Connect with us

Published

on

Climate activists have been turning up the heat on two Democratic holdouts who are on the verge of smothering President Biden’s ambitious climate plans, the well known coal stakeholder Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and the somewhat lesser known but spotlight-grabbing Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Whether or not they continue to hold out is an open question as of this writing. However, one thing is certain: Coal is on the way out. Perhaps perovskite solar cells will help fully close the door one day.

The Disruptive Potential Of The Perovskite Solar Cell

Ever since the US fell out of the global silicon solar cell race in the 1980s, policymakers have been lusting after an alternative photovoltaic technology that could be manufactured in the US, at scale, and at a price point that could beat imported silicon solar cells.

Somewhere around 2009, the Department of Energy hit upon synthetic perovskite as a potential solution. Instead of a solid mass that needs to be tailored mechanically, the meat of a perovskite solar cell is a solution of relatively inexpensive, lab-grown nanoscale crystals that can be applied like ink to practically any surface.

If you’re thinking roll-to-roll, run right out and buy yourself a cigar. If all goes according to plan, a perovskite solar cell facility could be run like a print shop, churning out reams of solar cells at high volume with minimal waste.

Perovskites could be the next big thing after plastics, but it’s not that simple. Not just any old synthetic perovskite nanocrystals can get the job done. They need to be tailored with other substances for durability. That can jack up the cost, which kind of pulls the rug out from under the whole idea of the perovskite solar cell to begin with.

Perovskite Solar Cell Activity Heats Up

Energy is energy, and it seems that some oil and gas stakeholders have taken the model of plastics to heart in pursuit of the next big thing. The company Hunt Perovksite Technologies, for example, is an offshoot of Hunt Consolidated Group, which has a long history in the fossil energy field. In an interesting move, earlier this year HPT merged with the perovskite solar cell startup 1366 Technologies to form a new perovskite venture called CubicPV.

Shell is another fossil stakeholder with a hand in the perovskite solar cell pot. In 2018, the company kickstarted the GCxN clean technology accelerator at the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and GCxN has the perovskite solar cell startup BlueDot Photonics under its wing.

Last May, NREL also organized a consortium of perovskite solar cell stakeholders, consisting of BlueDot, Energy Materials Corporation, First Solar, Hunt Perovskites Technologies (now CubicPV), Swift Solar, and Tandem PV.

Perovskite Promise Gets Real

That brings us to the latest news in the perovskite solar cell area. Last year CleanTechnica caught up with GCxN program manager Adam Duran, and he had this to say about BlueDot:

“It’s promising technology, nascent technology that they are developing quickly. They are working on a creative manufacturing technology that will help reduce costs,” he said. “It’s a novel approach to how they go through the production. This is an opportunity to take their laboratory technology and start thinking about what it would look like to do production-sized panels.”

It seems that others have caught on, including the cleantech investor group Volo Earth, which is an affiliate of NREL and the influential green organization RMI.

Last spring BlueDot raised a $1 million round of Series Seed financing through VoLo Earth Ventures. Boston-based Clean Energy Venture Group and the Seattle firm E8 were also involved, to be joined later by the nonprofit firm VertueLab of Portland, Oregon.

In the latest development, last week, Japan’s Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. announced that it had jumped into the BlueDot pool through its US branch.

“We’ve been impressed with BlueDot Photonics, which is developing a unique optical technology to improve the efficiency of solar power generation, and through investment, we hope to contribute to climate change countermeasures,” said HP President and CEO Akira Hiruma.

The seal of approval from one of the top optoelectronics marketers in the world probably won’t do much to change the minds of perovskite skeptics. However, the Hamamatsu edge could finally jolt the entire perovskite field out of the lab and onto the shelves of your local hardware store.

“Having Hamamatsu as a strategic partner is a big win for us. They are photonics experts, and their engagement will help us avoid commercialization pitfalls and identify new opportunities for our products. This will also help BlueDot consider markets outside of North America as we grow in the future,” explained BlueDot CEO Jared Silvia.

They may not be alone. Our friends over at the journal Nature recently noted that at least one legacy optoelectronics company has dipped a toe in the perovskite solar cell waters, only to bail. However, Nature also lists Panasonic and Toshiba among those still in hot pursuit of perovskite PV, along with the leading wind turbine manufacturer Goldwind of China.

Perovskites, Solar Tariffs, & The Manchin-Sinema Dance

In an echo of Silvia’s comment about “new opportunities,” Nature also teased out some hints that early markets for perovksite solar cells will be niche ones. If you have any thoughts about that, drop us a note in the comment thread.

In the meantime, NREL has been dropping hints that its 30-year collaboration on thin-film solar technology with the US firm First Solar could help push perovskites into the big leagues.

If the name First Solar brings to mind that new super secret solar tariff petition filed before the US Department of Commerce by an anonymous group companies reportedly in the solar field, you are probably not alone. However, the attorney who filed the petition is partners in a law firm that has counted the fossil-friendly organization ALEC among its roster of clients, so it’s not particularly obvious that the companies behind the petition have any significant stake in the US solar industry, especially not on the level of First Solar. It’s virtually the only true soup-to-nuts solar manufacturer in the US with domestic roots.

If you have any other guesses, drop a note in the comment thread — but you may not have to guess much longer. Last week the Commerce Department was apparently not impressed by the content of the petition, and it asked for the names of the companies behind it.

Meanwhile, the transformative potential of the perovskite solar cell dovetails neatly with President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, which he and others have characterized as a transformative step that will save the planet from catastrophic climate change, undo generations of structural inequality in the US, and establish American democracy as the unstoppable 21st century counterforce to authoritarianism, fascism, dictatorship, autocracy, oligarchy, and whatever else.

That’s a pretty full plate, and last week it looked like Senators Manchin and Sinema were on track to blow it all up — or not, as the case may be.

On Friday evening, President Biden apparently put his foot down, so let’s see what happens next.

Follow me on Twitter @TinaMCasey.

Photo (screenshot via YouTube): Perovskite solar cell courtesy of Shell Game Changer Accelerator at NREL.

 

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.

 

 


Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

BP shares jump 5% as activist investor Elliott discloses stake build

Published

on

By

BP shares jump 5% as activist investor Elliott discloses stake build

The BP logo is displayed outside a petrol station that also offers electric vehicle recharging, on Feb. 27, 2025, in Somerset, England.

Anna Barclay | Getty Images News | Getty Images

BP shares jumped on Wednesday after activist investor Elliott went public with a stake of more than 5% in the struggling British oil major, which has pivoted back to oil in a bid to restore investor confidence.

BP shares were last seen up 4.75% at 9:44 a.m. London time. The London-listed stock price is down around 5% year-to-date.

Hedge fund Elliott Management has built its holding in the British oil major to 5.006%, according to a regulatory filing disclosed late Tuesday. BP’s other large shareholders include BlackRock, Vanguard and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

Elliott was first reported to have assumed a position in the oil and gas company back in February, driving a share rally amid expectations that its involvement could pressure BP to shift gears from its green strategy and back toward its core oil and gas businesses.

Within weeks, BP, which has been lagging domestic peer Shell and transatlantic rivals and posted a steep drop in fourth-quarter profit, announced plans to ramp up fossil fuel investments to $10 billion through 2027. This marked a sharp strategic departure for the company, which five years ago became one of the first energy giants to announce plans to cut emissions to net zero “by 2050 or sooner.” As part of that push, the company pledged to slash emissions by up to 40% by 2030 and to ramp up investment in renewables projects.

The oil major scaled back this emissions target to 20% to 30% in February 2023, saying at the time that it needed to keep investing in oil and gas to meet global demand.

Since switching gears, BP’s CEO Murray Auchincloss and outgoing Chair Helge Lund — who is expected to depart the company in 2026 — retained their posts but were penalized with reduced support during BP’s board re-election vote earlier this month amid pressure from both revenue and climate-focused investors.

BP 'never really tried' to become a clean energy company, says climate activist investor

BP’s strategic reset back to the company’s oil and gas activities took place just as crude prices began to plunge amid volatility triggered by U.S. tariffs and Washington’s trade spat with China, the world’s largest crude importer.

Energy analysts have broadly welcomed the strategic reset, and BP CEO Murray Auchincloss has since said the pivot attracted “significant interest” in the firm’s non-core assets.

The energy firm nevertheless remains firmly in the spotlight as a potential takeover target, with the likes of Shell and U.S. oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron touted as possible suitors.

BP is scheduled to report first-quarter earnings on Tuesday. The company has said it anticipates lower reported upstream production and higher net debt in the first quarter than in the final three months of 2024.

Continue Reading

Environment

Musk complains about handouts when Tesla was only profitable due to credits

Published

on

By

Musk complains about handouts when Tesla was only profitable due to credits

Tesla’s earnings report dropped today, and news isn’t great. But instead of recognizing his failures that have led to Tesla’s downturn, CEO Elon Musk lashed out with conspiracy theories while also hypocritically failing to acknowledge that his company was only profitable this quarter due to regulatory credits.

The numbers are in on Tesla’s dismal quarter, with sales, profits and margins tanking significantly for the company despite a rising global EV market.

You’d expect a drop in car sales to be top of mind for a car company, but instead of talking about this, CEO Elon Musk opened the call by talking about his ineffective advisory role to a former reality TV host.

Musk is heading up the self-styled “Department of Government Efficiency,” an advisory group that is focused on reducing redundancy in government. The office is not an actual government department and has a redundant mission to the Government Accountability Office, which is an actual government department focused on reducing government waste.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Musk originally claimed that the department would be able to save $2 trillion for the US government, which is actually impossible because federal discretionary spending is $1.7 trillion, which is a (gets out abacus) smaller number than $2 trillion.

He has, of course, failed at this task that anyone with any level of competence would have known was impossible before setting it out for themselves, and now projects that the department will save $150 billion next year, less than a tenth of his original estimate. But even that projection is likely an overstatement, given that most of the supposed savings that DOGE has found are not actual savings at all.

On top of this, the US government’s deficit has grown to the second-highest level on record – with the first happening in 2020, the last time Mr. Trump squatted in the White House. Which means the government isn’t saving money, it is in fact borrowing and spending more of it than ever before.

So, Musk’s tenure in the advisory board has been an unmitigated failure by any realistic account.

But if you listened to Tesla’s call, you wouldn’t have known this, as Musk was quite boastful of his efforts – starting a Tesla conference call with an irrelevant rant about his fake government department, instead of with Tesla business.

He claimed that he has made “a lot of progress in addressing waste and fraud” and that the job is “mostly done,” which is not correct by his own metrics. Musk stated that his purpose is “trying to bring in the insane deficit that is leading our country, the United States, to destruction,” and as we covered above, that deficit has only increased.

But he also went on to spew some rather insane conspiracy theories about the reasons behind his company’s recent failures, all of which of course put the blame on someone else, rather than himself. The buck stops anywhere but here, I guess.

His primary assertion was that the “blowback from the time I’ve been spending in government” (which, again, is an advisory role, not an actual government position) has come mainly from protesters that were “receiving fraudulent money” and are now angry that the government money spigot has been turned off.

Which, of course, he’s provided no evidence for… and he’s provided no evidence for it because it’s false.

Besides, that’s not how protests work. But incorrect claims that protests do work that way are often used by opponents of free speech, with the motivation of putting a chilling effect public participation. Fitting behavior for an enemy of the First Amendment like Elon Musk.

Meanwhile, this assertion also comes from a person who tried and failed to bribe voters to win an election. Perhaps his admiration of Tesla protesters is aspirational – he wishes his ideas were good enough to inspire that sort of grassroots political effort that money, demonstrably, cannot buy.

But this hypocrisy extends beyond Musk’s hatred of free expression, and strikes at the heart of the business he is the titular leader of, Tesla, the organization that has made him into the richest man in the world. Because not only is it not true that Tesla protests are driven by his ineffective government actions (they are, in fact, driven by him doing Nazi stuff all the time), it’s also objectively true that Musk’s companies are a large recipient of government money.

And that’s particularly relevant today, to the very earnings call where Musk made his ridiculous assertion, because in Q1 2025, Tesla only turned a profit due to government credits. Without them, it would have lost money.

Tesla only profitable in Q1 due to regulatory credits

Per today’s earnings report, Tesla earned $595 million in regulatory credits in Q1. But its total net income for the quarter was $409 million.

This means that without those regulatory credits, Tesla would have posted a -$189 million loss in Q1. It was saved not just by credit sales, but credit sales which increased year over year – in the year-ago quarter, Tesla made $442 million in regulatory credits, despite having higher sales in Q1 2024 than in Q1 2025. So not only were credits higher, but credits per vehicle were higher.

This is a common feature of Tesla earnings, and we even said in our earnings preview that we expected it. While Tesla had a bad quarter, nobody expected it to become actually unprofitable, because there was always the possibility of increasing regulatory credit sales to eke out a profitable quarter.

And this has been the case many times in Tesla’s past, as well. In earlier times, Tesla’s first few profitable quarters were decried by the company’s opponents as an accounting trick, suggesting that regulatory credit sales weren’t “real” profits, and that the cars should have to stand on their own.

This is a silly thing to say – businesses do business in the environment that exists, and every business has an incentive structure that includes subsidies and externalities. If we were to selectively write off certain profits for certain businesses, we could make a tortured case that any business isn’t profitable.

Plus, these opponents didn’t extend the same treatment to the oil industry, which is subsidized to the tune of $760 billion per year in the US alone in unpriced externalities, yet that is somehow never mentioned during their earnings calls.

Musk has even claimed, probably correctly, that if all subsidies were eliminated both for EVs and for oil & gas, that EVs would come out ahead compared to the status quo (more recently, Musk has become one of the biggest funders of anti-EV forces, allying himself with a bought-and-paid oil stooge who is giving even more preferential treatment to the oil industry).

But, setting aside the debate over whether credits are valid profits (they are), for years now we’ve been well beyond Tesla’s reliance on credits. The company has produced significant profits, regardless of credit sales, for some time now.

At least, until today. That’s no longer true – Tesla did rely on credits to become profitable in Q1. And Musk starting the call with a ridiculous rant about government handouts not only shows his hypocrisy and projection on this matter, but his detachment from reality itself. He is, truly, too stuck in the impenetrable echo chamber of his self-congratulating twitter feed to realize what an embarrassment he’s being in public – to the point of inventing shadow enemies to explain the very real, very simple explanation that people aren’t buying his company’s cars because he sucks so much.


Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Commercial financing for EVs is way different than you think | Quick Charge

Published

on

By

Commercial financing for EVs is way different than you think | Quick Charge

No matter how badly a fleet wants to electrify their operations and take advantage of reduced fuel costs and TCO, the fact remains that there are substantial up-front obstacles to commercial EV adoption … or are there? We’ve got fleet financing expert Guy O’Brien here to help walk us through it on today’s fiscally responsible episode of Quick Charge!

This conversation was motivated by the recent uncertainty surrounding EVs and EV infrastructure at the Federal level, and how that turmoil is leading some to believe they should wait to electrify. The truth? There’s never been a better time to make the switch!

Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple PodcastsSpotifyTuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.

New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending