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:
They’ve become a stump speech punchline.

Donald Trump claims to be a “big fan” of electric vehicles despite making them a frequent target of derision on the campaign trail. He might be a bigger fan, though, if he got his facts straight. Here’s what Trump has gotten right and wrong about EVs since 2021.
“To China, if you’re listening — President Xi, you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you are building in Mexico right now, and you think you are going to get that, not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the car to us — no. We are going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the lot.” [March 16, 2024]
Fact check: “There actually are no operating Chinese-owned EV factories in Mexico,” Ilaria Mazzocco, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an expert on Chinese climate policy, told me. “So this is very preemptive at this point.”
But it is also, probably, only a matter of time: BYD, which last year passed Tesla as the world’s No. 1 EV maker, is reportedly scouting plant locations in Mexico, and could confirm plans as soon as the second half of 2024. That has made U.S. automakers justifiably nervous. As Robinson Meyer previously wrote for Heatmap, “BYD recently advertised an $11,000 plug-in hybrid targeted at the Chinese market … Even doubling its price with tariffs would keep it firmly among [the United States’] most affordable new vehicles.”
In Mazzocco’s opinion, this isn’t wholly a bad thing — “there’s a point of value to competition that we shouldn’t forget” — and the threat of cheap Chinese EVs has already driven American automakers like Ford to pivot their electric lineups.
But “EVs have encapsulated everybody’s fears of competition with China,” Mazzocco said. The rude awakening has been that they are “actually better at something than the Americans are.” As a result, Biden and Trump are jostling to look tougher on Beijing ahead of the election, especially since big auto manufacturing states like Michigan and Ohio could potentially decide control of the White House. Biden has already ordered the Commerce Department to investigate the potential national security threat of Chinese-made EVs, which currently make up only about 2% of EV imports; Polestar became the first Chinese-owned EV company to make moves in the U.S. last year, but it’s hardly thriving. Meanwhile, Trump has warned that “it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country” if he isn’t elected.
“If we build all the charging booths that are necessary, our country would go bankrupt. It would cost like $3 trillion. It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.” [Feb. 17, 2024]
Fact check: $3 trillion is a huge number, and it is also very inaccurate in this case. While there are valid concerns about the Biden administration’s high-speed electric vehicle push, Trump almost certainly got his “$3 trillion” price tag from the total cost of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which aims to address significantly more than just the country’s EV-charging infrastructure.
In fact, the BIL earmarks a comparatively small $7.5 billion for the development of 500,000 public charging stations, although even this is a “generational-level investment,” Noah Barnes, the communications director of the Electrification Coalition, told me. With just a fraction of $3 trillion, the U.S. will be able to jumpstart the “national network of EV chargers that will be necessary to power the next generation of vehicles and end our dependence on oil from countries that don’t share our values.”
But what would it cost to build and operate all the charging booths necessary to meet the current federal target of zero-emission cars making up half of new vehicle sales by 2030? A 2022 report from McKinsey & Company estimated that the U.S. will need “1.2 million public EV chargers and 28 million private EV chargers” by 2030 to meet Biden’s zero-emission sales goals. Those public chargers would cost about $38 billion, including the hardware, planning, and installation. Wrap in the cost to residences, workplaces, and depots, and the total cost of public and private charging installation approaches $97 billion. In a separate analysis, AlixPartners, a consulting firm, found that it would take $50 billion to build the charging infrastructure to meet the 2030 zero-emission vehicle goal in the U.S., and $300 billion worldwide.
Needless to say, though, there are a thousand billions in a trillion, so whatever way you cut it, it certainly would not cost the U.S. $3 trillion to build enough charging stations to accommodate zero-emission vehicles.
“I will also rescue the ethanol industry by canceling crooked Joe Biden’s insane ethanol-killing electric vehicle mandate on day one.” [Dec. 20, 2023]
Fact check: It’s not wrong to say that Biden has tried to reduce the role of liquid fuel in vehicles. Trump has gunned for Iowa voters by claiming Biden’s goal (albeit not a binding mandate) of ramping up EV sales will kill the local ethanol industry. But Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack — Iowa’s former governor — has stressed that just because the administration is pushing for more EVs, “Does that mean we won’t have a need for E15 or E85” — gasoline blends that contain up to 15% and 85% ethanol content, respectively — “in the future? No.”
For example, new rules defining what qualifies as a “sustainable aviation fuel” — and thus for generous tax credits under the IRA — include ethanol and other plant-based fuels, despite opposition from environmental groups. “The Biden administration plans to invest $4.3 billion to support production of 35 billion gallons of sustainable aviation fuel annually by 2050,” presenting a significant opportunity for Iowa’s farmers, The Des Moines Register writes. As Vilsack added, “You have to think beyond cars and trucks.”
“They want to have electric trucks, so a truck — a big, beautiful truck like Peterbilt or one of them, with the big ones, 18 wheelers, they can go about 2,000 miles, they say, 2,000 on a big tank of diesel. An electric truck, comparable — which it can’t be comparable because you need so much room for the battery. Most of the area that you’re going to carry your goods, going to be battery. But assuming we take away that problem, which is not easy to take away, you’d have to stop approximately seven times to go 2,000 miles, right? You go about 300 miles, and they don’t want to change that.” [Dec. 20, 2023]
Fact check: There’s a lot to unpack here, but the gist is that most of these are the kind of early-stage problems you would find with any emerging technology. While the technology powering heavy-duty electric trucks is promising, there is still a long way to go when it comes to range and capacity.
Still, even a semi that goes only around 375 miles — longer than Trump’s estimate — on a single charge would ultimately be cheaper than a diesel truck, one 2021 study found. Because of the lower cost of ownership, electric semis have a net savings of $200,000 over a 15-year lifespan.
Battery size, and in particular battery weight, will be a major hurdle for long haul electric semis; shipping rates are often determined based on weight, among other factors, and since freight companies already operate on narrow margins, carrying less freight weight is a problem. But the technology is constantly improving. Plus, it’s pretty silly to claim electric truck developers “don’t want to change” their range per charge; electric truck manufacturers are constantly boasting about their new mileage numbers.
“This electric car thing is just crazy. If you want to drive, maybe, let’s say you are here. If you say, ‘Let’s take a drive to beautiful, safe Chicago. It’s so safe. Let’s drive there.’ How many times would you have to stop, about nine? It’s just crazy. They know it. They know it’s crazy.” [Dec. 20, 2023]
Fact check: The distance from Waterloo, Iowa — where Trump made these comments — to “beautiful, safe Chicago” is 269 miles. While the EVs with the worst range would have to charge one single time on a trip of that distance, in 2022, the average EV range was nearly 300 miles. Most cars would make it on a single charge.
“And now we are a nation that wants to make our revered and very powerful army tanks, the best in the world, all-electric, so that despite the fact they are also not able to go far, fewer pollutants will be released into the air as we blast our way through enemy territory, at least in an environmentally friendly way. And they also want to make our jet fighters with a green stamp of energy savings through losing 15% efficiency.” [Dec. 17, 2023]
Fact check: Trump has repeatedly slammed the Biden administration for supposedly wanting to switch to “all-electric” tanks. This is mostly false, though it has its roots in the Army’s first-ever climate strategy, released early last year. In it, the Army stated that it aims to electrify all noncombat vehicles by 2035 and some tactical vehicles by 2050.
The reason the Army wants to go electric isn’t because of some woke environmentalist agenda, though. “The primary reason the Army wants to electrify its fighting vehicles is to reduce wartime casualties,” Bloomberg writes. “An all-electric fleet would mean personnel wouldn’t have to go on dangerous refueling missions that draw combat forces away from fighting the enemy … [and] electric vehicles are also much quieter and harder to spot on enemy surveillance systems because they generate so little heat.”
Trump has also slammed the Air Force for its climate action plan, although the roots of his claim that Biden wants to make jet fighters green by “losing 15% efficiency” are much less clear. He may be referring to the Air Force’s exploration of alternative fuels — which again, it is doing primarily for strategic reasons, since the Air Force reports 30% of the casualties in Afghanistan came from attacks on fuel and water convoys. “We’re not doing the climate plan for climate’s sake … Everything is about increasing our combat capability,” Edwin Oshiba, assistant secretary of the Air Force for energy, installations, and the environment, told the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.
“The problem is you won’t find a charger. And if you do, it’s got lines.” [Dec. 16, 2023]
Fact check: Many EV drivers are dissatisfied with the state of charging infrastructure in the U.S., and lines are an issue. While more charging stations will continue to open up as EVs become more popular — the IRA allotted $7.5 billion to build out 500,000 public chargers by 2030, with another $623 million in EV charging grants awarded last week — this seems, at the moment, to be a fair criticism.
“We are a nation whose leaders are demanding all-electric cars despite the fact that they can’t go far, cost too much, and whose batteries are produced in China with materials only available in China when an unlimited amount of gasoline is available inexpensively in the United States but is not available in China.” [Dec. 17, 2023]
Fact check: China indeed dominates the EV battery market. The Inflation Reduction Act — which Trump has promised to gut — has tried to change this by restricting EV tax credits only to models with batteries and components sourced from the U.S. or its trading partners. The law also includes funding to help seed a domestic EV battery and mineral supply chain.
And it’s working. As my colleague Neel Dhanesha wrote last year, “Battery manufacturers around the country — many of them automakers themselves — have announced over 1,000 gigawatt hours of U.S. battery production that’s slated to come online by 2028, far outpacing projected demand,” according to estimates from the Environmental Defense Fund. All told, domestic battery production has been the greatest beneficiary of the IRA, reports RMI, a clean energy research group.
“Let’s say your [electric] boat goes down and I’m sitting on top of this big powerful battery and the boat’s going down. Do I get electrocuted?” [Oct. 1, 2023]
Fact check: Battery packs on electric boats are designed to be watertight because, believe it or not, it’s crossed the mind of electric boat manufacturers that their products could potentially end up underwater. All the electric boat makers I spoke to in my lengthy investigation into this question told me the battery packs they use have a waterproofing standard that is either at, or just below, what is required for a submarine. The high-voltage batteries are also kept in “puncture-resistant shells” so they won't be exposed to the water even if the boat somehow got mangled in an accident.
All this is a very long way of saying: No, you very likely won’t be electrocuted if your electric boat sinks. But you may get eaten by a shark!
“Hundreds of thousands of American jobs, your jobs, will be gone forever. By most estimates, under Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, 40% of all U.S. auto jobs will disappear.” [Sept. 27, 2023]
Fact check: As Heatmap has reported, there is little evidence to suggest that making electric vehicles will result in fewer jobs. “A number of analyses showed that electric vehicles could actually require more labor to build than gas-powered cars in the U.S., at least for the foreseeable future,” Emily Pontecorvo writes.
“The happiest moment for somebody in an electric car is the first 10 minutes. In other words, you get it charged, and now for 10 minutes. The unhappiest part is the next hour because you’re petrified that you’re not going to be finding another charger.” [August 24, 2023]
Fact check: We don’t know what every single EV driver thinks, but EV drivers as a group tend to be pretty satisfied; plug-in hybrids were level with internal combustion vehicles in J.D. Power’s annual survey of performance, execution, and layout-based consumer satisfaction, with fully battery-powered EVs just a few points behind on a 1,000-point scale. Some 90% of EV drivers say they hope to buy another EV as their next car, a 2022 Plug-In America survey found.
And while range anxiety is real, studies show that it declines the longer someone owns an EV and gets comfortable with charging. Only 8% of EV drivers told Escalent they’ve ever run out of juice while driving.
It’ll take more than an hour for you to start getting anxious, too. The average EV sold in the U.S. last year had a range of 291 miles, or a little over four hours of driving at 70mph.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: The snow squalls and cold air headed from the Ohio Valley to the Northeast are coming with winds of up to 55 miles per hour • A “western disturbance,” an extratropical storm that originates in the Mediterranean and travels eastward, is set to arrive in India and bring heavy snow to the Himalayas • Tropical Storm Basyang made landfall over the Philippines this morning, forcing Cebu City to cancel all in-person classes for public school students.
Vice President JD Vance delivered a 40-minute speech Wednesday appealing to 54 countries and the European Union to join a trading alliance led by the United States to establish a supply of critical minerals that could meaningfully rival China. The agreement would create a “preferential trade zone” meant to be “protected from disruptions through enforceable price floors.” The effort comes in response to years of export controls from Beijing that have sent the prices of key minerals over which China has near monopolies skyrocketing. “This morning, the Trump administration is proposing a concrete mechanism to return the global critical minerals market to a healthier, more competitive state,” Vance said at the State Department’s inaugural Critical Minerals Ministerial in Washington.
Under the Biden administration, the U.S. attempted to coordinate a network of trading partners, to make up for the minerals American mines no longer produced. The Treasury Department allowed automakers that sourced battery minerals to countries with which the U.S. had a free trade agreement to benefit from the most valuable version of the landmark electric vehicle tax credit reserved for power packs made with domestically-sourced metals. The White House worked with Republicans in Congress to eliminate the tax credit last year, demonstrating what Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin referred to as the “paradox” of Trump’s push for more domestic mining: A push to increase supply while eliminating one of the biggest sources of demand. The on-again, off-again tariff wars with allies haven’t done much to rally the spirit of camaraderie among America’s traditional trade partners either. Since then, as I have covered repeatedly in this newsletter, Trump has gone on a shopping spree for equity stakes in mining companies, shelled out grants through the military to mineral startups, and, most recently, created a $12 billion federal stockpile. Yet it’s come with plenty of missteps, as a former Department of Energy official told our colleague Robinson Meyer in his latest Shift Key podcast. Still, Congress is backing up the mining push. The House voted 224-195 Wednesday to approve legislation meant to speed up mining on federal lands.
Despite President Donald Trump’s threats to eliminate its funding, Congress has spared the long-running federal program that helps low-income Americans pay for heating and electric bills. The budget deal the president signed Tuesday to fund most federal agencies through September added $20 million to the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, bringing the total funding to just over $4 billion. It’s a full reversal of Trump’s position in May, when the administration asked Congress to completely eliminate the funding, Utility Dive reported. A second appropriations package Trump signed last month also included a small increase in funding for a separate program that subsidizes weatherization projects and other energy efficiency renovations for low- and moderate-income households.

Last week, I told you about copper prices soaring to a record — and seemingly unsustainable — high. While Goldman Sachs analysts expected the price for the metal needed for virtually anything electric to fall, it was still forecast to level off well above the average for the past few years. Well, that’s good news José Antonio Kast, the far-right leader scheduled to be inaugurated president of Chile next month. His incoming finance minister told the Financial Times the government plans to deliver economic growth rates of 4% and balance the country’s budget by 2029. If that proves possible, it’s only because Chile is the world’s largest producer of the red metal.
The U.S., meanwhile, is seeing early fruits of its global mineral diplomacy. The federal government’s International Development Finance Corporation said Wednesday that a U.S.-backed venture will begin shipping 50,000 tons of copper from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The export package comes a month after the same Congolese project pledged to send 100,000 tons to the U.S. The lending agency’s chief executive, Ben Black, said the partnership between Washington and Kinshasa “ensures valuable critical minerals are directed to the U.S. and our allies.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Newcleo, the best-known European nuclear startup promising to build fourth-generation small modular reactors, just netted $85 million in its latest financing round, bringing its total fundraising for the past 12 months to more than $125 million. The financing round includes venture funds Kairos and Indaco Ventures, asset manager Azimut Investments, the CERN pension fund, and industrial giants such as steelmaker Danieli, concrete manufacturer Cementir Holding, and components producers such as Walter Tosto and Orion Valves. The money will “accelerate our expansion into the U.S.,” a nascent effort that has included brokering a partnership with fellow next-generation reactor startup Oklo. Unlike the California company, whose microreactor design uses liquid sodium instead of water as a coolant, Paris-based Newcleo has proposed building a lead-cooled unit. The design has already gained approval in the United Kingdom. “Our ability to deliver impactful low-carbon energy solutions for energy-intensive firms is proving an attractive investment rationale for both industrial and financial investors,” said Newcleo CEO Stefano Buono.
Last week, I told you about the trouble brewing for the controversial wood-pellet giant Drax, which built its business on government subsidies predicated on the idea that burning felled trees for electricity could somehow provide a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. Facing overdue scrutiny of its green credentials, the British company had hoped Japan, the world’s No. 2 importer of wood pellets, would provide a growth market. But Tokyo indicated it’s cutting off the subsidy spigot. Then, two days ago, I told you that a former Drax employee admitted the company misled the public when claiming it wasn’t felling old-growth trees to make its wood pellets. Now the union that represents its British workers, Unite, has blasted Drax for the “shameful betrayal” of threatening to cut as many as 350 jobs. That could total up to 10% of the workforce. “It is shameful that a firm making billions such as Drax is choosing to target its staff,” Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said, according to Energy Voice. “It is morally wrong that workers, their families, and local communities pay the price for corporate greed.”
Over at The Washington Post, billionaire owner Jeff Bezos’ management team just gutted the newspaper's Pulitzer Prize-winning climate desk. The paper sent layoff notices to at least 14 climate journalists, newsroom sources told veteran beat reporter Sammy Roth for his Climate-Colored Goggles newsletter. The pink slips included eight writers and reporters, an editor, and several video, data, and graphics journalists. I’ll echo Sammy’s sentiment with the highest compliment I can give: I was routinely jealous of the top-notch reporting the climate team published at the Post. Losing that nuanced, complex reporting, at this particular juncture in the history of our nation and our atmosphere, is devastating. It’s also infuriating when you read the back-of-the-napkin math New York Times reporter Peter Baker posted on X yesterday: “Last reported annual losses of Post: $100 million,” he wrote. “Number of years Bezos could absorb those losses with what he makes in a single week: 5.”
Take a guess who wrote this on X yesterday morning: “Solar energy is the energy of the future. Giant fusion reactor up there in the sky — we must rapidly expand solar to compete with China.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. Whomever you were going to name, you’re probably wrong. The answer, astonishingly, is Katie Miller, the right-wing influencer wife of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller. A regular feature of White House social media content, Katie Miller posted her praise for an industry her husband’s boss has done much to stymie in response to an Axios article on a poll that found strong support for solar among GOP voters. The survey, commissioned by the panel manufacturer First Solar, comes as the solar industry says that the administration is throttling its permitting. While Trump seems unlikely to let up on wind, it could be a sign of a brighter future for America’s fastest-growing source of electricity.
Microreactor maker Antares Nuclear just struck a deal with BWX Technologies to produce TRISO.
Long before the infamous trio of accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, nuclear scientists started working on a new type of fuel that would make a meltdown nearly impossible. The result was “tri-structural isotropic” fuel, better known as TRISO.
The fuel encased enriched uranium kernels in three layers of ceramic coating designed to absorb the super hot, highly radioactive waste byproducts that form during the atom-splitting process. In theory, these poppyseed-sized pellets could have negated the need for the giant concrete containment vessels that cordon off reactors from the outside world. But TRISO was expensive to produce, and by the 1960s, the cheaper low-enriched uranium had proved reliable enough to become the industry standard around the globe.
TRISO had another upside, however. The cladding protected the nuclear material from reaching temperatures high enough that could risk a meltdown. That meant reactors using them could safely operate at hotter temperatures. When the United States opened its first commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in 1979, barely three months after Three Mile Island, the Fort St. Vrain Generating Station in Colorado ran on TRISO. It was a short-lived experiment. After a decade, the high cost of the fuel and the technical challenges of operating the lone commercial atomic station in the U.S. that didn’t use water as a coolant forced Fort St. Vrain to close. TRISO joined the long list of nuclear technologies that worked, but didn’t pencil out on paper.
Now it’s poised for a comeback. X-energy, the nuclear startup backed by Amazon that plans to cool its 80-megawatt microreactors with helium, is building out a production line to produce its own TRISO fuel in hopes of generating both electricity for data centers and heat as hot as 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit for Dow Chemical’s petrochemical facilities. Kairos Power, the Google-backed rival with the country’s only deal to sell power from a fourth-generation nuclear technology — reactors designed to use coolants other than water — to a utility, is procuring TRISO for its molten fluoride salt-cooled microreactors, which are expected to generate 75 megawatts of electricity and reach temperatures above 1,200 degrees.
Then there’s Antares Nuclear. The California-based startup is designing 1-megawatt reactors cooled through sodium pipes that conduct heat away from the atom-splitting core. On Thursday, the company is set to announce a deal with the U.S. government-backed nuclear fuel enricher BWX Technologies to establish a new production line for TRISO to fuel Antares reactors, Heatmap has learned exclusively.
Unlike X-energy or Kairos, Antares isn’t looking to sell electricity to utilities and server farms. Instead, the customers the company has in mind are the types for whom the price of fuel is secondary to how well it functions under extraordinary conditions.
“We’re putting nuclear power in space,” Jordan Bramble, Antares’ chief executive, told me from his office outside Los Angeles.
Just last month, NASA and the Department of Energy announced plans to develop a nuclear power plant on the moon by the end of the decade. The U.S. military, meanwhile, is seeking microreactors that can free remote bases and outposts from the tricky, expensive task of maintaining fossil fuel supply chains. Antares wants to compete for contracts with both agencies.
“It’s a market where cost matters, but cost is not the north star,” Bramble said.
Unlike utilities, he said, “you’re not thinking of cost solely in terms of fuel cycle, but you’re thinking of cost holistically at the system level.” In other words, TRISO may never come as cheap as traditional fuel, but something that operates safely and reliably in extreme conditions ends up paying for itself over time with spacecrafts and missile-defense systems that work as planned and don’t require replacement.
That’s a familiar market for BWXT. The company — spun out in 2015 from Babcock and Wilcox, the reactor developer that built more than half a dozen nuclear plants for the U.S. during the 20th century — already enriches the bulk of the fuel for the U.S. military’s fleet of nuclear submarines, granting BWXT the industry’s highest-possible security clearance to work on federal contracts.
But BWXT, already the country’s leading producer of TRISO, sees an even wider market for the fuel.
“The value is that it allows you to operate at really high temperatures where you get high efficiencies,” Joseph Miller, BWXT’s president of government operations, told me. “We already have a lot of customer intrigue from the mining industry. I can see the same thing for synthetic fuels and desalination.”
BWXT isn’t alone in producing TRISO. Last month, the startup Standard Nuclear raised $140 million in a Series A round to build out its supply chain for producing TRISO. X-energy is establishing its own production line through a subsidiary called TRISO-X. And that’s just in the U.S. Russia’s state-owned nuclear company, Rosatom, is ramping up production of TRISO. China, which operates the world’s only commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor at the moment, also generates its own TRISO fuel.
Beijing’s plans for a second reactor based on that fourth-generation design could indicate a problem for the U.S. market: TRISO may work better in larger reactors, and America is only going for micro-scale units.
The world-leading high-temperature gas reactor China debuted in December 2023 maxes out at 210 megawatts of electricity. But the second high-temperature gas reactor under development is more than three times as powerful, with a capacity of 660 megawatts. At that size, the ultra-high temperatures a gas reactor can reach mean it takes longer for the coolant — such as the helium used at Fort St. Vrain — to remove heat. As a result, “you need this robust fuel form that releases very little radioactivity during normal operation and in accident conditions,” Koroush Shirvan, a researcher who studies advanced nuclear technologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me.
But microreactors cool down faster because there’s less fuel undergoing fission in the core. “Once you get below a certain power level,” Shrivan said, “why would you have [TRISO]?”
Given the military and space applications Antares is targeting, however, where the added safety and functionality of TRISO merits the higher cost associated with using it, the company has a better use case than some of its rivals, Shrivan added.
David Petti, a former federal researcher who is one of the leading U.S. experts on TRISO, told me that when the government was testing TRISO for demonstration reactors, the price was at least double that of traditional reactor fuel. “That’s probably the best you could do,” he said in reference to the cost differential.
There are other uranium blends inside the TRISO pellets that could prove more efficient. The Chinese, for example, use uranium dioxide, essentially just an encased version of traditional reactor fuel. The U.S., by contrast, uses uranium oxycarbide, which allows for increased temperatures and higher burnups of the enriched fuel. Another option, which Bramble said he envisions Antares using in the future, would be uranium nitride, which has a greater density of fuel and could therefore last longer in smaller reactors used in space.
“But it’s not as tested in a TRISO system,” Petti said, noting that the federal research program that bolstered the TRISO efforts going on now started in 2002. “Until I see a good test that it’s good, the time and effort it takes to qualify is complicated.”
Since the uranium in TRISO is typically enriched to higher levels than standard fuel, BWXT’s facilities are subject to stricter safety rules, which adds “significant overhead,” Petti said.
“When you make a lot of fuel per year in your fuel factory, you can spread that cost and you can get a number that may be economic,” he said. “When you have small microreactors, you’re not producing an awful lot. You have to take that cost and charge it to the customer.”
BWXT is bullish on the potential for its customer base to grow significantly in the coming years. The company is negotiating a deal with the government of Wyoming to open a new factory there entirely dedicated to TRISO production. While he wouldn’t give specifics just yet, Miller told me BWXT is developing new technologies that can make TRISO production cheaper. He compared the cost curve to that of microchips, an industry in which he previously worked.
“Semiconductors were super expensive to manufacture. They were almost cost prohibitive,” Miller said. “But the cost curve starts to drop rapidly when you fully understand the manufacturing process and you know how to integrate the understanding into operational improvements.”
He leaned back in his chair on our Zoom call, and cracked a smile. “Frankly,” he said, “I feel more confident every day that we’re going to get a really, really cost driven formula on how to manufacture TRISO.”
The startup — founded by the former head of Tesla Energy — is trying to solve a fundamental coordination problem on the grid.
The concept of virtual power plants has been kicking around for decades. Coordinating a network of distributed energy resources — think solar panels, batteries, and smart appliances — to operate like a single power plant upends our notion of what grid-scale electricity generation can look like, not to mention the role individual consumers can play. But the idea only began taking slow, stuttering steps from theory to practice once homeowners started pairing rooftop solar with home batteries in the past decade.
Now, enthusiasm is accelerating as extreme weather, electricity load growth, and increased renewables penetration are straining the grid and interconnection queue. And the money is starting to pour in. Today, home battery manufacturer and VPP software company Lunar Energy announced $232 million in new funding — a $102 million Series D round, plus a previously unannounced $130 million Series C — to help deploy its integrated hardware and software systems across the U.S.
The company’s CEO, Kunal Girotra, founded Lunar Energy in the summer of 2020 after leaving his job as head of Tesla Energy, which makes the Tesla Powerwall battery for homeowners and the Megapack for grid-scale storage. As he put it, back then, “everybody was focused on either building the next best electric car or solving problems for the grid at a centralized level.” But he was more interested in what was happening with households as home battery costs were declining. “The vision was, how can we get every home a battery system and with smart software, optimize that for dual benefit for the consumer as well as the grid?”
VPPs work by linking together lots of small energy resources. Most commonly, this includes solar, home batteries, and appliances that can be programmed to adjust their energy usage based on grid conditions. These disparate resources work in concert conducted by software that coordinates when they should charge, discharge, or ramp down their electricity use based on grid needs and electricity prices. So if a network of home batteries all dispatched energy to the grid at once, that would have the same effect as firing up a fossil fuel power plant — just much cleaner.
Lunar’s artificial intelligence-enabled home energy system analyzes customers’ energy use patterns alongside grid and weather conditions. That allows Lunar’s battery to automatically charge and discharge at the most cost-effective times while retaining an adequate supply of backup power. The batteries, which started shipping in California last year, also come integrated with the company’s Gridshare software. Used by energy companies and utilities, Gridshare already manages all of Sunrun’s VPPs, including nearly 130,000 home batteries — most from non-Lunar manufacturers — that can dispatch energy when the grid needs it most.
This accords with Lunar’s broader philosophy, Girotra explained — that its batteries should be interoperable with all grid software, and its Gridshare platform interoperable with all batteries, whether they’re made by Lunar or not. “That’s another differentiator from Tesla or Enphase, who are creating these walled gardens,” he told me. “We believe an Android-like software strategy is necessary for the grid to really prosper.” That should make it easier for utilities to support VPPs in an environment where there are more and more differentiated home batteries and software systems out there.
And yet the real-world impact of VPPs remains limited today. That’s partially due to the main problem Lunar is trying to solve — the technical complexity of coordinating thousands of household-level systems. But there are also regulatory barriers and entrenched utility business models to contend with, since the grid simply wasn’t set up for households to be energy providers as well as consumers.
Girotra is well-versed in the difficulties of this space. When he first started at Tesla a decade ago, he helped kick off what’s widely considered to be the country’s first VPP with Green Mountain Power in Vermont. The forward-looking utility was keen to provide customers with utility-owned Tesla Powerwalls, networking them together to lower peak system demand. But larger VPPs that utilize customer-owned assets and seek to sell energy from residential batteries into wholesale electricity markets — as Lunar wants to do — are a different beast entirely.
Girotra thinks their time has come. “This year and the next five years are going to be big for VPPs,” he told me. The tide started to turn in California last summer, he said, after a successful test of the state’s VPP capacity had over 100,000 residential batteries dispatching more than 500 megawatts of power to the grid for two hours — enough to power about half of San Francisco. This led to a significant reduction in electricity demand during the state’s evening peak, with the VPP behaving just like a traditional power plant.
Armed with this demonstration of potential and its recent influx of cash, Lunar aims to scale its battery fleet, growing from about 2,000 deployed systems today to about 10,000 by year’s end, and “at least doubling” every year after that. Ultimately, the company aims to leverage the popularity of its Gridshare platform to become a market maker, helping to shape the structure of VPP programs — as it’s already doing with the Community Choice Aggregators that it’s partnered with so far in California.
In the meantime, Girotra said Lunar is also involved in lobbying efforts to push state governments and utilities to make it easier for VPPs to participate in the market. “VPPs were always like nuclear fusion, always for the future,” he told me. But especially after last year’s demonstration, he thinks the entire grid ecosystem, from system operators to regulators, are starting to realize that the technology is here today. ”This is not small potatoes anymore.”