One of the first questions Tamara Lundgren often heard when she introduced herself as the CEO of Schnitzer Steel is, “What kind of steel do you make?'”
Founded in 1906 by Russian immigrant Sam Schnitzer, the company started as a one-person scrap metal recycler. Over 117 years later, a series of acquisitions and organic growth has made it one of the largest manufacturers and exporters of recycled metal products in North America, and a global leader in the collection, processing and sale of steel.
And while yes, Lundgren told CNBC, the company does make steel – some of the lowest-carbon emissions steel made in the world, she noted – it’s now the smallest part of its business.
“The name Schnitzer Steel just no longer really reflects our work,” said Lundgren, who joined the company in 2005 and was elevated to CEO in 2008. “We finally got to the point where if you’re introducing yourself by explaining what you do a little bit of, but not the most, it’s probably time to rebrand.”
Under Lundgren’s leadership, the company is now right in the middle of the growing circular economy, operating metals recycling facilities, auto dismantling and retail stores that sell used auto parts, and a third-party recycling service for manufacturers, industrials and retailers.
“In today’s environment, the importance of recycling and the importance of recycling metals has reached a level that didn’t exist 10 years ago,” Lundgren said. “With the transition to low-carbon technologies like electric vehicles, solar, wind, and the like, all of those technologies require more metal than the technologies that they’re replacing.”
An example of the recycling challenges in the climate transition is the wind turbine, which is recyclable, from the steel tower to the composite blades, typically 170 feet long, but most ends up being thrown away, a waste total that will reach a cumulative mass of 2.2 million metric tons by 2050, according to a 2021 study.
As this energy shift was happening in the broader economy, so too were conversations within the company and at the board level about a potential rebrand, Lundgren said.
That came to a head in January, while Lundgren was at Davos. Schnitzer Steel was named the “Most sustainable company in the world” by the sustainable economy magazine Corporate Knights, but Lundgren said most of the headlines she saw were focused on it being a steel company.
“I’m glad we were getting that attention, but fundamentally what drove it was all of our recycling activity,” Lundgren said. That quickly sparked a call to her communications team to bounce the idea of exploring a rebrand, which then led to larger discussions with experts to brainstorm and then formal discussions with the board and an internal team for feedback.
A few ideas were kicked around, including some bespoke names. But Lundgren said the name Radius Recycling resonated with everyone they mentioned it to, which called back to what kicked off the whole process. “The catalyst was having a name where people understood what you did from the name,” she said.
The process was closely guarded due to being a public company, so Lundgren said that there were employees and stakeholders who would only learn of the name change when it was publicly announced on July 26. But she was confident that it would resonate across the board.
In fact, she said she expected it to particularly resonate among the ESG investor community. While the company has backing from that sector of investors already, Lundgren said the new name will “open up doors more easily to people who might otherwise put us in a category that wasn’t in their scope of interest.”
Could it also bring negative feedback due to those ESG ties? Lundgren said she doesn’t believe it will, as the company has been “about sustainability before sustainability was a word. We are about recycling, and there’s no fluff there.”
The rollout of the change to Radius Recycling will take some time, Lundgren noted. While the company doesn’t necessarily have a product on a shelf or packaging it needs to redesign, it does have plenty of heavy machinery that will be repainted or rebranded when that equipment rolls over, she said. Most of the effort will come on the digital side of things, so that will not require the company to accelerate any capital spend towards it. Its Nasdaq ticker symbol will switch in September.
Reflecting on the process, Lundgren said that one thing she would highlight for other companies in the middle of a massive economic and market transition is just how much of it focused on listening: listening to what people’s first reactions to the company were, what questions they asked, and where stakeholders felt the company’s future was headed.
“It was connecting all of those dots and communicating,” she said. “And to make this successful, that communication has to continue.”
Some of that communication will be speaking to fellow CEOs about the services the company can offer in helping to lower carbon footprints and environmental impact, which Lundgren hopes becomes easier by just hearing the name of the company she leads.
“I think it’s great to be able to take an old economy company and an old economy industry and really position it to the point where we are an essential business and we are critical to the success of the circular economy and we are critical to this transition to a low-carbon world,” she said.
Tesla filed for a patent which looks like it could be the promised “SpaceX package” which it will supposedly include on its oft-delayed next-gen Roadster. But will the system let the Roadster “fly,” as CEO Elon Musk has promised?
The idea, at the time, was for the Roadster to provide a “hard-core smack down to gasoline powered cars,” and our speculative technical analysis of the announced specs suggested that this could certainly be the case. The car was slated for a 2020 release.
However, 8 years later, you may have noticed that you have not seen a next-gen Tesla Roadster on the road yet. So we will have to wait to see if all those promised statistics will bear out, or if it’s all just smoke and mirrors.
But today, we got the first positive verification of progress on a probable Tesla Roadster performance improvement that we’ve seen in a long time – or maybe ever.
It comes in the form of a patent filed with the US patent office which seems to show something somewhat similar to the “SpaceX package” that CEO Elon Musk has referred to repeatedly, claiming that the car will use “cold gas thrusters” to “fly.”
How Musk described Tesla’s “SpaceX package”
The point of the SpaceX package was always to add additional performance that is not attainable by traction alone.
Currently, a lot of electric cars have so much torque that they are “traction-limited,” which is to say, their tires cannot possibly accelerate them in any direction any faster than they currently do. You can add more power or bigger brakes, but it doesn’t matter, the limiting factor is the tires (and the weight…).
So you have to find other creative ways to get more performance. Lots of cars do this with aerodynamic surfaces like wings/spoilers to add downforce, which pushes the car to the ground so the tires can work a little harder. But there are limits to how much downforce you can add, and what speeds it works at.
This is where the SpaceX package would come in – it would presumably add additional thrust in a given direction, adding acceleration in whichever direction you choose.
The way that Musk has described it in the past, using “cold gas thrusters,” made it seem like there would be thrusters strategically placed around the vehicle to provide either forward or lateral acceleration, or deceleration in order to help the car stop.
However, Musk also described the car as being able to “fly,” which makes no sense whatsoever.
As mentioned above, downforce is an effective way to get more performance out of a vehicle when you are otherwise traction-limited. But flying would take upforce, not downforce, and that’s not a term anyone uses because it’s totally useless for any performance benefit and there’s absolutely no reason anyone would ever want to do that to a car – unless you’re trying to play a trick on Mark Webber or something.
(Yes, I’m aware of the jumping Yangwang U9. That’s a demo of active suspension, which does add performance benefit, and using that system to “jump” doesn’t add any unnecessary weight or complexity to the active suspension system, unlike downward-pointed thrusters which would be wholly unnecessary beyond providing a demo).
Thankfully, someone who knows how physics works showed up and reason has prevailed, and it looks like the system, as proposed, doesn’t do any of that nonsense Elon Musk was talking about. Instead, it does what it should have done all along – it acts as a “fan car,” a concept that has existed in automotive circles since the early 1970s.
Tesla’s actual patent shows old “fan car” tech, with a twist
There have been several “fan cars” or “ground effect cars” in the past, which operate with powerful fans to blow air out from underneath the vehicle, combined with side skirts underneath the car to reduce the amount of air that can replace it. This creates a low-pressure vacuum effect, and “sucks” the car to the ground (more accurately, ambient air pressure from above pushes the car to the ground, physics teachers please do not email me about how nothing sucks in physics).
Tesla’s patent shows a design that looks very similar to concepts that we’ve seen before in the automotive realm, but with some new tech applied. Have a look:
It has the fans and the side skirts, just as one would expect. And it shows the rough design of what the system might look like – a hexagonal-ish shape underneath the vehicle, with fans presumably at the rear of the vehicle to exhaust air to create the vacuum effect.
Tesla goes on to say that these skirts and fans could be controlled automatically by vehicle systems in order to offer different performance benefits in different situations. This is where we start to see the new tech – like adding the modern concept of active aerodynamics to the concept of fan cars.
Rather than deploying the skirts the same way in all modes, there could be different modes for a prepared track surface which is known to be high quality and flat, or for a more uneven road surface where you might not be able to create as secure of a seal with the maximum-downforce configuration.
This is an issue with fan cars – they only work on the right kind of surface. If air leaks in to the vacuum region under the vehicle, you can’t really create as much negative pressure as you’d like. That’s why the side skirts are necessary, but of course that doesn’t work if there are potholes, unsecured manhole covers, and the like.
Tesla also says the system could have different configurations for low- and high-speed operations, adjust the skirts based on vehicle weight transfer, or potentially detect upcoming road conditions and modify configuration based on what the car sees ahead. And mention of deploying the skirts based on GPS position lends itself to the idea that Tesla could create specific settings to optimize performance for track use, or even individual corners on tracks.
Is this the “SpaceX Package,”or something else?
Tesla has said for years that the Roadster would have a “SpaceX package” to increase the performance even further than the specs it mentioned in the original unveiling event. This was meant to use expertise from SpaceX, another company Musk runs, and whose primary facility is sited on the same Hawthorne, CA property as Tesla’s Design Studio.
At least one of the designers listed on Tesla’s “fan car” patent, David Lemire, worked at both Tesla and SpaceX in the past, before leaving and then returning to Tesla as a senior engineer on Tesla’s “new programs” team.
However, there is no mention in the document of “fly,” “flight,” “thruster,” “rocket” or “lift.” Nothing like the “cold gas thrusters” package that Musk has spent years telling us will make the car fly – and in fact, the exact opposite, as this will suck the car to the ground, not make it fly at all.
This could mean that Tesla has another idea in mind which will use thrusters, and will be applied in addition to this “fan car” idea.
Theoretically, adding lateral thrusters around the car could still add a performance benefit over and above the fan car idea, so these could be used in tandem, though it would add a lot of complexity to the vehicle. But these may or may not be worth the added weight – and they definitely wouldn’t be worth the weight if they’re directed in such a way to make the car able to “fly.”
Or it could be that the “fan car” patent will be applied to cars like the Model S Plaid, which has set racing records, and Tesla has another trick up its sleeve for the Roadster.
Or… this is what the SpaceX package was all along, and Musk was just running his mouth about the car flying. Which would be the best option, to be honest, because it’s dumb to pretend that flight would add any performance benefits to a sportscar.
Regardless, the fan car idea is an actual interesting performance idea, and it would actually work, unlike some of the previous public statements made by Tesla’s CEO. So it’s nice to see some sort of progress that could be applied to a performance car, after so many years of waiting.
But… does it matter anymore?
With so many performance EVs, does this matter?
The problem is that in the intervening 8 years since the Roadster was first introduced, some other electric cars with truly wild specs have already hit the road, and have delivered the “hard core smack down” that Tesla promised.
We’ve got the Rimac Nevera R, a 2,078hp electric car that can hit 300km/h (186mph) a full 3.5 seconds faster than a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport. We’ve got the Lotus Evija X, which set the third-fastest Nurburgring lap ever, only beaten by two one-off, track-only, purpose-built racecars (one of which is a hybrid, the other is electric).
And in the realm of actual consumer-available vehicles, we have the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra – made by a smartphone company, mind you – with 1,548hp and record-setting performance of its own.
So anybody who tells you these days that EVs aren’t fast is just… embarrassingly wrong. They’ve had their head in the sand for at least 19 years. It’s honestly a bit boring at this point.
So, what’s left for Tesla to do? The smack down has been delivered, and delivered by many other companies, startups and otherwise. I mean, heck, we’ve got a company that went from making phones to beating Porsche on its home track in the course of less than three years worth of development. Everyone is aware of how easy it is to beat complex, inefficient gas engines at this point.
A fan car seems like it could be a worthy addition to this menagerie, another way to deliver the smack down, as none of the above EVs have leveraged this particular type of active aerodynamics for a performance benefit, so Tesla could have something unique here….. oh, wait.
It turns out that someone else has done an electric fan car already. The McMurtry Spierling already has this idea, and it’s an absolute beast. It’s already the fastest car ever at Goodwood thanks to the 2,000kg of downforce that it makes with the huge fans underneath the roughly 1,000kg vehicle, even at 0mph where traditional aerodynamic surfaces provide no benefit whatsoever.
And if it seems interesting that one of those numbers is bigger than the other, well, yes, McMurtry has done that too – it briefly drove the car upside down just to show off how much downforce its fans can make, which we would say might qualify as “the most epic demo ever.”
That said, the Spierling is just one application of the idea, and it’s not like more cars can’t try something similar.
Also, it looks like Tesla’s solution would add a lot of adaptibility that McMurtry’s doesn’t have. Not only is the Spierling a purpose-built, track-focused single-seat racecar whereas the Roadster would be a regular roadgoing sportscar, but also Tesla’s flexible solution described in the patent would allow travel on less track-prepped terrain.
This would make the concept of a fan car much more practical for real life – as long as you’re not somewhere where you wouldn’t want to spray high-velocity pebbles out of the back of your vehicle. Maybe there’s a reason nobody has done this on a consumer vehicle yet (that said, Tesla includes a filter to stop the spray of dust and pebbles in the patent).
But in terms of real-life applications, there is also the consideration of driver skill. Drivers of performance vehicles get used to their car’s limits and learn where those limits are. But with a presumably enormous amount of adjustable downforce, those limits could change drastically based on road conditions.
We could see this being a dangerous situation if drivers think they’re in max-downforce mode but aren’t, and suddenly find mid-turn that the car is a lot less capable than they thought it was. So we’ll have to see if this mode is track-only or what.
For now, the main question is whether Tesla will ever make this thing, given that it’s already five years late. Any takers?
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. 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.
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media and Technology Conference at the Sun Valley Resort in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., on July 8, 2025.
David A. Grogan | CNBC
OpenAI is in talks with investors about a potential stock sale at a valuation of roughly $500 billion, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter.
The talks are in early stages and would involve a secondary sale with shares sold by current and former employees, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are confidential. Thrive Capital, an investor in OpenAI, could lead the potential round, the sources said.
Bloomberg was first to report on the latest talks.
OpenAI’s valuation has been on a continuous upswing since the artificial intelligence startup launched ChatGPT in late 2022 and quickly established itself as the leader in generative AI. The company announced a $40 billion funding round in March at a $300 billion, by far the largest amount ever raised by a private tech company.
Last week, OpenAI announced its most recent $8.3 billion tranche tied to that funding round.
OpenAI released two open-weight language models on Tuesday for the first time since it rolled out GPT-2 in 2019. The models aim to serve as lower-cost options that developers and researchers can easily run and customize, OpenAI said.
The company said earlier this week that ChatGPT was about to hit 700 million weekly active users.
OpenAI rival Anthropic, meanwhile, is in talks to secure between $3 billion and $5 billion in new funding led by Iconiq Capital at a potential $170 billion valuation, up from $61.5 billion in March.
CNBC previously reported that OpenAI’s annual recurring revenue is projected to top $20 billion by year-end, up from $10 billion in June.
Electric cars don’t have intakes and exhausts, so they can’t get hydrolocked in deep water the way ICE-powered cars can – but that doesn’t make them amphibious. Nobody told this Texan Chevy Bolt EUV owner that, and when they got caught on the wrong side of the floodwaters, they licked the stamp and sent it!
The recent catastrophic flooding in Texas has brought unimaginable tragedies and hardships to thousands of people who unquestionably deserve better, and living through something like that can lead people to make some rash decisions (I made it through the aftermaths of Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, AMA). Rash decisions like pulling up to a tunnel flooded in nearly three feet of water, and deciding to stand on the gas.
Think I’m exaggerating? Watch this Chevy Bolt EUV go full “Boat Mode” as its driver decides that dealing with whatever unseen obstacle or deadly live wires concealed by the floodwaters are less annoying than having to find an alternative route for yourself.
Submerging an EV that wasn’t designed for it (or even a Cybertruck, which allegedly was), isn’t exactly advisable. In addition to the underwater threats, submerging the skateboard in water could damage sensitive electrical connectors, compromise battery seals, and cause shorts in circuit boards over time.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
“Even more critically, water ingress into high-voltage systems can pose serious safety risks, including electrical faults or, in rare cases, thermal events,” writes Jonathan Lopez, over at GM Authority. “Although the Bolt EUV in this instance completed its soggy journey successfully, long-term effects may still emerge.”
In other words: don’t try this at home.
Electrek’s Take
Chevy Bolt EUV, via GM.
Like, don’t try this at home … but it’s pretty awesome.
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.