Mazda has finally announced their long-rumored MX-30 plug-in hybrid, named the MX-30 R-EV, which uses a small rotary engine as a range extender to supplement a now even smaller battery.
The new MX-30 R-EV was shown at the Brussels Motor Show today, though Mazda’s press release is light on details. All it mentions is that the car will have a 17.8kWh battery good for 85km (53mi) of range on the WLTP test cycle. This battery is half the size of the EV’s 35.5kWh, and is paired to an 830cc rotary engine and a 50 liter (13 gallon) gas tank. It will be available in a new “Edition R” trim and color (pictured above) and will feature 1.5kW of V2L “power supply functionality.”
At first glance, the R-EV’s lower range (with half the battery capacity and less-than-half of the range) might suggest a less efficient vehicle, but if the R-EV carries over the EV’s ~5kWh battery holdback, the two seem almost identical in efficiency. The R-EV is 58kg (127lbs) heavier and slightly more powerful (168hp, up from 143hp) than the EV, so both cars have similar performance.
The R-EV will be capable of 36kW DC fast charging, down from 50kW for the EV. Both of these are pretty pedestrian numbers in this day and age, with 350kW chargers propagating throughout Europe. But PHEVs generally do not rely on DC fast charging when they need a quick fill up, so this is less of an achilles heel for a car with a range extender under the hood.
Mazda will offer drivers a choice of three drive modes to control the engine – “normal” which mostly uses the electric motor until battery charge gets low or the driver floors the accelerator, “EV” which will force the engine to stay off as long as possible, and “charge” which will preferentially run the gas engine so you can maintain a certain battery charge percentage. Drivers can set their own preferred percentage, and this can be used, for example, for driving through various EV-only zones which are propagating around some European city centers.
In terms of price and availability, the R-EV will start at the same base price as the EV, as Mazda says it wants to offer buyers a simpler decision to choose the powertrain that’s best for them, and it should start shipping to various countries next quarter.
Earlier this week, Mazda announced the MX-30 EV is coming back to California after spending the better part of a year missing in action with no comment on whether it would be back for the 2023 model year. In its first model year, Mazda planned to sell a paltry 560 vehicles in California only, and ended up selling 505. This MX-30 EV is not available anywhere else in the US, nor is the newly-announced PHEV.
Electrek’s Take
The MX-30 has had somewhat of a tortured existence so far. First announced as a fully electric car, it was praised for its sleek looks, mature interior, and interesting suicide doors.
But when Mazda started talking about and showing the car, it became more and more clear that it… didn’t really want to make an electric car. Before the car even came out, Mazda announced that it was artificially making it slower “to feel more like a gas car.”
Then, when we drove the car, we noticed a lot of design decisions that seemed far more consistent with having an engine than a battery. Not only was all the electric badging quite temporary-looking, but there is a massive empty space under the hood just waiting to be filled by an engine:
Mazda says that their strategy is to offer appropriate powertrains for each region based on that region’s needs, which has translated into EVs for Europe and California, conventional “mild” gas-powered hybrids in other regions, and PHEVs now for Europe.
But… why? The US has much larger distances, and the US’ “road trip culture” is often cited as something that keeps people (wrongly) away from EVs. PHEVs give drivers the ability to stay on electric drive for most driving, but still have a tank for road tripping, so it seems like this would work for the US.
And in Europe, it seems like electric would work great, with some cities banning internal combustion engines and with the whole continent being covered by a quality train network to get between cities when needed. Europe also has much higher petrol prices than the US, and an acute reason to want to avoid using oil – its main supplier, Russia, has just decided to launch an unjustifiable war in Europe, and much of the oil burned on the continent therefore directly funds that war.
But there’s a hitch – incentives. In Europe, PHEVs are actually more common than in the US, despite the factors mentioned above, because it’s quite common for companies to purchase or lease vehicles to employees as company cars, and the companies get incentives for those cars. These cars are commonly plug-in hybrids, and they also commonly never get plugged in.
Meanwhile, in the US, California requires manufacturers to sell a certain amount of zero emission vehicles or else they have to purchase costly ZEV credits from other automakers, so manufacturers often sell EVs only in California in order to meet these regulations. These half-baked EVs are called “compliance cars,” and they have been a common way for manufacturers to get around California’s ZEV regulation for the last decade.
So it seems that a large part of Mazda’s true rationale for these vehicles isn’t what customers need, but how they can best game the system in each territory.
Which is a shame, since this could be a good PHEV. While we were hoping for a full 35.5kWh paired with a small engine, much like the old BMW i3, 85km/53mi is still longer range than other PHEVs on the market. And it’s enough to cover most people’s daily needs, so it’s entirely possible that many R-EV drivers will be able to go months or even a year without filling up on gas.
But the problem is, there are still lots of people who will just never plug their car in. PHEVs have been found to get much less efficiency than the stickers claim because of this. While it is attractive to think that we could spread a limited battery supply around to more vehicles by putting, say, 3x20kWh PHEVs on the road instead of one 60kWh EV, the calculus breaks down if people don’t plug those PHEVs in. And we just end up with a bunch of slightly-more-efficient gas cars on the road, using up batteries that could have been put into something that doesn’t use fossil fuels.
We also like that Mazda has announced price parity between the R-EV and the EV. Many other vehicles have a cheaper PHEV, which makes little sense since you’re buying two powertrains instead of one. The BMW i3 again did this right – the PHEV was actually more expensive than the EV, underlining that the EV is the better deal, both for buyers and for the environment. And the i3 was connected to a tiny gas tank, again underlining that it was to be used as a backup, instead of the massive 50L tank on the MX-30.
And most of all, it doesn’t make sense that the car is only available in Europe. Mazda, you screwed up with the MX-30 EV, and everyone knows it. It’s not great. But you have a good-looking car which was designed to be a PHEV from the start, which you could theoretically offer at a competitive price and with a better package (i.e., larger EV range) than competing vehicles.
But, like the EV itself, it kind of feels like you don’t actually want to sell it. Prove us wrong. If you’re proud of this product, let people buy it.
Now… electrify the Miata, next. Please? Come on. We’ve been asking for so long!
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Plant workers drive along an aluminum potline at Century Aluminum Company’s Hawesville plant in Hawesville, Ky. on Wednesday, May 10, 2017. (Photo by Luke Sharrett /For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Aluminum
The Washington Post | The Washington Post | Getty Images
Sweeping tariffs on imported aluminum imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump are succeeding in reshaping global trade flows and inflating costs for American consumers, but are falling short of their primary goal: to revive domestic aluminum production.
Instead, rising costs, particularly skyrocketing electricity prices in the U.S. relative to global competitors, are leading to smelter closures rather than restarts.
The impact of aluminum tariffs at 25% is starkly visible in the physical aluminum market. While benchmark aluminum prices on the London Metal Exchange provide a global reference, the actual cost of acquiring the metal involves regional delivery premiums.
This premium now largely reflects the tariff cost itself.
In stark contrast, European premiums were noted by JPMorgan analysts as being over 30% lower year-to-date, creating a significant divergence driven directly by U.S. trade policy.
This cost will ultimately be borne by downstream users, according to Trond Olaf Christophersen, the chief financial officer of Norway-based Hydro, one of the world’s largest aluminum producers. The company was formerly known as Norsk Hydro.
“It’s very likely that this will end up as higher prices for U.S. consumers,” Christophersen told CNBC, noting the tariff cost is a “pass-through.” Shares of Hydro have collapsed by around 17% since tariffs were imposed.
Stock Chart IconStock chart icon
The downstream impact of the tariffs is already being felt by Thule Group, a Hydro customer that makes cargo boxes fitted atop cars. The company said it’ll raise prices by about 10% even though it manufactures the majority of the goods sold in the U.S locally, as prices of raw materials, such as steel and aluminum, have shot up.
But while tariffs are effectively leading to prices rise in the U.S., they haven’t spurred a revival in domestic smelting, the energy-intensive process of producing primary aluminum.
The primary barrier remains the lack of access to competitively priced, long-term power, according to the industry.
“Energy costs are a significant factor in the overall production cost of a smelter,” said Ami Shivkar, principal analyst of aluminum markets at analytics firm Wood Mackenzie. “High energy costs plague the US aluminium industry, forcing cutbacks and closures.”
“Canadian, Norwegian, and Middle Eastern aluminium smelters typically secure long-term energy contracts or operate captive power generation facilities. US smelter capacity, however, largely relies on short-term power contracts, placing it at a disadvantage,” Shivkar added, noting that energy costs for U.S. aluminum smelters were about $550 per tonne compared to $290 per tonne for Canadian smelters.
Recent events involving major U.S. producers underscore this power vulnerability.
In March 2023, Alcoa Corp announced the permanent closure of its 279,000 metric ton Intalco smelter, which had been idle since 2020. Alcoa said that the facility “cannot be competitive for the long-term,” partly because it “lacks access to competitively priced power.”
Century stated the power cost required to run the facility had “more than tripled the historical average in a very short period,” necessitating a curtailment expected to last nine to twelve months until prices normalized.
The industry has also not had a respite as demand for electricity from non-industrial sources has risen in recent years.
Hydro’s Christophersen pointed to the artificial intelligence boom and the proliferation of data centers as new competitors for power. He suggested that new energy production capacity in the U.S., from nuclear, wind or solar, is being rapidly consumed by the tech sector.
“The tech sector, they have a much higher ability to pay than the aluminium industry,” he said, noting the high double-digit margins of the tech sector compared to the often low single-digit margins at aluminum producers. Hydro reported an 8.3% profit margin in the first quarter of 2025, an increase from the 3.5% it reported for the previous quarter, according to Factset data.
“Our view, and for us to build a smelter [in the U.S.], we would need cheap power. We don’t see the possibility in the current market to get that,” the CFO added. “The lack of competitive power is the reason why we don’t think that would be interesting for us.”
While failing to ignite domestic primary production, the tariffs are undeniably causing what Christophersen termed a “reshuffling of trade flows.”
When U.S. market access becomes more costly or restricted, metal flows to other destinations.
Christophersen described a brief period when exceptionally high U.S. tariffs on Canadian aluminum — 25% additional tariffs on top of the aluminum-specific tariffs — made exporting to Europe temporarily more attractive for Canadian producers. Consequently, more European metals would have made their way into the U.S. market to make up for the demand gap vacated by Canadian aluminum.
The price impact has even extended to domestic scrap metal prices, which have adjusted upwards in line with the tariff-inflated Midwest premium.
Hydro, also the world’s largest aluminum extruder, utilizes both domestic scrap and imported Canadian primary metal in its U.S. operations. The company makes products such as window frames and facades in the country through extrusion, which is the process of pushing aluminum through a die to create a specific shape.
“We are buying U.S. scrap [aluminium]. A local raw material. But still, the scrap prices now include, indirectly, the tariff cost,” Christophersen explained. “We pay the tariff cost in reality, because the scrap price adjusts to the Midwest premium.”
“We are paying the tariff cost, but we quickly pass it on, so it’s exactly the same [for us],” he added.
RBC Capital Markets analysts confirmed this pass-through mechanism for Hydro’s extrusions business, saying “typically higher LME prices and premiums will be passed onto the customer.”
This pass-through has occurred amid broader market headwinds, particularly downstream among Hydro’s customers.
RBC highlighted the “weak spot remains the extrusion divisions” in Hydro’s recent results and noted a guidance downgrade, reflecting sluggish demand in sectors like building and construction.
Danish energy giant Ørsted has canceled plans for the Hornsea 4 offshore wind farm, dealing a major blow to the UK’s renewable energy ambitions.
Hornsea 4, at a massive 2.4 gigawatts (GW), would have become one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, generating enough clean electricity to power over 1 million UK homes. But Ørsted announced that it’s abandoning the project “in its current form.”
“The adverse macroeconomic developments, continued supply chain challenges, and increased execution, market, and operational risks have eroded the value creation,” said Rasmus Errboe, group president and CEO of Ørsted.
Reuters reported that Ørsted’s cancellation of Hornsea 4 would result in a projected loss of up to 5.5 billion Danish crowns ($837.85 million) in breakaway fees and asset write-downs. The company’s market value has declined by 80% since its peak in 2021.
The cancellation highlights significant challenges currently facing offshore wind development in Europe, particularly in the UK. The combination of higher material costs, inflation, and global financial instability has made large-scale renewable projects increasingly difficult to finance and complete.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Ørsted’s decision is a significant setback to the UK’s energy transition goals. The UK currently has around 15 GW of offshore wind, and Hornsea 4’s size would have provided almost 7% of the additional capacity needed for the UK’s 50 GW by 2030 target, according to The Times. Losing this immense project off the Yorkshire coast could hamper the UK’s pace of reducing dependency on fossil fuels, especially amid volatile global energy markets.
The UK government reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, promising to work closely with industry leaders to overcome financial and logistical hurdles. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told reporters in Norway that the UK is “still committed to working with Orsted to seek to make Hornsea 4 happen by 2030.”
Ørsted says it remains committed to its other UK-based projects, including the Hornsea 3 wind farm, which is expected to generate around 2.9 GW once completed at the end of 2027. Despite the challenges, the company emphasized its ongoing commitment to the British renewable market, pointing to the critical need for policy support and economic stability to ensure future developments.
Yet, the cancellation of Hornsea 4 demonstrates that even flagship renewable projects are vulnerable in the face of economic pressures and global uncertainties, which have been heightened under the Trump administration in the US.
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. 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. They have 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 Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The Tesla Roadster appears to be quietly disappearing after years of delay. is it ever going to be made?
I may have jinxed it with Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, which suggests any headline ending in a question mark can be answered with “no.”
The prototype for the next-generation Tesla Roadster was first unveiled in 2017, and it was supposed to come into production in 2020, but it has been delayed every year since then.
It was supposed to get 620 miles (1,000 km) of range and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 1.9 seconds.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
It has become a sort of running joke, and there are doubts that it will ever come to market despite Tesla’s promise of dozens of free new Roadsters to Tesla owners who participated in its referral program years ago.
Tesla uses the promise of free Roadsters to help generate billions of dollars worth of sales, which Tesla owners delivered, but the automaker never delivered on its part of the agreement.
Furthermore, many people placed deposits ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 to reserve the vehicle, which was supposed to hit the market 5 years ago.
“With respect to Roadster, we’ve completed most of the engineering. And I think there’s still some upgrades we want to make to it, but we expect to be in production with Roadster next year. It will be something special.”
He said that Tesla had completed “most of the engineering”, but he initially said the engineering would be done in 2021 and that was already 3 years after the prototype was unveiled and a year after it was supposed to be in production:
There was one small update about the Roadster in Tesla’s financial results last month.
The automaker has a table of all its vehicle production, and the Roadster was updated from “in development” to “design development” in the table:
It’s not clear if that’s progress or Tesla is just rephrasing it. Either way, it is not “construction”, which makes it unlikely that the Roadster is going into production this year.
If ever…
Electrek’s Take
It looks like Tesla owes about 80 Tesla Roadsters for free to Tesla owners who referred purchases, and it owes significant discounts on hundreds of units.
It’s hard for me to believe that Tesla is not delivering the new Roadster because the vehicle program would start about $100 million in the red, but at this point, I have no idea. It very well might be the reason.
However, I think it’s more likely that Tesla is just terrible at bringing multiple vehicle programs to market simultaneously. Case in point: it launched a single new vehicle in the last five years.
At this point, I think it’s more likely that the Roadster will never happen. It will join other Tesla products like the Cybertruck Range Extender.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.