Tesla’s Robotaxi event came and went last night, and we finally learned (very few) new details about the much-hyped car that CEO Elon Musk thinks will add $5 trillion to Tesla’s market capitalization.
But the main thing it left me (still) thinking is: why does this car even exist?
Tesla has been talking about robotaxis for a long time, so of course it makes sense that it would unveil a robotaxi… right?
But here’s the rub: when Tesla first started talking about robotaxis, it was in the context of the Model 3 and other vehicles that the company already makes.
As far back as 2016, Tesla was talking about “Tesla Network,” a proposed system that would allow Tesla owners to send out their cars to work as taxis once the company had solved full self-driving.
I mentioned all of this in my Tesla Model 3 review back in 2018, showing some of the details that indicated that Tesla was getting ready for this robotaxi future – such as the use of a phone as a key and an interior camera to keep tabs on occupants.
Musk even went so far as to say that Tesla will stop selling cars once it solves autonomy. The idea is that those cars would be more profitable to keep around as robotaxis, that each would be worth $100k-$200k due to this function and that they should be considered “appreciating assets” as a result. (Though Musk did say last night that Tesla will sell Robotaxis for $30k, which runs counter to this past assertion of his).
So there is a long history of Tesla referring to its vehicles as potential future robotaxis, rather than talking about an individual robotaxi product. And it even said the same last night, as there were 20 Robotaxis and 30 other Tesla vehicles shuttling people around at the event. Musk reiterated last night that all cars Tesla makes would be capable of full autonomy, and even said that existing cars would be driving all by themselves prior to when he said the Robotaxi will hit the road in 2026-2027 (though he stumbled and said “let’s not get nuanced here” when the crowd asked whether this would apply to HW3 cars, which Tesla previously promised full autonomy for).
But hey, maybe it makes sense to release an individual Robotaxi product that would be fully focused on this function and no other, in order to save cost and reduce complexity.
Also, I have to say, it looked great out there. Compared to the previous renderings/models/spy shot we’ve seen, I thought the final product looked fantastic. If it were just a normal EV, with that design, a small sporty low 2-seater for about that price, I’m sold.
A smaller car, without many of the creature comforts that might be desired by a driver, with more simplicity for less maintenance and easier cleaning, can certainly help to get costs down. And that’s great and needed. A $30k vehicle will be available to more people than a $42k Model 3, the next-cheapest car Tesla currently sells.
But…. why not a $25k Model 2 then?
Tesla already had the answer to this question: the cancelled Model 2
So if Tesla wants to have a cheaper, simpler car that is capable of robo-driving tasks, and if it’s still clear that all of its vehicles will gain this capability, why doesn’t it just make the cheaper, simpler car that it’s been talking about for years: the Model 2.
Not much was known about the Model 2, except that it would be a cheaper, smaller EV, starting at $25,000 – long thought to be the appropriate entry-level for consumer vehicles (the cheapest gas cars in America are around $17k – and a $25k EV would cost about the same after the $7,500 federal tax credit).
Instead, Musk directed the company to pivot to Robotaxi, and rhetorically, he has been talking a lot more about robotaxis, artificial general intelligence robots, and various other pie-in-the-sky promises, in keeping with the tech buzzword du jour..
But while there’s a lot of demand in the stock market for CEOs who incessantly talk about AI, there’s also a lot of demand in the car market for a cheap electric vehicle. And Tesla is a car company, after all, not a stock company (isn’t it?).
And what we do know from the event is that Tesla thinks they can make a self-driving electric vehicle for under $30k, and that that vehicle would be “over-specced” for what it is, using a more powerful AI computer than necessary. And they think they can do this within the next 2 years or so.
If these two things are possible, I believe that those efforts would be better channeled towards the Model 2, rather than the Robotaxi.
While Musk stated in the event that existing vehicles would be capable of full autonomy before the Robotaxi starts shipping, I don’t think anyone believes this. After a decade of FSD coming “at the end of next year,” the boy has thoroughly cried wolf and this timeline does not seem realistic.
Further, Musk said that it would come to California and Texas first, pending regulatory approval. Even if Tesla does swiftly get regulatory approval in those states, that still limits the addressable market while it works to scale up and get approved in other regions. The process of homologating a Model 2 would go much more smoothly than that, and could be sold globally much faster.
And while Tesla’s car timelines also tend to slip by several years, with how long we’ve been talking about a “cheaper Tesla car” and its relative similarity to existing vehicles (as opposed to the vast differences involved in making a Cybertruck or Roadster), I also think the Model 2 could have been manufactured before Robotaxi could (especially when taking into account regulatory timelines).
If that’s the case, then wouldn’t it be better for Tesla to make this car that I believe would be ready before Robotaxi will, that will fulfill a need for a lot of buyers right now (especially in a circumstance where affordable Chinese EVs are popular enough to force protectionist trade measures), that would have global appeal, and that will have all the capabilities of a Robotaxi once (or if) FSD finally ever gets solved?
Maybe it’s about cost-cutting… or maybe it’s about the stock
Now, perhaps part of the reason for Model 2’s cancellation is because Tesla did not see enough cost-cutting possible to build an EV for $25k, or thought the level of cutting would be too severe to sell desirable consumer vehicles at that price. With a Robotaxi, perhaps customers would accept a more bare bones experience than in a Model 2 that they own as a personal vehicle, and maybe that’s the only way that Tesla can get the price down.
And there’s something to be said for a vehicle that’s fully autonomous-focused, with things like inductive charging and being designed for robo-vacuums to clean the car without human intervention (both were briefly glossed over in last night’s presentation).
But there’s definitely demand for a cheaper, human-driven EV, and I think Tesla got the order wrong on this one – it would be better to sell a bunch of Model 2s earlier than a bunch of Robotaxis later, since I don’t think full level 5 FSD, along with regulatory approval, is coming within the next year or two. And if you have to choose whether to have hardware or software ready first, you definitely want to choose software – because hardware costs a heck of a lot to build.
Or… maybe all this AI talk is more about the stockthan it is about actual products, as alluded to above. This has been a common theory among Tesla haters for some time, but was never all that realistic because Tesla did and does sell a lot of cars, and a whole ecosystem around them of energy products like Powerwall and Superchargers, which work well and make a lot of revenue, with pretty good margins.
But if it is about that, it seems that Elon has run out of rope. The market, this time, doesn’t seem too convinced. Maybe instead of sky-high promises that nobody thinks will be met, and that you are burning public trust with each time you make them (or uh, maybe that’s happening for another reason)… people really do just want a cheaper car that everyone can buy.
Make it.
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.
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.