Connect with us

Published

on

A range of new and growing options exist on the car dealer lot when it comes to hybrid and electric vehicles, but if you’ve been following the headlines lately, decisions made by major automakers reflect a market tilting more hybrid than EV. Ford just announced it’s delaying an EV pickup and in the short-term focusing more on its North American hybrid lineup.

“EV euphoria is dead,” with the idea of “consumer choice” back in among car companies from Ford to General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin, which are all scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans. GM’s EV sales remained insignificant in the most recent quarter.

But finding the best bang for your buck can be complicated. These decisions often turn on factors such as upfront cost, driving habits, how long you plan to own the car, likely costs over time and even what area of the country you live in.

The answer isn’t always straightforward even amid headlines screaming hybrid. Here are some tips to help car buyers make the right decision.

Figure out how much you drive

Before you start comparing costs, it makes sense to think about how you plan to use the vehicle.

Are you just driving five or 10 miles to work and back each day, or are you planning on taking the car on long road trips? If you drive long distances frequently, consider the availability of fast-charging stations along your route. If fast-charging stations are scarce, as they are in many areas of the country, you might be better served with a hybrid where you just pull into a gas station and keep driving, said Sandeep Rao, lead researcher for Leverage Shares, which offers investment funds including several focused on the stocks of EV and traditional automakers. 

The federal government’s initiative to create a vast charging network across the U.S. hasn’t yet materialized on a widespread basis. Instead, the focus has been on pockets of the country like California, the New York tri-state area, Florida and Texas, but the vast majority of people live in between these places. “Most Americans don’t have access to EVs because there’s not enough charging infrastructure,” Rao said.

He also said to consider how long you plan to own the vehicle, the car’s potential service needs and what nearby options exist for maintenance. Other factors include your home set-up. Do you have the right conditions to charge an EV quickly and conveniently? And what would the upfront costs be to upgrade your system to allow for faster charging, if desired?

Do the math on upfront cost, EV vs. hybrid

If it’s still a toss up between an EV and a hybrid, next consider upfront costs.

The average price of the top-ten best selling electric vehicles in the U.S. is about $53,758, with an average of $48,430 for the low-end version of each model and $64,936 for the high-end version of each model, according to Find My Electric, an independent EV marketplace. Prices for these 10 EVs range from $26,599 for the Chevrolet Bolt EV to $99,000 for the most expensive version of the Rivian R1S, according to its data.

By contrast, the average starting price for a hybrid car is $33,214, according to iSeeCars.com, a car search engine. If you have specific models in mind, the Department of Energy offers a tool to compare up to four vehicles at once. You can also compare different models based on fuel efficiency. 

Search for available auto rebates and incentives

If you’re leaning toward an EV, but still find the upfront cost daunting, look for possible rebates. There are subsidies from the federal government — up to $7,500 maximum — but it’s getting harder to qualify for as more manufacturers are becoming ineligible, Rao said. 

Also look for state and local incentives. Buyers can visit the Electric for All website, maintained by the nonprofit organization Veloz, to search for incentives such as vehicle tax credits and rebates, charging rebates, local utility incentive programs and other special driving perks for going electric.

“Depending where you live, you might be able to walk off the lot with an EV that’s similar in price to a hybrid or internal combustion vehicle,” said Steve Christensen, executive director of the Responsible Battery Coalition, a nonprofit coalition of companies committed to the responsible management of the batteries.

Consider a plug-in hybrid

Another option people could look at is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, which offers an attractive option for those who are transitioning from gas and diesel-driven cars to battery-powered vehicles, Rao said. 

The biggest differences between full hybrid and plug-in hybrid cars are the size, cost and purpose of their electric batteries, according to an online Q&A from Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. Also, a plug-in hybrid’s electric battery can be recharged at home or a public charging station whereas a full hybrid car uses its gas-powered engine to recharge.

If you are considering a plug-in hybrid, the Department of Energy has a calculator that can help estimate personalized fuel use and costs based on your driving habits, fuel prices, and charging schedule.

Focus on overall cost of ownership, not just upfront costs

Generally, the upfront costs of an EV will be higher, but you still might be better off over time.

For example, smaller EVs like compact cars or sedans with a range of about 200 miles break even with a similarly sized traditional hybrid in five years or less, according to a recent University of Michigan study. And that’s without incentives, said Maxwell Woody, a PhD candidate at the University of Michigan and lead author of the study.

However, larger vehicles like midsize SUVs, pickup trucks or other vehicles with a larger, up-to 400-mile range battery do not break even with hybrids, even if incentives are applied, the study found. It’s worth noting that the data is based on a longer history of battery prices, which have decreased dramatically in recent years, and are expected to continue falling, so electric vehicles generally will perform better in the near future, Woody said.

Doing the math on a plug-in hybrid is more complicated because the cost to run the car can vary widely on how much you charge versus refueling with gas. If you operate it all-electricity for city driving, for instance, your costs could be close to an EV, Woody said. If you take it on long trips, the costs for refueling could be more similar to a gas vehicle, he said.

When considering the overall cost of ownership, be sure to factor in maintenance costs, said Albert Gore, executive director of ZETA, an industry-backed coalition that advocates for full EV adoption. He points to a study by Argonne National Lab that shows scheduled maintenance costs per mile are significantly lower for an EV versus a traditional hybrid or plug-in hybrid.

Also be sure to compare apples-to-apples in terms of features, model, year, quality and use cases, Woody said. For example, someone considering a Nissan Leaf, which is fully electric, might look at the comparable data for a Honda Civic hybrid, he said.

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