblox wants to be cheaper than natural gas in the U.S., which Romano said currently sits at about 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
However, this technology is not yet likely to make much of a dent in the highest temperature industrial heating applications, such as steel and cement manufacturing or certain chemical production processes. While Redoxblox’s tech would theoretically work for these industries, the energy demands would be astronomical.
The company is targeting its first commercialized product in 2026, which will fit inside a shipping container and store up to 20 megawatt-hours of energy at 95% efficiency. Multiple units can be combined to meet the needs of larger facilities, and McNally told me that they’re not necessarily targeting any one specific industry at the moment. As he put it, “We're just targeting anybody that uses natural gas that wants to decarbonize at, in many cases, a lower cost than fossil fuels.”