Rivian has confirmed to TechCrunch that its factory located in Normal, Illinois experienced direct damage from a tornado over the weekend. Fortunately, no injuries have been reported, and staff members are currently evaluating the damage’s extent.

The tornado reached an EF-1 intensity classification, impacting a section of the factory known by Rivian as “Building 2,” where the R2 SUV is manufactured. According to an email from CEO RJ Scaringe to staff, which TechCrunch has seen, operations in that building have been paused, with plans to resume later this week.

“I appreciate our team members on site who sought safe shelter and adhered to our emergency protocols when the tornado alarms were triggered,” he mentioned. “I am proud of how everyone united, not only in following safety protocols but also in supporting each other and leading the cleanup and repair efforts with care and commitment.”

Images posted online depict a significant portion of the roof collapsing within the facility. Rivian has not confirmed if this temporary operational halt will impact the R2’s rollout schedule, which is expected to occur in the upcoming weeks.

The tornado struck a newer segment of the factory, mainly utilized for R2 logistics, including the receipt of components, as per Rivian.

“Once we secure the affected area, we expect to resume operations in Building 2 (specifically for R2) this week,” spokesperson Marina Hoffmann stated in an email, noting that activities at other facilities are proceeding as scheduled.

Rivian is heavily invested in the launch. Over the past five years, the company has devoted time, resources, and capital to lower manufacturing costs for vehicles in its current R1 lineup. Nonetheless, Rivian continues to incur losses each quarter — largely because, according to Scaringe, the company is channeling resources into infrastructure that will yield returns once the R2 SUV scales up.

The R2 SUV is designed to help Rivian reverse its financial losses. The automaker anticipates selling hundreds of thousands annually, aiming for a robust initial launch for the SUV. The company projects year-end sales between 20,000 and 25,000 units, positioning it as one of the fastest EV launches in the U.S., closely trailing Tesla’s highly successful Model Y.

Production for the R2 is commencing at the Normal plant alongside the existing R1 vehicles (and Rivian’s electric delivery van), while preparations are underway for the construction of a new factory just outside Atlanta, Georgia. This facility will focus on producing the R2 and the upcoming R3 hatchback, which was unexpectedly unveiled in March 2024.

Rivian initiated groundwork for the Georgia factory late last year and is anticipated to begin vertical construction within this year. Production is projected to start in 2028.

OpenAI has been prominently featured in recent news, whether it’s concerning acquisitions, rivalry with Anthropic, or larger discussions regarding AI’s societal effects.

In the most recent episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I endeavored to compile all the current OpenAI updates. While the company’s recent acquisitions appear to be typical acqui-hires, Sean pointed out that they also tackle “two significant existential issues that OpenAI is presently attempting to solve.”

To begin with, with the acquisition of the team from personal finance startup Hiro, the company might be aiming to create a product that offers “more engagement than merely a chatbot, and possibly something more valuable.” Additionally, with new media startup TBPN, OpenAI could be seeking to “enhance its public image, which has recently not been favorable.”

Read a summary of our discussion, adjusted for brevity and clarity below.

Anthony: [We have] two transactions worth discussing; one is OpenAI’s acquisition of the personal finance startup Hiro. This follows another deal that was actually announced while we recorded our last episode of Equity, which we didn’t have the chance to cover: OpenAI had also purchased TBPN — a business talk show, akin to a new media company.

I consider both of these transactions relatively minor compared to the scale of OpenAI. These aren’t expected to dramatically alter their business trajectory, but they are intriguing as they imply an ongoing approach of “Let’s experiment with various ideas.”

Notably, with the TBPN acquisition […] especially relevant now, since it appears OpenAI, based on all the recent reports, is also striving to sharpen its focus on making ChatGPT and its GPT models genuinely competitive for enterprise applications among developers.

Should managing a tech talk show really be on the agenda?

Kirsten: No, this should not be part of the agenda. End of discussion. 

I do want to highlight Hiro because to me, it’s an intriguing case; Julie Bort, our venture editor, exceptionally skilled, covered this and was possibly the first to report on it. She explored it further, and essentially, this appears to be an acqui-hire. The company is shutting down. They essentially stated, “By this date, access will no longer be available.”

This is a personal finance startup that launched merely two years ago. So this decision is undoubtedly about acquiring talent. I’m very interested to see whether OpenAI will simply integrate them into its operations or if they have genuine intentions to develop a personal finance product. To me, it’s not very clear.

Sean: I view both transactions as acqui-hires to some extent. I mean, regarding the TBPN acquisition, it’s said they will maintain their editorial independence on the show they produce daily. All respect to the team that has launched and rapidly expanded it.

Anyone who observes the media should approach this with a healthy level of skepticism; when acquiring something like this and placing the creators under the influence of public policy and marketing personnel higher up in the organization, questions naturally arise about whether claiming “editorial independence” is sufficient. It’s not a magic phrase that just successfully works.

What intrigues me about these two, while they share similarities in their nature of acqui-hiring, they each address two major challenges that OpenAI confronts.

First is Hiro. OpenAI boasts a successful product in ChatGPT. The question of whether that will ever translate into a sustainable business without the need for substantial fundraising remains significant. Moreover, they appear to be struggling to maintain pace on the enterprise front where real profits lie, so bringing in a team like this seems like an attempt to explore, “What more can we achieve?” 

The founder of Hiro seems to have a history of creating consumer applications, so this appears to be a wager on their capability to innovate something that offers more than just a chatbot, potentially yielding greater value.

Then, TBPN is a strategic acquisition aimed at better portraying the company’s operations and enhancing its public image, which has not been particularly positive lately and is facing heightened scrutiny after Ronan Farrow’s recent report in The New Yorker dropped suspiciously around the same time as this and other announcements from OpenAI last week. 

I consider these two significant existential challenges that OpenAI is grappling with currently.

Kirsten: Importantly, Anthropic is looming — not invisibly; they’re making quite an impact — and they’ve been achieving considerable success on the enterprise front.

It feels like they are competitors, yet they also seem very distinct in numerous ways. Anthony, do you regard them as direct rivals to OpenAI? Or are they simply finding their footing in enterprise, indicating that these two firms might co-exist without directly competing with each other — perhaps in talent acquisition, but not necessarily as we once envisioned?

Anthony: I see them as directly competing. There’s certainly a scenario where if AI evolves as the industry anticipates, both could thrive as companies, possibly claiming the top two spots. One’s success does not inherently imply the other will disappear into obscurity. 

Moreover, none of this is confirmed, but there has been substantial reporting suggesting OpenAI, more than any other, is fixated on and perturbed by Anthropic’s ascension. 

Our reporter Lucas [Ropek] authored an excellent piece over the weekend concerning the HumanX conference, where he spoke to attendees who seemed to acknowledge, “Yeah, ChatGPT is okay, too,” but were primarily focused on Claude Code. I believe this is precisely what concerns OpenAI.

Because in theory, there could be a multitude of possibilities for generative AI, yet it appears that the main growth opportunity, the area where the highest revenue is generated, and where they can envisage a path toward a sustainable future, resides within enterprise and development tools.

In a recent installment of “No Priors” — the fantastic podcast jointly hosted by AI investors Sarah Guo and Elad Gil — Gil emphasized a point regarding exit timing that surely resonates with founders who’ve engaged with him, but appears particularly relevant during this vibrant deal-making phase.

According to Gil, for the majority of firms, there exists approximately a 12-month timeframe in which the business achieves its maximum value, “and then it declines.” The enterprises that secure generational gains are frequently those where someone identifies that peak instead of presuming that the favorable conditions will only improve. Lotus, AOL, and Mark Cuban’s Broadcast.com all transacted at or near their zenith, and all are cited by Gil as examples of entities that anticipated the downturn and wisely executed their exit strategies.

To seize that opportunity, Gil suggested a straightforward approach: arrange a board meeting once or twice annually specifically dedicated to discussing exits. If it’s a recurrent agenda item, it removes the emotional weight from the decision.

This is more significant now than it might have been years prior. Numerous AI startups are partly in existence because foundational models haven’t yet gained traction in their respective categories. However, as many founders — like Deel CEO Alex Bouaziz –have humorously started to acknowledge, that situation won’t remain permanent.

Oh great and powerful @DarioAmodei – builder of minds, father of Claude. I humbly request you leave payroll to us at Deel.

We are but simple folk who process paystubs and chase compliance deadlines. But if you do come for us, call me first 🙏

— Alex Bouaziz (@Bouazizalex) April 17, 2026

As Gil remarked: “As you observe shifts in differentiation and defensibility and everything else, it’s a suitable moment to inquire, ‘Hey, is this my time? Are these upcoming six months when I’m going to be at my highest value ever?’”

On Sunday, Jeff Bezos’ space venture Blue Origin achieved a milestone by reusing one of its New Glenn rockets for the first time; however, the company was unsuccessful in its primary objective of launching a communications satellite into orbit for AST SpaceMobile.

AST SpaceMobile released a statement on Sunday afternoon indicating that the upper stage of the New Glenn rocket placed the BlueBird 7 satellite into an orbit that was “lower than intended.” While the satellite separated successfully from the rocket and powered on, the company noted that the altitude was too low “to maintain operations” and it will now need to be de-orbited — resulting in it burning up in Earth’s atmosphere.

According to AST SpaceMobile, the satellite’s loss will be covered by its insurance policy, and additional BlueBird satellites are expected to be ready within a month. The company has partnerships with various companies, not just Blue Origin, and it anticipates launching 45 more satellites into space by the end of 2026.

This incident marks the first significant failure for Blue Origin’s New Glenn program, which commenced its initial flight in January 2025 following more than ten years of development. This mission was the second time New Glenn carried a customer payload to space, having previously launched twin spacecraft bound for Mars for NASA last November. The company did not reply immediately to a request for comments.

The failure of New Glenn’s second stage may have broader consequences beyond Blue Origin’s immediate commercial goals. The company is striving to become a primary launch service provider for NASA’s Artemis missions to the moon and beyond. The space agency — under the Trump administration — has been pressuring Blue Origin and SpaceX to enable lunar lander deployments by the conclusion of President Donald Trump’s second term, before proceeding to send humans back to the lunar surface.

Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp has stated that his company “will move heaven and Earth” to assist NASA in hastening its return to the moon.

Recently, Blue Origin completed tests on its initial version of its own lunar lander, which it plans to attempt to launch sometime this year (without any crew). Blue Origin had hinted last year at the possibility of launching this lander with New Glenn’s third mission but ultimately chose to proceed with the AST SpaceMobile satellite instead.

The third New Glenn launch appeared to proceed smoothly on Sunday, with the mega-rocket lifting off at 7:35 a.m. local time from Cape Canaveral, Florida. This marked the first occasion Blue Origin reused a previously-flown New Glenn booster — the same one used in New Glenn’s second mission. Approximately 10 minutes after liftoff, the booster returned and landed on a drone ship at sea, similarly to its landing last November. Jeff Bezos even shared drone footage of the landing on X, the social media platform owned by his competitor Elon Musk, who sent his congratulations.

About two hours post-launch, however, Blue Origin reported in its own update that the New Glenn upper stage had placed the AST SpaceMobile satellite in an “off-nominal orbit.” Since that announcement, the company has not provided further information.

Blue Origin dedicated significant time to the development of New Glenn, and it is viewed as a show of confidence that the company opted to begin launching commercial payloads during these early flights. In contrast, SpaceX has spent recent years conducting tests of its massive Starship while primarily utilizing dummy payloads to troubleshoot the rocket’s issues.

SpaceX experienced payload losses later in its Falcon 9 series. In 2015, on the 19th Falcon 9 mission, the rocket exploded mid-flight, resulting in the loss of an entire cargo spacecraft intended for the International Space Station. In 2016, a Falcon 9 exploded on the launch pad during testing, leading to the loss of an internet satellite for Meta.

The victorious competitor at a half-marathon for humanoid robots in Beijing completed the event today in 50 minutes and 26 seconds — well below the human world record of 57 minutes recently established by Jacob Kiplimo.

Contrasting the running times of humans and robots might appear inequitable; one social media commentator noted, “my car can outpace a cheetah too.” Nonetheless, the winning time marks a remarkable advancement compared to last year’s event, where the quickest robot finished in two hours and 40 minutes. (At that time, I remarked that this “would not be a notable time for a human.”)

The Associated Press mentions that this year’s champion was created by Chinese smartphone manufacturer Honor. Interestingly, the winning robot wasn’t the fastest overall, as another Honor robot completed the course in 48 minutes and 19 seconds. However, that robot was remotely operated — the 50:26 robot was autonomous and triumphed due to a weighted scoring system.

It’s reported by Beijing’s E-Town tech hub that around 40% of the robots participating ran autonomously, while the remaining 60% were controlled remotely. Not every participant performed as well as Honor’s robots, with one robot stumbling at the start and another crashing into a barrier.

Recently, surveillance and analytics firm Palantir shared what it called a “concise” 22-point overview of CEO Alex Karp’s book “The Technological Republic.”

Authored by Karp along with Palantir’s corporate affairs chief, Nicholas Zamiska, “The Technological Republic” was released last year and characterized by its writers as “the initial articulation of the theory” underpinning Palantir’s operations. (One critic claimed it was “not a book at all, but merely corporate promotional material.”)

The company’s ideological direction has faced increased scrutiny since then, as figures within the tech sector have discussed Palantir’s collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and as the firm has positioned itself as an entity advocating for the protection of “the West.”

Actually, congressional Democrats recently dispatched a letter to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security requesting further details on how tools developed by Palantir and “various surveillance firms” are employed in the Trump administration’s vigorous deportation strategy.

Palantir’s announcement does not directly reference much of this context, merely stating that it is sharing the summary “due to frequent inquiries.” It subsequently asserts that “Silicon Valley has a moral obligation to the nation that enabled its ascent” and claims that “complimentary email is insufficient.”

“The decline of a culture or civilization, and indeed its elite, will be excused only if that culture can deliver economic advancement and security for its populace,” the company asserts.

The post is extensive, at one point criticizing a society that “barely conceals its disdain for [Elon] Musk’s fascination with grand narratives” and at another, addressing recent discussions regarding the military’s adoption of artificial intelligence.

“The issue is not whether A.I. armaments will be developed; it is who will design them and for what objectives,” Palantir states. “Our adversaries will not hesitate to engage in theatrical debates about the value of creating technologies with crucial military and national security implications. They will forge ahead.”

In a similar vein, the company implies that “the atomic age is concluding,” while “a new period of deterrence centered on A.I. is about to commence.”

The post also takes a moment to condemn the “postwar weakening of Germany and Japan,” remarking that the “diminution of Germany was an overreaction for which Europe is currently paying a steep price” and that “a comparable and overtly dramatic dedication to Japanese pacifism” could “endanger the balance of power in Asia.” 

The post concludes by criticizing “the superficial allure of an empty and hollow pluralism.” In Palantir’s viewpoint, an unthinking allegiance to pluralism and inclusivity “masks the reality that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have created marvels. Others have shown to be mediocre, and worse, regressive and detrimental.”

After Palantir published this on Saturday, Eliot Higgins, the CEO of the investigative site Bellingcat, dryly commented that it was “perfectly normal and fine for a company to include this in a public statement.”

Higgins further contended that there’s more to the statement than just a straightforward “defense of the West” — in his opinion, it’s an assault on what he identifies as essential foundations of democracy that require rebuilding: verification, deliberation, and accountability.

“It’s also important to clarify who’s making these arguments,” Higgins wrote. “Palantir provides operational software to defense, intelligence, immigration & law enforcement agencies. These 22 points aren’t abstract philosophy; they’re the public ideology of a firm whose income hinges on the political positions it promotes.”

It’s great to have you back with us at TechCrunch Mobility, your destination for the future of transportation and now, increasingly, how AI is involved. To receive this directly in your inbox, sign up here for free — just click on TechCrunch Mobility!

A few weeks back, I discussed how Uber appeared to be a dominant force in the developing autonomous vehicle technology arena. The Financial Times has since quantified this. According to public records and conversations with insiders, the FT estimated that Uber has allocated over $10 billion towards acquiring autonomous vehicles and investing in the firms advancing this technology. Direct investments account for around $2.5 billion of that total, while the remaining $7.5 billion is intended for acquiring robotaxis in the upcoming years, the report indicated.

We’ve covered various investments and partnerships by Uber with autonomous vehicle firms spanning drones, robotaxis, and freight. Notable investments include WeRide, Lucid, Nuro, Rivian, and Wayve. 

This significant figure (especially that $7.5 billion) led me to reflect on another pivotal period in Uber’s journey when it engaged with asset-heavy ventures in the past. Although Uber began with a strategy to minimize assets, it temporarily shifted gears.

From 2015 to 2018, Uber embarked on an ambitious expansion. It introduced electric air taxi firm Uber Elevate and its internal autonomous vehicle division, Uber ATG, which was strengthened by the acquisition of Otto in 2016. The company also acquired micromobility startup Jump in 2018. 

Then in 2020, Uber seemingly hit the brakes on its asset-heavy ambitions, moving away from its moonshot pursuits. Uber divested Uber ATG to Aurora, Jump to Lime, and Elevate to Joby Aviation. However, it retained ownership stakes in all acquired entities.

Uber is now stepping into a new, distinct phase characterized by asset acquisition. Instead of investing millions, or even billions, to develop technology internally—though I’m sure the team would assert that some R&D is ongoing at Uber—it seems to be prioritizing the ownership (or possibly leasing) of physical assets. 

This could result in fascinating entries on Uber’s balance sheet in the future. 

Owning fleets of robotaxis manufactured by other entities might not have been part of Uber’s initial vision, nor that of its former CEO Travis Kalanick, who indicated that abandoning its AV development initiative was a misstep. Yet, this new strategy may still lead to the desired destination.

A little bird

Earlier this month, I spoke with Eclipse partner Jiten Behl regarding the venture firm’s new $1.3 billion fund and the potential directions for that funding. The firm, as I mentioned, aims to foster more startups (for example, it played a role in the Rivian spinout Also). Behl kept specifics under wraps, merely stating, “We’re definitely working on a couple of really exciting ideas.” He noted that Eclipse is particularly keen on startups spanning multiple enterprises.

Thanks to an informant and some investigative work by senior reporter Sean O’Kane, it seems a seed round announcement is forthcoming for a San Francisco-based startup developing an autonomous hauler that I hear lacks a driver cab. This resembles what Einride has created, but since it remains unseen, we will need to wait. 

The startup’s team may be small, but it boasts a wealth of Silicon Valley tech industry talent, including a founder with experience at Uber ATG, Pronto, and Waabi. Stay tuned for updates. 

Got a tip for us? Email Kirsten Korosec at [email protected] or reach out via Signal at kkorosec.07, or email Sean O’Kane at [email protected].

Deals!

Slate is back with additional funding as it gears up to start manufacturing its first affordable pickup trucks by the end of 2026.

The electric vehicle startup, which originated with support from Jeff Bezos, has secured another $650 million in a Series C funding round led by TWG Global. Keep an eye on TWG, as it is managed by Guggenheim Partners CEO (and Los Angeles Dodgers owner) Mark Walter along with investor Thomas Tull. 

Slate has accumulated approximately $1.4 billion to date, with previous backers including General Catalyst, Jeff Bezos’ family office, VC firm Slauson & Co., and former Amazon executive Diego Piacentini, as initially reported by TechCrunch last year.

Other notable deals …

Glydways, a San Francisco-based startup focused on personal autonomous pods designed for dedicated 2-meter-wide lanes in urban areas, raised $170 million in a Series C funding round co-led by Suzuki Motor Corporation, ACS Group, and Khosla Ventures. Existing investors Mitsui Chemicals and Gates Frontier alongside new participant Obayashi Corporation also took part. But wait, there’s more. 

GM and Ford are reportedly discussing with the Pentagon about how the auto sector can assist military procurement efforts to find more cost-effective and quicker ways to acquire vehicles, munitions, or other equipment, according to the New York Times, citing unnamed sources.

Loop, a San Francisco startup, secured $95 million in its Series C funding round led by Valor Equity Partners and the Valor Atreides AI Fund, with contributions from 8VC, Founders Fund, Index Ventures, and J.P. Morgan’s late-stage fund, Growth Equity Partners.

Monarch Tractor, the company developing electric autonomous tractors, has transitioned to (ahem) a different venture. The company’s assets were purchased by Caterpillar after failing to pivot to a software services model.

Uber is increasing its investment in Delivery Hero by 4.5%, according to the Financial Times. Uber has agreed to purchase about 270 million euros worth of shares from Prosus, the Dutch investment conglomerate and Delivery Hero’s largest stakeholder.

Notable reads and other tidbits

Doug Field, the prominent executive who influenced Ford’s electric vehicle and technological strategies over the last five years, is departing. In conjunction with this, Ford is restructuring, forming a “product creation and industrialization” team to be overseen by COO Kumar Galhotra. Any speculation on where Field may go next? Perhaps a return to Silicon Valley. 

Lightship, the all-electric RV maker, is expanding its Colorado factory by an additional 44,000 square feet, enabling it to increase its manufacturing capacity fourfold.

Rivian and battery recycling and materials startup Redwood Materials have collaborated for years. We are now witnessing the results of that partnership. Redwood is setting up battery energy storage at Rivian’s facility in Illinois. The twist? Redwood is utilizing 100 second-life Rivian battery packs, which will generate 10 megawatt-hours (MWh) of available energy to cut costs and ease grid load during peak demand times.

Tesla has created a new self-driving application that simplifies the process for owners to subscribe to its Full Self-Driving software and track statistics on usage frequency and manner. While this might not be groundbreaking news, it caught my attention due to the engaging aspects of these new metrics. 

Waymo, as usual, has several updates this week. The Alphabet-owned company began its trials of autonomous vehicles on public streets in London. Additionally, it has removed its waitlist in Miami and Orlando to expand its robotaxi services in those areas. 

One more thing …

This newsletter is not my sole endeavor increasingly integrated with robotics. My podcast, the Autonocast, is as well, given the convergence of autonomous vehicles, AI, and robotics. Check out this interview with Foxglove founder Adrian MacNeil, who has a history at Cruise.

It’s a common occurrence in every nascent industry: founders and investors strive for a unified objective, until financial gains begin to flow and the collective vision starts to split.

Fissures are appearing in the realm of fusion energy, which I witnessed firsthand at The Economist’s Fusion Fest in London last week. The overall optimistic atmosphere remained intact, buoyed by fusion startups securing $1.6 billion in funding over the past year. Nevertheless, participants held varying views on two pivotal questions: When ought fusion startups to go public? And do ancillary businesses serve as diversions?

The prospect of going public was paramount in discussions. In the past four months, TAE Technologies and General Fusion have revealed intentions to merge with publicly traded entities. Both are poised to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars to sustain their research and development endeavors, while investors, some of whom have maintained their faith for two decades, are finally seeing a chance to realize returns.

However, there isn’t unanimous consensus. Most individuals I conversed with expressed concerns that these companies were opting to go public too prematurely and that they hadn’t met significant milestones many consider critical for assessing the progress of a fusion firm.

To recap: TAE declared its merger with Trump Media & Technology Group in December. Although the agreement isn’t finalized yet, the fusion segment of the business has already secured $200 million of a possible $300 million from the agreement, providing it some runway to further develop its power plant. (The remaining funds are expected to be transferred to its account once it submits the S-4 form to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.)

General Fusion announced in January that it would go public through a reverse merger with a special purpose acquisition company. The arrangement could yield the company $335 million and value the combined organization at $1 billion. 

Both firms could benefit from the influx of cash.

Prior to the merger announcement, General Fusion was facing challenges in fundraising, and around this time last year, it laid off 25% of its workforce as CEO Greg Twinney issued a public appeal for investment. It received a brief respite in August when investors extended a $22 million lifeline, but that level of funding doesn’t last long in the fusion sector, where equipment, experiments, and personnel are costly.

TAE’s situation was not as critical, but it still needed additional funding. Before the merger, the company had secured nearly $2 billion, which seems substantial, yet keep in mind the company is approaching 30 years of operations. Moreover, its pre-merger valuation stood at $2 billion, as reported by PitchBook. Investors were at best breaking even.

Neither entity has reached scientific breakeven, a crucial milestone indicating a reactor design possesses potential for a power plant. Many observers doubt they’ll achieve that level before other privately held startups do. One executive remarked that if they were in the same position, they wouldn’t know how to utilize time during quarterly earnings calls if these companies don’t reach scientific breakeven soon.

If TAE or General Fusion fails to deliver tangible outcomes, several individuals expressed concern that public markets might turn against the entire fusion sector.

Currently, not everything may be bleak. TAE has already begun promoting additional products, including power electronics and radiation treatments for cancer. This could afford the company some short-term revenue to appease its shareholders. However, General Fusion has not disclosed any similar initiatives.

Therein lies another point of contention: fusion companies remain divided on whether to seek revenue now or wait until they have an operational power plant.

Certain firms are seizing the chance to generate income along the way. A reasonable approach! Fusion is a lengthy endeavor, so why not enhance your prospects? Both Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Tokamak Energy have stated their intentions to market magnets. TAE and Shine Technologies are both involved in nuclear medicine.

Other startups are concerned that side ventures could serve as a distraction. Inertia Enterprises, for instance, told me they are intensely focused on their power plant. This aligns with the sentiments expressed by another investor months ago: they were apprehensive that fusion startups might lose focus due to lucrative, but peripheral businesses.

There was little agreement on the appropriate timing for going public as well. I encountered several suggested milestones. Some believe that startups should first reach the scientific breakeven milestone, where a fusion reaction produces more energy than is required to initiate it. No startup has accomplished this thus far. The other alternatives include facility breakeven — when the reactor generates more energy than the total site requires to function — and commercial viability — when a reactor produces enough electricity to contribute significantly to the grid.

We might have an answer to this question sooner rather than later. Commonwealth Fusion Systems anticipates hitting scientific breakeven sometime next year, and some speculate the company may capitalize on that event to pursue a public offering.