Connect with us

Published

on

After a decade and a half rise in pedestrian deaths, the US government is finally starting to take some action to stop huge pedestrian-killing SUVs.

Cars have been getting safer and safer over time, but the same has not applied to pedestrian safety.

While theoretically many of the safety improvements on cars ought to help protect those outside the car (emergency braking, crumple zones, etc), statistics have shown this has not been the case. Currently, pedestrian deaths are at a 40-year high in the US.

There are multiple culprits here, including insufficient infrastructure for non-car road users (cyclists, pedestrians, etc.), and distracted driving due to the suffusion of technology into our lives.

But most of all, the culprit is gigantic vehicles. And vehicle sizes have ballooned for multiple reasons in recent years, both due to automaker profits and consumer preference (which are in turn led by automakers who preferentially advertise larger or more polluting vehicles), and a perception of safety despite the significant danger that huge vehicles bring to the road.

It’s gotten so bad that even Jim Farley, CEO of Ford – which sells the F150, the most popular large vehicle in the US (and one of the deadliest) – said that America needs to “get back in love with smaller vehicles.”

But one of the less-talked-about reasons that vehicles keep getting bigger is the matter of government regulations that create a perverse incentive to increase vehicle size, like the EPA’s so-called “footprint rule” and various other credits or incentives for large vehicles.

Thankfully, the US government seems to have noticed its part in creating this problem, and is finally signaling that its ready for a change.

NHTSA, EPA make moves to reduce vehicle size

The latest move in this respect comes from the NHTSA, which published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) this week which brings pedestrian deaths into focus.

The NHTSA is a government agency, part of the Department of Transportation, which among other things is responsible for automobile crash safety testing.

While most of its safety tests focus on the safety of car occupants, NHTSA wants to add a new test focused specifically on reducing the danger of pedestrian head-to-hood impact – both adults and children.

One problem with giant SUVs and pickups is that their high, blunt front ends tend to result in impacts with pedestrian torsos, rather than the legs. A torso hit will tend to send a pedestrian onto the ground, rather than onto the hood of the vehicle – and vehicle hoods tend to be softer than asphalt, and less likely to result in the pedestrian being run over by a vehicle.

This is why pedestrian safety regulations focus on the height of the bumper – something that has not been a significant part of US safety regulations before now. But this new NHTSA rule would seek to change that, and to harmonize US rules with “Global Technical Regulation No 9,” an international safety standard which would also have the benefit of making US cars more interoperable between territories. This rule harmonization process was part of Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

Not only are huge vehicles dangerous for pedestrians, they also create more pollution. After all, a recent analysis showed that emissions could have dropped 30%, but SUVs ruined it for everyone.

Part of the reason for this is because the EPA gives some leeway to larger vehicles, allowing them to be slightly less efficient than smaller vehicles.

While that is still the case, EPA signaled it’s interested in changing that recently. In the most recent final emissions standards, EPA included one line that we here at Electrek noticed and were thrilled by: “EPA is finalizing the proposed approach to flatten the slope of each footprint standards curve and to narrow the numerical stringency difference between the car and truck curves.”

Essentially, this means that EPA is going to reduce the amount of “extra credit” they give to SUVs, which means that automakers won’t have as much incentive to go bigger. While it’s a minor change and will take a while to settle and affect vehicle designs, it at least shows that the EPA acknowledges its part in the mistake, and that it intends to improve the situation.

Electrek’s Take

The situation in the US is really desperate. In a time of so much focus on car safety, the fact that pedestrian deaths have risen so sharply is unacceptable.

But it’s not just about pedestrian deaths, but the absolute unavailability of reasonable vehicles in this country.

Virtually everything available today is a huge SUV. And this applies to EVs as well – while in the early days of EVs there were a lot of small hatchbacks available, now almost everything is an SUV. Some of them are smaller-sized (though the most reasonably-sized one was stopped by ill-considered tariffs), and there are a few sedans like the Ioniq 6 and Model 3. But it feels like almost all the new EVs coming out this year are giant threerow SUVs (and, uh, whatever this is).

Even the electric trucks that are coming out are far too big – meanwhile, the Ford Maverick, a small(-er…-ish) truck is flying off the shelves. Imagine how well an EV Maverick could do.

But rule changes like this give us some hope. Not only has the government finally realized the gravity of the huge-car situation, but it certainly feels like there’s some societal pushback against enormous cars brewing.

For example, when Rivian, a company not known for its large-car shyness, revealed its much-anticipated R2, it followed with the surprise R3, a likely Golf-ish-sized hatchback… and promptly received much more excitement, by our measure, for the hot hatch than for the mid-size SUV.

It just feels like it’s getting to be that time again, when we’ve finally reached the point of too much, and we might rebound and see the pendulum swing back towards some normal-sized vehicles again.

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but we sure hope so.


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

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