Connect with us

Published

on

SAE has followed through on its plan to finish its NACS certification by the end of the year, and the NACS standard is now ready to go. And the new standard promises to solve a lot of charging problems in one fell swoop.

Tesla released specifications of its charging connector in November 2022. It called it the “North American Charging Standard,” which was somewhat of an absurd name at the time, given that Tesla was the only company using it.

However, since Tesla is a majority of the US EV market, Tesla’s argument was that most of the cars and most of the DC charging stations in America already used Tesla’s connector, so it should be considered a de facto standard anyway.

For a few months not many people took this seriously, until Ford shook up the industry by announcing it would adopt the NACS plug on upcoming vehicles. Soon after, GM made the same move, and now basically everyone else has.

This led SAE, the professional engineering organization which develops industry standards, to take up the flag of creating a real, independent standard that is no longer in the hands of Tesla. This is an important move because many governments and companies would understandably have an issue with a single company having control over a standard that, at this point, it seems like everyone is planning to use.

How NACS will solve several EV charging problems at once

We had another chat with Rodney McGee, Ph.D., of the University of Delaware, who chaired SAE’s NACS task force, and told us that the new standard will soon be announced by the White House. He was understandably excited about the standard getting finished so quickly, and told us how NACS is going to solve a lot of problems with EV charging all at the same time.

In particular, it should make charging installation cheaper for commercial entities, leading to cheaper and easier charging for businesses (including, potentially, for large apartment buildings); make charging more interoperable between commercial and personal vehicles; and unlock new possibilities for street charging for electric vehicles.

The main reason for this is the standard is preserving NACS’ support for 277 volts, as opposed to the 208-240 voltage of J1772. This simple change unlocks a cascade of benefits that should smooth out several charging problems.

Why does this matter? 277V is one phase of a three-phase 480V supply, which is the form that most commercial utility connections come in (particularly those that support DC chargers). Which means that secondary step-down transformers are no longer necessary for AC chargers, making EV charging installations cheaper and more efficient.

When you make EV charging installations cheaper and easier for businesses, this means more chargers at workplaces, giving people who can’t charge at home another option. It means more opportunity charging at any other place you might happen to park, and more opportunity charging means more EVs plugged in at any given time which means more battery capacity available on the grid in a potential V2G future.

Saving businesses money is all well and good, but the most important point here is that by making commercial installations cheaper, this means that mixed-use apartment buildings can more easily install banks of EV chargers, without needing big transformer rooms to further step down voltages. And that means that more people will be opened up to the convenience of having a charger at the place where their car spends the most time.

The news is even good for people who don’t have a parking spot – city-dwellers who use street parking. The NACS standard includes a provision that would enable the installation of chargers in lampposts, something that we’ve seen trials of in London. There have been similar efforts in the US, but those are subpar because the J1772 standard requires a permanently-attached cable, which means that streetside cables get dropped, broken, laid around, and otherwise abused.

The new NACS standard instead uses a standardized receptacle – which is in fact the same one used in the EU and China – which can be plugged into with a ~$100-200 carry-along cable that EV drivers can keep in their car (and the receptacle does have a locking mechanism). Making each driver responsible for their own cable makes maintenance easier in public spaces where otherwise, nobody’s really willing to take ownership of ensuring cables don’t get abused.

NACS also allows AC and DC through the same connector, unlike J1772. CCS is similar to the J1772 plug, but with an additional two pins on the bottom, so the connectors aren’t identical. With NACS, the connectors are identical for both types of charging.

Another potential upside here involves medium and heavy duty vehicles, which could charge at up to 52kW AC from the same receptacle as a light duty vehicle can charge at 20kW, by using 3 phases or 1 phase respectively. 20kW can be a bit on the low side for some larger vehicles – school buses and the like – so allowing those vehicles to charge at up to 52kW from the same place light duty can charge at 20kW would be a big boon as well.

And finally, all of these boons add together to a world where it’s easier to install and maintain chargers, and easier for everyone to be using those chargers wherever they’re parked, which means more cars plugged in at any given time. And if everyone is plugged in all the time, that means more capacity available for a potential vehicle-to-grid future. If V2G ever takes off, we will want to have as many cars plugged in as possible, because more cars plugged in means more capacity available for the grid. And that means making AC infrastructure cheap, which is what 277V support and carry-along cables enable.

There is one potential problem on the horizon, though: California and the US federal government (through NEVI) have both put a lot of money into charging station deployment, and the original intent of that money was to install roadside DC chargers that are as compatible as possible. So now, will those rules fully embrace NACS and allow the money to be used to install the new standard, or will they require CCS-compatible deployments so as not to leave an installed base of vehicles behind, even though CCS is now, effectively, a dead standard? (one compromise option being discussed is to require CCS for DC chargers, but throw full weight behind NACS for AC chargers)

This decision point is also a little ironic, since NACS’ existence seems to have been spurred on by NEVI in the first place. When the government offered billions of dollars to companies that install chargers with the restriction that those chargers be useable with multiple vehicles, that’s what got Tesla to finally offer a “standard.” At the time, it wasn’t really a standard because only Tesla was using it, and it was somewhat of a last-ditch effort to save the Tesla connector. Then, when Ford decided to use NACS, that’s what started all the others dominos falling. Now, NACS is dominant, but it only happened because of NEVI in the first place – and NEVI now has the difficult decision over whether to embrace the (positive) situation it caused, even if it will give some of the installed base an effective “use-by” date as a shift to NACS will inevitably mean fewer CCS/J1772 chargers over time.

Electrek’s Take

We’re actually pretty amazed that this standardization process finished already. SAE intended to finish by the end of the year, but standards can take a long time and require a lot of cooperation from organizations with differing motivations.

Part of why this process could be finished so quickly is because we’re now further into the world’s electrification journey, and auto manufacturers, many of whom now have departments getting into the charging business, can see the benefit of making charger installations cheaper.

And while we may have been a little hyperbolic in the title, this really does fix one of the few real problems with electric cars right now. There are a lot of perceived problems with EVs which rely on misconceptions, but one that isn’t a misconception is that there are bigger hurdles to owning an EV for people who don’t have a garage.

With cheaper AC charger installation benefits allowing better charging options for workplace, garage and street parking, this all adds up to a win for environmental justice. It makes EV charging easier for renters, or for people who otherwise do not have access to their own garage/off-street parking where they can install a charger. And that means more EVs in lower-income communities, and cleaner air too.

This has been a problem for a long time, and some piecemeal solutions have been proposed and are in the works, but this standard should help make that problem more solvable.

Ironically, the one thing the standard doesn’t solve is the problem we pointed out in the headline of our previous article on this – Plug & Charge. That article laid out how authentication issues are holding Plug & Charge back from being as good as it could be in the US, and unfortunately the SAE NACS standard (which it calls J3400) won’t solve that. However, work is ongoing on a solution for that problem, in a separate proceeding, and it seems like the NACS changeover may be the impetus needed to get it solved once and for all.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

The aluminum sector isn’t moving to the U.S. despite tariffs — due to one key reason

Published

on

By

The aluminum sector isn't moving to the U.S. despite tariffs — due to one key reason

HAWESVILLE, KY – May 10

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

hide content

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.”

Similarly, in June 2022, Century Aluminum, the largest U.S. primary aluminum producer, was forced to temporarily idle its massive Hawesville, Kentucky smelter – North America’s largest producer of military-grade aluminum – citing a “direct result of skyrocketing energy costs.”

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.”

How the massive power draw of generative AI is overtaxing our grid

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.

— CNBC’s Greg Kennedy contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Environment

One of the world’s largest wind farms just got axed – here’s why

Published

on

By

One of the world’s largest wind farms just got axed – here’s why

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.

Read more: The world’s single-largest wind farm gets the green light


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.

Continue Reading

Environment

Is the Tesla Roadster ever going to be made?

Published

on

By

Is the Tesla Roadster ever going to be made?

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

Site default logo image

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.

The official timelines from Tesla are pretty useless at this point since they haven’t stuck to any of them, but the latest official one dates back to July 2024 when CEO Elon Musk said this:

“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:

Musk commented on the Roadster again in October 2024, but he didn’t reiterate the 2025 timeline. Instead, he called the new Roadster “the cherry on the icing on the cake.”

Tesla’s leadership has been virtually silent about the new Roadster since. Two Tesla executives even had to be reminded about the Roadster by Jay Leno after they “forgot” about it when listing upcoming new Tesla vehicles with tri-motor powertrain.

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.

Continue Reading

Trending