Connect with us

Published

on

In light of Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk’s support of ending EV credits in the US, many have said that this will somehow help Tesla against the competition. But it won’t, and here’s why.

This line of thinking seems to have become common in recent weeks, with the general public seeming desperate to tease some rationality out of the irrational choice of a business asking the government to make its products $7,500 more expensive.

The argument seems to go that because Tesla is the best at making EVs, and can make them with better margins than other companies, removing subsidies will reduce everyone’s margins to the point where they aren’t profitable, except Tesla, which means that all the competition will be taken out of the market and Tesla will be the only ones able to make EVs.

It’s a somewhat attractive argument for a long-term-focused investor who might feel attracted to the idea that Tesla will somehow become the only EV company, and who are bullish on EVs succeeding in the market no matter what happens, thus leading to the thought that Tesla will, in the long term, own 100% of the US car market.

But there are a lot of underlying assumptions here which seem unlikely to pan out.

A Tesla EV monopoly relies on lots of assumptions

First, this assumes that other companies will not invest in EVs if their margins falter. But we’ve already seen other companies invest money into EVs when they don’t have positive margins yet, because that’s how businesses work – when you invest in something new, you often take losses for a while before eventually reaping gains. This happened with Tesla itself, so we should not be surprised if it can happen with other companies.

Second, where is the money coming from? For startups, perhaps they will have a harder time finding money – unless they’re able to capture investors who are bullish on the future of EVs and willing to take losses, which Tesla has shown definitely do exist (especially in light of this very story, where TSLA investors are asking to have their margins cut based on a shaky premise that it will help the business).

But for big established auto businesses, the money for the EV fund is coming from… their gas car sales, which will continue, and whose profitability wouldn’t be affected by a change in EV credits (or in fact could conceivably go up, as removal of the EV credit means that gas cars could raise prices as TCO of competing EVs goes up).

Tesla, however, doesn’t have that other source of money. Its money comes from EV sales, and its margins have already dropped from their record highs at the peak of COVID-related auto supply issues. In Q3 2024, Tesla made $6,886 per vehicle – which I hope I don’t need to remind the reader is a smaller number than $7,500.

Now, not all of Tesla’s vehicles come along with the $7,500 credit, so after taking that into account, Tesla would likely have still made money. But you can see how a drop of $7,500 worth of margin in most of the vehicles Tesla sells would cut profits by a lot – which means less money to reinvest in growth, less money to chase other pie-in-the-sky projects that are inflating the stock price right now, and less chance of Tesla becoming the sole EV provider for the Western world as some investors seem to think might happen.

And third, for this to be true then we must also think that people will accept a transportation monopoly long term. Not only do consumers choose non-Tesla EVs for many reasons – aesthetic concerns, brand loyalty, aforementioned distaste for Musk or Tesla, desire for certain features, etc etc etc – but we also like to say that a free market naturally abhors a monopoly, or that regulators will do something about monopolies when they crop up.

But the bigger problem here is: all of these assumptions focus on EVs, and not on Tesla’s real competition.

Tesla’s competition is gas cars, not other EVs

Besides, the whole thing is wrong to begin with about what Tesla’s “competition” actually is.

It’s common for people to compare EVs against each other, rather than against gas vehicles. This can be for several reasons – similarity, of course; the assumption that buyers have already decided on a powertrain and will shop within that powertrain, instead of cross-shopping; and perhaps aided by EV-focused publications like ourselves that tend to compare EVs against each other because, frankly, we don’t care about gas cars and see no reason anyone would should buy one, so why bother reviewing them when they’re all terrible anyway?

But the reality is that the vast majority of the US car market does not consist of electric vehicles. Nine out of every ten cars sold in this country are still powered by oil – but only about one out of every twenty cars sold in the US are EVs sold by a company not named Tesla.

So if Tesla wants to grow its sales, that 90+% of gas car market share seems like a lot bigger target than the ~5% – especially given that much of those 5% have indicated their disinterest in buying a car associated with Elon Musk.

So, how does increasing the price of the 5% of non-EV Teslas help Tesla at all, especially when Tesla’s prices would also go up? And when the vast majority of its competition will not go up in price?

Inevitably, this thinking only leads to a “big fish in a small pond” result, even in the most optimistic case. An EV market where prices all go up by $7,500 would inevitably shrink in the short term, but even if it didn’t, and if all other EVs were forced out of it (which is unlikely), Tesla would have access to 5% more of the market, not 90% more. Maybe that would be a nice change from Tesla’s falling sales in a growing EV market this year, but it’s hardly justification for a market cap that’s higher than the rest of the industry combined.

So even if all this magical thinking about a Tesla EV monopoly does turn out to be accurate, it still doesn’t represent a strike against the real competition for Tesla, nor does it target the part of the market that could result in real long-term growth for the company. (And ironically, the one place where Tesla could have had a near-monopoly is charging, where the charging team executed a coup turning the entire industry to Tesla’s plug… and then Musk swiftly fired everyone, causing total chaos and losing lots of talent to competitors).

But eliminating subsidies would help EVs… if gas subsidies died too

In the past, Musk has pointed this out and correctly said that EVs would be more competitive on price if externalities from gasoline vehicles were taken into account.

If you consider the cost of the pollution that gas cars produce (as we should), gas cars are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive over the course of their lifetime.

Some old-guard republicans have suggested a solution to this problem – putting a price on those externalities. There was at one point a bipartisan and revenue-neutral bill to solve this problem – but that bill is no longer bipartisan (as the republican party has fallen further into the grasp of an ignoramus), despite that a majority of Americans in every state support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay back this subsidy.

In Musk’s recent advocacy, he seems to forget half of that equation (just as he seems to have forgotten how climate change works). We have not seen him push for removing fossil car subsidies, just EV subsidies.

And Musk’s allies are also not talking about removing subsidies for electric and gas cars equally. Rather, they want to eliminate subsidies for the better, less-subsidized, cleaner option – EVs – and increase subsidies for gas cars – the dirtier, more-subsidized option.

So what Musk has proposed here is not only to make all of his own products $7,500 more expensive when compared to their direct competition, but his allies want to make the competition even cheaper, leading to a $15,000 swing in comparative pricing between the two. No normal business benefits from this (Veblen goods notwithstanding).

Tesla, for its part, even recognizes all of this itself. It has lobbied routinely for all of the incentives and regulations that are currently in place, it lobbied for the new EPA exhaust rule which Musk’s allies oppose (even though they have no idea what the rule is), and it’s currently asking other governments to correctly account for the costs of gas vehicles.

Finally, lest we forget, the company’s mission is “to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport” – not to drive other EVs out of the market and in the vain attempt to ensure that EVs remain a niche market that Tesla can dominate while gas cars are allowed to flourish with the support of a man whose money has effectively all been made by electric vehicle sales.

So, either all of Tesla is mystified by the inscrutable brilliance of its fearless leader Elon Musk and has been making poor decisions, throughout its entire existence and across its sales territories, all directed in the past by Musk himself, and only now has it started to recognize the genius behind making its products more expensive for no reason, but only in one market… or maybe, just maybe, this new idea to remove an incentive that has brought the company literally billions of dollars is actually just as idiotic as it seems on its face.

B… but… Elon’s not dumb though!

I believe that the reason people are twisting themselves into knots over this is because they just can’t believe that Musk would have such a stupid idea. They look at their past understanding of him as an intelligent individual and think that there must be some sort of secret plan.

But sometimes, a dumb idea is just a dumb idea. Lowering Tesla’s margins is simply not a good business move.

The fact that people think it would be is simply an indicator of just how detached from reality Musk and his ilk have become. This has been readily apparent for quite some time now – but, if you spend all your time on a platform where a chain of emojis passes for a clever idea and correctness is decided by whoever has more successfully weaponized their fanbase towards repeatedly clicking a digital heart on each of the myriad bot accounts they have access to, you might have missed it.

But that is indeed where Musk spends all his time, on a website that he wasted tens of billions of dollars of his and other people’s money on so that he could regurgitate whatever nonsense that passes through his eye-holes to a captive audience, shut down any criticism or truth about his allies, and otherwise trap himself into an echo chamber of his own design.

There, when Musk has a bad idea, he can’t be corrected, because he has isolated himself from anyone who would correct it. Instead, he only hears from people who think that he’s the smartest man in the world – and thus, that every idea of his must be good in some way. What a boost to the ego that must be.

So they will desperately reach for straws to find any sort of rationality in actions that are inherently irrational, and so easy to see that they’re irrational. And in a world where truth seems to matter less than ever and opposites are accepted as reality, you end up with a lot of people echoing the absurd idea that a business will benefit by losing money.

But it just won’t. So please, stop saying it will.


Speaking of credits, there’s always a chance the 30% solar tax credit could potentially go away, so the best time to go solar is now. EnergySage is a free service that connects you with trusted, reputable installers in your area – without having to give up your phone number until you select an installer. 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 through EnergySage. Get started today! – ad*

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

Continue Reading

Environment

From mining giants to Big Oil, major players are jumping on the ‘white hydrogen’ bandwagon

Published

on

By

From mining giants to Big Oil, major players are jumping on the 'white hydrogen' bandwagon

The construction site of a plant for the production of hydrogen in Germany. 

Picture Alliance | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

A growing number of sizable companies, from mining giants to energy majors, are embracing the hype for natural hydrogen.

It comes as buzz continues to build over the potential for a resource that advocates say could radically reshape the global energy landscape.

Natural hydrogen, sometimes known as white, gold or geologic hydrogen, refers to hydrogen gas that is found in its natural form beneath Earth’s surface. The long-overlooked resource, first discovered by accident in Mali nearly 40 years ago, contains no carbon and produces only water when burned.

Investor interest in the nascent natural hydrogen sector has been intensifying in recent months, fueling optimism initially driven by research startups and junior exploration companies.

Over the past year or so, some of the sector’s established backers include mining giants Rio Tinto and Fortescue, Russia’s state-owned energy giant Gazprom, the venture capital arm of British oil giant BP and Bill Gates‘ clean tech investment fund Breakthrough Energy Ventures.

We can use it to make metals, make fuels, you could even make food, and all with far fewer emissions than conventional approaches.

Eric Toone

Chief technology officer at Breakthrough Energy

Exploratory efforts are currently underway in several countries across the globe, with Canada and the U.S. leading the way in terms of project counts over the last year, according to research published by consultancy Rystad Energy.

Analysts expect the year ahead to be a pivotal one, with industry players hoping their exploration campaigns can soon locate the elusive gas.

Not everyone’s convinced about the clean energy potential of natural hydrogen, however, with critics flagging environmental concerns and distribution challenges. For its part, the International Energy Agency has warned there is a possibility that the resource “is too scattered to be captured in a way that is economically viable.”

A global scramble for ‘white gold’

Minh Khoi Le, head of hydrogen research at Rystad Energy, said it’s difficult to predict whether natural hydrogen can live up to its promise in 2025.

“I guess last year was the year that things got really interesting for the natural hydrogen space because that’s when many companies started to plan drilling campaigns, extraction testing and we started to see some major players start to get involved as well,” Le told CNBC by video call.

“Since then, I would say the progress has been relatively slow. There are only a few companies that have actually started drilling,” he added.

Gauges that are part of the electrolysis plant of the geological hydrogen H2 storage facility.

Alex Halada | Afp | Getty Images

Rystad’s Le, who characterized the global pursuit of natural hydrogen as a “white gold rush” last year, said that while there’d been no major progress over the last 12 months, an upswing in investor interest could help to deliver some meaningful results.

“Now, we are starting to see companies getting investment, so they have money to fund their drilling campaigns. So, if we are to get an answer of whether this thing will work, we’ll get to that conclusion a bit faster this year,” Le said.

Hydrogen has long been billed as one of many potential energy sources that could play a key role in the energy transition, but most of it is produced using fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, a process that generates significant greenhouse gas emissions.

Green hydrogen, a process that involves splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable electricity, is one exception to the hydrogen color rainbow. However, its development has been held back by soaring costs and a challenging economic environment.

Clean, homegrown energy

Australia’s HyTerra announced an investment of $21.9 million from Fortescue in August last year, noting that the proceeds would be used to fully fund expanded exploration projects.

A spokesperson for Fortescue, one of the leading green hydrogen developers, said its push into the natural hydrogen sector was in line with its “strategic commitment to exploring zero emissions fuels.”

Acknowledging that more work is required to fully assess natural hydrogen’s emissions profile, Fortescue’s spokesperson described the technology as a “promising opportunity” to accelerate industrial decarbonization.

A hydrogen-powered haul truck, right, at the Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. Christmas Creek mine in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, Australia, on Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2023.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Elsewhere, BP Ventures, the venture capital arm of BP, led a Series A funding round of U.K.-based natural hydrogen exploration startup Snowfox Discovery earlier this year, while France-based start-up Mantle8 recently received 3.4 million euros ($3.9 million) in seed funding from investors, including Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a climate and technology fund founded by Bill Gates in 2015.

Eric Toone, chief technology officer at Breakthrough Energy, said the fund had backed the likes of Mantle8 and U.S.-based startup Koloma because the promise of natural hydrogen is such that it “could unlock a new era of clean, homegrown energy.”

“Hydrogen is pure reactive chemical energy. If we have enough hydrogen and it’s cheap enough, we can do almost anything. We can use it to make metals, make fuels, you could even make food, and all with far fewer emissions than conventional approaches,” Toone told CNBC via email.

“We know it’s out there and not just in isolated pockets. Early exploration has identified natural hydrogen across six continents. The challenge now is figuring out how to extract it efficiently, move it safely, and build the systems to put it to work,” he added.

In search of the ‘eureka moment’

Aurian Durbuis, chief of staff at France’s Mantle8, said momentum certainly appears to be building from a venture capital perspective.

“There is a growing interest, indeed, especially given the dynamics with green hydrogen right now, unfortunately. People are turning their eyes to other solutions, which is in our favor,” Durbuis told CNBC by video call.

Taking the evolution of US shale-gas as an analogy, even if large finds are made, it will likely take decades to achieve industrial production.

Arnout Everts

Member of the Hydrogen Science Coalition

Based in Grenoble, in the foothills of the French Alps, Mantle8 is targeting the discovery of 10 million tons of natural hydrogen by 2030 to complement the European Union’s goals.

“The question is can we find producible reservoirs, in the oil and gas terminology. That’s really what we need to figure out as an industry,” Durbuis said.

“We think we can drill in 2028 and hopefully that is the eureka moment because if we can find something at that time, then it could obviously be a game changer. If we find highly concentrated hydrogen, with pressure, then this just changes everything,” he added.

What’s next for natural hydrogen?

The Hydrogen Science Coalition, a group of academics, scientists and engineers seeking to bring an evidence-based view to hydrogen’s role in the energy transition, said exploration for natural hydrogen is still at an “embryonic stage” — but even so, the likelihood of locating large finds of nearly pure hydrogen that can be extracted at scale look “relatively slim.”

The world’s only producing hydrogen well in Mali, for example, supplies “just a fraction of the daily energy output of a single wind turbine,” Arnout Everts, a geoscientist and member of the Hydrogen Science Coalition, told CNBC via email.

The team from the Geological Agency of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) took samples of natural hydrogen gas found in One Pute Jaya Village, Morowali Regency, Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, 23 October 2023.

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

“Taking the evolution of US shale-gas as an analogy, even if large finds are made, it will likely take decades to achieve industrial production,” Everts said.

Ultimately, the Hydrogen Science Coalition said the pursuit of natural hydrogen risks distracting focus from the renewable hydrogen needed to decarbonize industries today.

Continue Reading

Environment

‘Repowering’ era for America’s aging wind energy industry begins, despite Trump’s effort to kill it

Published

on

By

'Repowering' era for America's aging wind energy industry begins, despite Trump's effort to kill it

Jeffrey Sanders / 500px | 500px | Getty Images

On Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump issued an executive order indefinitely halting permits for new onshore wind energy projects on federal land, as well as new leases for offshore wind farms in U.S. coastal waters. The action not only fulfilled Trump’s “no new windmills” campaign pledge, but struck yet another blow to the wind industry, which has been hit hard over the past few years by supply chain snags, price increases upending project economics, public opposition and political backlash against federal tax credits, especially those spurring the fledgling offshore wind sector.

Nonetheless, the nation’s well-established onshore wind industry, built out over several decades, is generating nearly 11% of America’s electricity, making it the largest source of renewable energy and at times last year exceeding coal-fired generation. On April 8, the fossil-fuels-friendly Trump administration took measures to bolster coal mining and power plants, but as the infrastructure driving wind energy ages, efforts to “repower” it are creating new business opportunities for the industry’s key players.

This repowering activity has emerged as a bright spot for the wind industry, giving a much-needed boost to market leaders GE Vernova, Vestas and Siemens Gamesa, a subsidiary of Munich-based Siemens Energy. Following several challenging years of lackluster performance — due in particular to setbacks in both onshore and offshore projects — all three companies reported revenue increases in 2024, and both GE Vernova and Siemens stock have moved higher.

GE Vernova, spun off from General Electric a year ago, led overall onshore wind installations in 2024, with 56% of the U.S. market, followed by Denmark’s Vestas (40%) and Siemens Gamesa (4%).

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

GE Vernova stock performance over the past one-year period.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, installed wind power generating capacity grew from 2.4 gigawatts (GW) in 2000 to 150.1 GW as of April 2024. Although the growth rate for launching new greenfield onshore wind farms has slowed over the last 10 years, the U.S. is still poised to surpass 160 GW of wind capacity in 2025, according to a new report from energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.

There currently are about 1,500 onshore wind farms — on which more than 75,600 turbines are spinning — across 45 states, led by Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Illinois and Kansas. Virtually all of the wind farms are located on private land, and many of the largest ones are owned and operated by major energy companies, including NextEra Energy, RWE Clean Energy, Pattern Energy, Clearway Energy, Xcel Energy and Berkshire Hathaway‘s MidAmerican Energy, which generates 59% of it renewable energy from wind, including 3,500 turbines operating across 38 wind projects in Iowa.

A growing number of the turbines are 20-plus years old and nearing the end of their lifecycle. So increasingly, operators have to decide whether to upgrade or replace aging turbines’ key components, such as blades, rotors and electronics, or dismantle them altogether and erect new, technologically advanced and far more efficient models that can increase electricity output by up to 50%.

“What’s becoming clear is that more and more of the U.S. installed base [of onshore turbines] has exceeded its operational design life,” said Charles Coppins, research analyst for global wind at Wood Mackenzie, “and now operators are looking to replace those aging turbines with the latest [ones].”

To date, approximately 70 GW of onshore wind capacity has been fully repowered in the U.S., according to Wood Mackenzie, while an additional 12 GW has been partially repowered. The firm estimates that around 10,000 turbines have been decommissioned and that another 6,000 will be retired in the next 10 years, Coppins said.

Damaged wind turbine that was first hit by a tornado then lightning.

Ryan Baker | Istock | Getty Images

Beyond the fact that aged-out turbines need to be upgraded or replaced, repowering an existing wind farm versus building a new site presents economic benefits to operators and OEMs. To begin with, there’s no need to acquire property. In fact, in certain situations, because today’s turbines are larger and more efficient, fewer turbines are needed. And they’ll generate additional electricity and have longer lifecycles, ultimately delivering higher output at a lower cost.

Even so, “there are some limitations on how much capacity you could increase a project by without having to go through new permitting processes or interconnection queues” to the power grid, said Stephen Maldonado, Wood Mackenzie’s U.S. onshore analyst. As long as the operator is not surpassing the allowed interconnection volume agreed to with the local utility, they can add electricity to the project and still send it to the grid.

Public opposition, Maldonado said, may be another hurdle to get over. Whether it’s a new or repower wind project, residents have expressed concerns about environmental hazards, decreased property values, aesthetics and general anti-renewables sentiment.

RWE, a subsidiary of Germany’s RWE Group, is the third largest renewable energy company in the U.S., owning and operating 41 utility-scale wind farms, according to its CEO Andrew Flanagan, making up 48% of its total installed operating portfolio and generating capacity, which also includes solar and battery storage.

One of RWE’s two repower projects underway (both are in Texas), is its Forest Creek wind farm, originally commissioned in 2006 and featuring 54 Siemens Gamesa turbines. The project will replace them with 45 new GE Vernova turbines that will extend the wind farm’s life by another 30 years once it goes back online later this year. Simultaneously, RWE and GE Vernova are partnering on a new wind farm, immediately adjacent to Forest Creek, adding another 64 turbines to the complex. When complete, RWE will deliver a total of 308 MW of wind energy to the region’s homes and businesses.

Flanagan noted that the combined projects are related to increased electricity demands from the area’s oil and gas production. “It’s great to see our wind generation drive the all-of-the-above energy approach,” he said. What’s more, at its peak, the repower project alone will employ 250 construction workers and over its operating period bring in $30 million in local tax revenue, he added.

In turn, the twin projects will support advanced manufacturing jobs at GE Vernova’s Pensacola, Florida, facility, as well as advancing the OEM’s repower business. In January, the company announced that in 2024 it received orders to repower more than 1 GW of wind turbines in the U.S.

Koiguo | Moment | Getty Images

Siemens Gamesa has executed several large U.S. repowering projects, notably MidAmerican’s expansive Rolling Hills wind farm in Iowa, which went online in 2011. In 2019, the company replaced 193 older turbines with 163 higher-capacity models produced at its manufacturing plants in Iowa and Kansas.

Last year, Siemens Gamesa began repowering RWE’s 17-year-old Champion Wind, a 127-MW wind farm in West Texas. The company is upgrading 41 of its turbines with new blades and nacelles (the housing at the top of the tower containing critical electrical components) and adding six new turbines.

In early April, Clearway announced an agreement with Vestas to repower its Mount Storm Wind farm in Grant County, West Virginia. The project will include removing the site’s 132 existing turbines and replacing them with 78 new models. The repower will result in an 85% increase in Mount Storm’s overall electricity generation while using 40% fewer turbines.

Preparing for ‘megatons’ of turbine recycling and tariffs

Another benefit of repowering is invigorating the nascent industry that’s recycling megatons of components from decommissioned turbines, including blades, steel, copper and aluminum. Most of today’s operational turbines are 85% to 95% recyclable, and OEMs are designing 100% recyclable models.

While the majority of mothballed blades, made from fiberglass and carbon fiber, have historically ended up in landfills, several startups have developed technologies recycle them. Carbon Rivers, for example, contracts with the turbine OEMs and wind farm operators to recover glass fiber, carbon fiber and resin systems from decommissioned blades to produce new composites and resins used for next-generation turbine blades, marine vessels, composite concrete and auto parts.

Veolia North America, a subsidiary of the French company Veolia Group, reconstitutes shredded blades and other composite materials into a fuel it then sells to cement manufacturers as a replacement for coal, sand and clay. Veolia has processed approximately 6,500 wind blades at a facility in Missouri, and expanded its processing capabilities to meet demand, according to David Araujo, Veolia’s general manager of engineered fuels.

Trump’s new-project moratorium isn’t his only impediment to the wind industry. The president’s seesaw of import tariffs, especially the 25% levy on steel and aluminum, is impacting U.S. manufacturers across most sectors.

The onshore wind industry, however, “has done a really good job of reducing geopolitical risks,” said John Hensley, senior vice president for markets and policy analysis at the American Clean Power Association, a trade group representing the clean energy industry. He cited a manufacturing base in the U.S. that includes hundreds of plants producing parts and components for turbines. Although some materials are imported, the investment in domestic manufacturing “provides some risk mitigation to these tariffs,” he said.

Amidst the headwinds, the onshore wind industry is trying to stay focused on the role that repowering can play in meeting the nation’s exponentially growing demand for electricity. “We’re expecting a 35% to 50% increase between now and 2040, which is just incredible,” Hensley said. “It’s like adding a new Louisiana to the grid every year for 15 years.”

GE Vernova CEO Scott Strazik recently told CNBC’s Jim Cramer that the growth of the U.S.’s electric load is the largest since the industrial boom that followed the end of the second world war. “You’ve got to go back to 1945 and the end of World War II, that’s the infrastructure buildout that we’re going to have,” he said. 

As OEMs and wind farm developers continue to face rising capital costs for new projects, as well as a Trump administration averse to clean energy industries, “repowering offers a pathway for delivering more electrons to the grid in a way that sidesteps or at least minimizes some of the challenges associated with all these issues,” Hensley said.

Vestas CEO says wind turbine manufacturer is ‘well positioned’ amid tariff concerns

Continue Reading

Environment

ABB is bringing its new, 1.2 MW modular truck chargers to ACT Expo

Published

on

By

ABB is bringing its new, 1.2 MW modular truck chargers to ACT Expo

Capable of delivering up to 1,200 kW of power to get electric commercial trucks back on the road in minutes, the new ABB MCS1200 Megawatt Charging System is part of an ecosystem of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) that ABB’s bringing to this year’s ACT Expo.

ABB E-mobility is using the annual clean trucking conference to showcase the expansion of its EVSE portfolio with three all-new charger families: the field-upgradable A200/300 All-in-One chargers, the MCS1200 Megawatt Charging System for heavy-duty vehicles shown (above), and the ChargeDock Dispenser for flexible depot charging.

The company said its new product platform was built by applying a computer system-style domain separation to charger design, fundamentally improving subsystem development and creating a clear path forward for site and system expansion. In other words, ABB is selling a system with both future-proofing and enhanced dependability baked in.

“We have built a system by logically separating a charger into four distinct subsystems … each functioning as an independent subsystem,” explains Michael Halbherr, CEO of ABB E-mobility. “Unlike conventional chargers, where a user interface failure can disable the entire system, our architecture ensures charging continues even if the screen or payment system encounters issues. Moreover, we can improve each subsystem at its own pace without having to change the entire system.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The parts of ABB’s new EVSE portfolio that have been made public so far have already been recognized for design excellence, with the A400 winning the iF Gold Award and both the A400 and C50 receiving Red Dot Design Awards.

New ABB chargers seem pretty, good

ABB’s good-looking family; via ABB.

ABB says the systemic separation of its EVSE enhances both reliability and quality, while making deployed chargers easier to diagnose and repair, in less time. Each of the chargers’ subsystems can be tested, diagnosed, and replaced independently, allowing for quick on-site repairs and update cycles tailored to the speed of each systems’ innovation. The result is 99% uptime and a more future-proof product.

“The EV charging landscape is evolving beyond point products for specific use cases,” continued Halbherr. “By implementing this modular approach with the majority of our R&D focused on modular platforms rather than one-off products … it reduces supply chain risks, while accelerating development cycles and enabling deeper collaboration with critical suppliers.”

Key markets ABB is chasing

HVC 360 Charge Dock Dispenser depot deployment; via ABB.
  • PUBLIC CHARGING – with the award winning A400 being the optimal fit for high power charging from highway corridors to urban locations, the latest additions to the A-Series All-in-One chargers offer a field-upgradable architecture allowing operators to start with the A200 (200kW) with the option to upgrade to 300kW or 400kW as demand grows. This approach offers scalability and protects customer investment, leading to Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) savings over 10 years.
  • PUBLIC TRANSIT AND FLEET – the new Charge Dock Dispenser – in combination with the already in market available HVC 360 – simplifies depot charging with a versatile solution that supports pantograph-, roof-, and pedestal charging options with up to 360kW of shared power and 150m/490 ft installation flexibility between cabinet and dispensers. The dispenser maintains up to 500A output.
  • HEAVY TRUCKS – building the matching charging infrastructure for commercial vehicles and fleets represents a critical innovation frontier on our journey to electrify transportation. Following extensive collaboration with industry-leading truck OEMs, the MCS1200 Megawatt Charging System delivers up to 1,200kW of continuous power — 20% more energy transfer than 1MW systems — providing heavy-duty vehicles with purpose-built single-outlet design for the energy they need during mandatory driver breaks. To support other use cases, such as CCS truck charging, a dual CCS and MCS option will also be available.
  • RETAIL – the award winning C50 Compact Charger complements the family as the slimmest charger in its category at just 9.3 inches depth, optimized for convenient charging during typical one-hour retail experiences. With its large touch display, the C50 takes the award-winning A400 experience even further — setting a new standard for consumer experience and very neatly echoing our own take on that “Goldilocks” timing zone for commercial charging.

ABB says that the result of its new approach are chargers that offer 99% plus uptime — a crucial statistic for commercial charging operations and a key factor to ensuring customer satisfaction. The new ABB E-mobility EVSE product family will be on display for the first time at the Advanced Clean Transportation Expo (ACT Expo) in Anaheim, California next week, then again at Power2Drive in Munich, Germany, from May 7-9.

Electrek’s Take

BEV trucks and buses at ACT Expo in Long Beach; image by the author.
ACT Expo test drives; by the author.

The ACT Expo is one of – if not the most important sustainable trucking event in North America, featuring all the big names in heavy trucks, construction equipment, material handling, infrastructure – even Tier 1 suppliers. Mostly, though, it’s many fleet buyers’ only chance to test drive these zero emission trucks before writing a big PO (which just makes it even more important).

Electrek will be there again this year, and we’ll be bringing you all the latest news from press events and product reveals as it happens.

SOURCE | IMAGES: ABB E-mobility.


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.

Continue Reading

Trending