Tax credits are the driving force behind the Inflation Reduction Act’s unprecedented investment in clean energy. But there’s a catch to relying on tax credits: The amount of money a company can receive from them is limited to what it pays in taxes each year.
In recent decades, a workaround that helps firms monetize a greater amount of tax credits — and therefore build more solar, wind, storage, and other clean energy projects — has blossomed. Known as the tax equity market, it’s now a roughly $20 billion per year financial sector in which banks and other large financial institutions partner with clean energy developers and use their tax credits to reduce their massive tax burdens.
But even this approach has its limitations. That’s why the climate law sought to revolutionize how clean energy developers and other companies earning tax credits can monetize them by introducing a concept called transferability — and so far, it looks to be a runaway success.
So finds the latest report from Crux Climate, one of the companies working in this rapidly growing field. By year’s end, Crux forecasts that the volume of transactions in this new market will reach $22 billion to $25 billion, up from just $4 billion last year.
That’s an extraordinary pace of growth for a class of clean energy tax-credit financing that didn’t exist until mid-2023, said Crux CEO Alfred Johnson.
“Transferability is on a path to eclipse the traditional path of tax equity — if not this year, then in 2025,” Johnson said. And while “it took decades for tax equity to reach that size, transfers got there in about 15 months.”
Why transferability is a big change
The transferability market’s growth is a testament to the radically simpler nature of this approach compared with the traditional tax-equity structure.
Under the old rules, investors seeking to use credits to offset their taxes have to be co-owners of the project claiming them. That requires project developers to set up complex and specialized partnerships and structures with banks and investment firms with large tax liabilities, which has limited the market to only the largest and most sophisticated project developers and would-be financiers.
Transferability, by contrast, allows manufacturers of advanced energy technologies, wind and solar project developers, battery and EV-charging installers, and other cleantech sectors eligible to receive tax credits to sell them directly to companies or institutions looking for a way to reduce their tax burden.
That’s a simpler approach, though maybe not as simple as it sounds. That’s why companies like Crux, Basis Climate, Common Forge, Evergrow, Ever.green, Reunion Infrastructure, and others have stepped in to create and manage marketplaces that enable credit recipients and would-be buyers to structure deals, assist in due diligence, and secure insurance for tax-credit “recapture” risk, among other steps required to complete transactions.
Nor have tax-credit transfers supplanted traditional tax-equity markets, Johnson said. All in all, Crux forecasts that total U.S. tax-credit monetization will exceed $40 billion. A similar forecast from Reunion Infrastructure in September pegged the total 2024 market at $45 billion and up, of which $21 billion to $24 billion is expected to be transfers.
But transfer markets are open to a much wider variety of buyers and sellers of tax credits. That’s crucial to realizing the full potential of the scale and range of clean energy tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which will require more participation than what the traditional tax-equity markets can provide.
“There is far more demand for tax equity than there is supply,” said Keith Martin, an attorney with law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and an expert on clean energy tax equity. Transferability is “a way of relieving pressure on the market, by making it possible for small and midsize developers who struggle to raise tax equity to finance their projects.”
Johnson agreed that “only utility-scale developers with established technologies and a track record were able to access tax-equity financing.” Smaller-scale projects could tap into tax-equity markets only by being acquired into larger portfolios, he said.
With transferability, “we’ve seen smaller deal sizes transact in the transfer market, and newer technologies being able to access the market with reasonable speed,” he said.
The typical tax-equity deal is at least $100 million. But more than 80 percent of the transferability deals Crux tracked in 2023 were below $50 million, although bigger deals have taken a larger portion of the market since then, he noted.
Earlier this year, clean energy developer Black Bear Energy and finance company Evergrow closed a tax-credit transfer of undisclosed value for 556 kilowatts of solar projects for multifamily properties — a scale of distributed solar development that would have had to be bundled into a bigger portfolio to tap into tax-equity financing in the past.
On Monday, Navajo Power Home, which provides solar and battery systems for off-grid homes on Navajo and Hopi lands, announced that it had worked with Basis Climate to sell what might be the smallest tax-credit transfer to date — a $355,000 investment tax credit tied to solar-battery systems for about 100 homes. In a press release, Basis co-founder Derek Silverman cited the deal as a proving point for the company’s goal to “make it easy for buyers and sellers alike to transact on sub–$1 million deals.”
In what the city is calling a national first, Louisville, Colorado officials held a “ribbon cutting” last Tuesday to celebrate the launch of a new, all-electric residential recycling and waste collection fleet, which is already the city’s streets.
Operating under heavy loads, in stop-and-go conditions, at low speeds, and on a predictable route, electric vehicles are well-suited to waste collection applications – especially in cities, where the average day’s work happens in well under 100 miles of driving.
What’s more, their quiet operation means that residents like young kids and light sleepers are far less likely to be woken up at 0-dark-thirty by a rogue operator with a Jake Brake fetish.
“We are so proud that Louisville will be the first city in the nation with a fully electric collection fleet,” said Mayor Chris Leh. “These innovative EV collection trucks will fulfill our trash, compost and recycling needs, reduce noise pollution, and include larger windshields to increase each driver’s field of vision and lower greenhouse gas emissions, making our neighborhoods quieter, safer and healthier.”
With B&P customers getting real incentive money from the feds for medium- and heavy-duty EVs (and even more from utility programs), however, there’s a very minimal risk of falling on the wrong side of the cost/benefit equation.
As for the trucks themselves, the Louisville fleet includes four McNeilus Volterra ZSLs. Co-developed with insights from Republic Services, these trucks feature 360-degree cameras, an enlarged windshield for improved visibility, lane-departure sensors, automated emergency braking, and audible devices that alert nearby drivers and pedestrians to compensate for their quieter operations.
“The City of Louisville’s commitment to sustainability is something we truly applaud,” said Richard Coupland, Republic Services’ vice president of municipal services. “To be the first municipality in the country to adopt an electrified fleet showcases their desire to find tangible solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. Our partnership exemplifies how we can contribute to a more sustainable world.”
Electrek’s Take
First off, who even knew they had a Louisville in Colorado!?
Beyond that jaw-dropper, the real story here is that municipalities all over are starting to understand that electric garbage trucks offer real incentives – and not just financial or environmental ones – that make life for people who live and work with and near them a whole lot better.
The dry electrode coating process has the potential to enable the production of better, greener, more cost-effective batteries. It relies on advanced fluoropolymer binders with Teflon™
For a few years now, Charged has been reporting on how dry electrode coating processes have the potential to revolutionize battery production by eliminating the use of hazardous, environmentally harmful solvents. Taking the solvents out of the process can translate to big savings in cost and floor space in the factory—and the dry coating process can also enable designers to improve battery performance.
The dry electrode coating process relies on the use of special binders that can form an electrode coating without being dissolved in a solvent, such as fluoropolymer binders with Teflon™ from specialty chemical company Chemours.
To learn about the advantages of the dry coating process, and how companies are meeting the challenges involved in scaling the technology up from pilot to production scale, Charged spoke with Tejas Upasani, Global EV Technology Manager at Chemours.
Tejas Upasani: We like to call Chemours “a startup company with 200 years of history.” We spun out of DuPont in 2015, and we have leading brands in various industries, including semiconductors and automotive. Under our Advanced Performance Materials business, we have brands you might recognize, such as Teflon™, Nafion™ and Viton™.
Now we are experiencing growth in our products in a brand-new field—the dry electrode coating process—and I’m really excited to see how Chemours can support the scale-up of this new application.
In the dry process, many of the ingredients remain the same—similar active materials, similar conductive additives. What really changes is the binder.
Charged: Can you walk us through the basic advantages of the dry electrode coating process versus the traditional wet slurry-based process?
Tejas Upasani: The dry coating process is a novel way of manufacturing cathode and anode electrodes in lithium batteries.
In the traditional wet slurry process, we have the active ingredients, we have the conductive additives, and we use a particular binder which needs to be dissolved in a solvent. Once all these ingredients are mixed together, we create what is called a slurry. That slurry has to be coated onto a current collector. At that point, the function of the solvent is done, so we dry off the solvent and we get a nice coating on the current collector.
In the dry process, many of the ingredients remain the same—similar active materials, similar conductive additives. What really changes is the binder. In this case, we’ll be using advanced fluoropolymer binders with Teflon™ which, because of its unique properties, doesn’t need to be dissolved in any solvent. It can form the coating as it goes through the processing steps through a process called fibrillation, which basically forms the entire coating on the current collector.
Why is the dry process advantageous over the wet slurry process? We can look at this from three different angles.
One is that it is much more environmentally friendly. The wet slurry process uses NMP [N-Methylpyrrolidone], which is a hazardous solvent. In order to get rid of the solvent in the wet slurry process, it has to go through a series of ovens. If there is no need for the solvent, then the hazards associated with the solvent are removed.
The second part is production costs. If you look at how much space is required for the wet slurry process, by some estimates, it’s 10 times the space compared to the dry process, so there’s a tremendous amount of savings of floor space that can be achieved with the dry process.
The third aspect is that it enables better performance of the batteries. With the dry process, we can make thicker electrodes, which can help with improving power density.
Advanced fluoropolymer binders from Chemours are really at the heart and center of that process.
Charged: Is this something that could help to reduce charging times?
Tejas Upasani: It potentially could. There’s a lot of testing that is being done right now, comparing the wet slurry process and the dry process. If you are able to go to a higher loading with the dry electrode process—say, all the way to 8 or 9 milliamp-hours per square centimeter—we can see competitive or higher charging rates compared to a normal loading of the wet slurry process, which is about 3 to 4 milliamp-hours per square centimeter now. Much of this work is done at lab scale or pilot scale, but as the technology matures and we start seeing better process technologies, these can be realized in real-life scenarios as well.
Charged: Is dry electrode coating currently in production?
Tejas Upasani: We are in the early stages of the development process. Some industry players are at production scale. For example, on Battery Day in 2020, Tesla announced that they wanted to produce their 4680 cells in a dry electrode process. And on Investor Day in 2023, the company announced that they had successfully implemented commercial production of the dry electrode process. PowerCo, a subsidiary of Volkswagen, has announced that they will deploy and commercialize the dry electrode process at many different locations. LG Energy Solutions has announced similar plans.
But as it stands right now, we are seeing the entire spectrum—lab, pilot, pre-production, production—of adoption of the dry electrode process.
We think that cell manufacturers and OEMs in the next two to five years are going to be in different stages. Some are going to be at pilot scale. Others are going to advance into production scale. But as it stands right now, we are seeing the entire spectrum—lab, pilot, pre-production, production—of adoption of the dry electrode process.
Charged: Are there any major technical hurdles that we still need to get past before this can be widely adopted?
Tejas Upasani: Certainly there are hurdles. Everybody’s trying to develop the process, and they’re trying to make sure that the correct mixing and calendaring can be done in order to create a uniform structure. Some of the technical hurdles have to do with binders and the dry electrode processes enabled through understanding the fibril network of PTFE [polytetrafluoroethylene].
The use of PTFE and the resultant fibril network has been understood for decades, and we, as inventors of PTFE, have invested a lot of science behind understanding the fibril network, but it generally has been applied to industries where PTFE is the dominant component in the application. As an example, if you look at your standard plumber’s tape (Teflon™ tape), it utilizes exactly the same principle of fibrillation. That’s why you can pull it in one direction easily, but in the transverse direction, you can just break it apart.
It’s the same in this application—we’re trying to control the fibrillation through the mixing process and through the calendaring process. Chemours has invested heavily in developing various types of advanced fluoropolymer binders with PTFE. These have a range of different molecular weights and different polymer architectures, and all of these are intended to enable the proper fibrillation characteristics within the electrode process.
On the cathode side, generally PTFE is oxidatively very stable…it’s a very promising application. On the anode side there might be reductive stability challenges associated with traditional PTFE, and so using traditional PTFEs might not be the optimum solution.
Traditional PTFE may have challenges on the anode side. On the cathode side, generally PTFE is oxidatively very stable. One of the advantages is that you can go to higher voltages and it still is stable at higher-voltage applications. So, on the cathode side, it’s a very promising application.
On the anode side there might be reductive stability challenges associated with traditional PTFE, and so using traditional PTFEs might not be the optimum solution. That’s one of the reasons why we are developing a lot of different products and trying to understand the mechanism of why traditional PTFE is not stable on the anode side. And once we understand that mechanism, how do we solve that? There’s a tremendous amount of work going on internally and with our external partners as well to try and understand and solve these hurdles.
Charged: One of the challenges is adhesion. The dry material has to bond to the electrode surface, but the flat surface and lack of texture can make that difficult.
Tejas Upasani: The industry right now is using what we call carbon-coated current collectors. They have certain coatings on the current collectors, and when the dry process films are made, those get laminated onto that carbon-coated current collector.
That’s the solution that the industry has at this point, and it’s working fairly well in both anode and cathode processes. Now, if we wanted to directly laminate the film onto the current collector without any carbon coating, then that’s a little bit of a problem, and we are working on it right now.
We are looking at ways that we can alter the chemistry of the polymers themselves in order to get better adhesion to the current collectors. If we were able to directly laminate onto the current collector, why have this carbon coating?
We are looking at ways that we can alter the chemistry of the polymers themselves in order to get better adhesion to the current collectors. If we were able to directly laminate onto the current collector, why have this carbon coating? Eliminating the coating reduces the cost. I think that might come, but right now the focus is on scaling up the technology with coated current collectors.
Charged: The process needs to reduce the amount of binder and other inactive material to a similar level as that of wet coating, but this can be expensive and hard to scale up.
Tejas Upasani: Yeah. Certain cell chemistries require increasing the amount of inactive material, especially on the cathode side, whereas there are some cell chemistries where we are looking at binder loadings of less than 2%, and in some cases even less than 1%.
So, it’s already being worked on, trying to reduce the amount of inactive materials. It does require a lot of process optimization because, as you can imagine, the small amount of binder is holding up the entire powder chemistry. So, a lot of process technology, along with the material enhancements that we are doing in developing new materials and coming up with different polymer chemistries, is going to enable even further reductions of the amount of inactive materials.
Charged: Another challenge is uniformity—the dry coating mixture needs to be uniform across large areas of the battery electrodes.
Tejas Upasani: I don’t think uniformity challenges are necessarily restricted to the dry coating process. There are methods that have been developed in the wet slurry process to understand that the viscosity is right or the solids content is right, and that will help us to understand that the uniformity of the slurry is also good.
Once the mixing is done homogeneously, the beauty of the dry electrode process is that, once it is laminated onto the current collector, the coating process is done. You don’t have any movement or settling of the ingredients.
In the dry process, it’s similar, except that we are dealing with all the powders. There are analytical methods and tools that are being developed in order to verify that these powders are mixed correctly—the active materials, carbon black and binders, they need to be mixed really homogeneously. Once the mixing is done homogeneously, the beauty of the dry electrode process is that, once it is laminated onto the current collector, the coating process is done. You don’t have any movement or settling of the ingredients. In a wet slurry process, if you were to make a thick electrode, as the solvent is drying off, these ingredients may start to settle during the drying process.
Charged: So, your company would partner with the manufacturer to determine the ideal mix.
Tejas Upasani: Yes. And throughout our history, we have looked at application development. This is what we have done at Chemours for decades. We don’t want to just say to the customers, “Here’s a material, use it.” We don’t want to say that we are just a supplier. We don’t want to stop there. We want to make sure that we contribute to the success of our customers as well.
There are methods available to understand the mixing homogeneity, which are very R&D-based, and we are doing some of that work, but if someone is doing this on a production basis at a manufacturing site, they are not going to have time to take a sample, go into the R&D lab and wait for days in order to get the results. So, when we are developing these methods internally, we are trying to develop a method which is going to be in line with production characterization and analysis.
Charged: Can you tell us about your advanced fluoropolymer binders with Teflon PTFE?
Tejas Upasani: Understanding the fibrillation characteristics is really the key in enabling the dry electrode process. We have a spectrum of different products, which are available to be applied in a batch mixing process, or in a continuous mixing process. Not all of our customers are going to use the exact same way of manufacturing it, so trying to tailor our products to their needs is the key.
And given that we have tried all different sorts of chemistries for our advanced fluoropolymer binder products, it’s easier for us to understand what exactly is going to affect the fibrillation characteristics, and consequently the mechanical properties of these materials.
Also, Chemours is the only fluoropolymer manufacturer who has manufacturing sites in all three major regions—the US, Europe and Asia/Pacific. When we think about a scenario where the manufacturing is going to be scaled up to a production scale, we have the flexibility of having the products being made at different locations and supporting our customers with the same quality, the same safety standards and same standards applied to responsible manufacturing.
Charged: We’ve heard about some proposed regulations in Europe around PFAS that could impact PTFE. What impact would this have on dry electrode coating?
Tejas Upasani: I’m glad that you asked the question, because sometimes it is the elephant in the room when we are talking with our industry partners.
We at Chemours firmly believe that our fluoropolymers can be manufactured responsibly, and we are in favor of industry-wide national regulations and testing requirements, which are based on science and facts—data-driven regulations and testing methods, we are completely in favor of that.
We spend a lot of time, money and resources in identifying the sources of emissions from manufacturing fluoropolymers, and installing abatement systems in order to control those emissions. We are also engaging heavily in trying to develop alternate manufacturing technologies. All of these are steps that we are taking in order to meet the needs of potential regulation.
If we look at the EU regulations, particularly, it’s not necessarily confined to PTFE. PVDF, which is a fluoropolymer used in the wet slurry process, could also be potentially impacted by the same regulations.
Fluoropolymers in general are essential to lithium-ion batteries, and they’re essential for us to transition to a clean energy environment. So, we want to be partners in the regulation to make sure that the regulations address the concerns, and that these products are manufactured in a responsible way, and we are committed to doing both things.
This article first appeared in Issue 69: July-September 2024 – Subscribe now.
Source link by Charged EVs
Author Charles Morris
#closer #Liion #dry #electrode #coating #technology
They’re heavier and less aerodynamic—thus less efficient—than cars
Broadly, SUVs emit 20% more CO2 than cars regardless of powertrain
Reflecting overall industry trends, most electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids sold in the U.S. in 2023 were SUVs, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
By sales, SUVs have surpassed sedans, wagons, hatchbacks, and minivans, and last year they also accounted for 53% of battery-electric vehicle sales and 83% of plug-in hybrid sales. Conventional car body styles still accounted for 43.4% of EV sales, but just 10% of plug-in hybrid sales.
2023 U.S. EV and PHEV sales by size class (via U.S. Department of Energy)
SUVs are generally heavier and less aerodynamic than cars, which impacts efficiency of internal-combustion and electric powertrains alike. That’s led to differing analyses of the relatively high number of plug-in SUV sales.
The DOE has a fairly positive outlook, saying in September that a small electric SUV with 300 miles of range is estimated to have half the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of a comparable gasoline vehicle. In 2021 it said that popular small SUVs were a meaningfully better choice than larger models in terms of overall emissions—and that EVs and plug-in hybrids were better still.
2023 Ford Mustang Mach-E
However, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said earlier this year that SUVs emit 20% more CO2 compared to cars, regardless of powertrain type. The IEA also warned in 2023 that the SUV market is fueling global oil demand, countering some of the emissions reductions one might hope to see from higher EV adoption.
When comparing electric SUVs to gasoline SUVs, though, electric vehicles at least have the advantage of getting cleaner over their useful life as more renewable energy is used to power the grid. And while emissions from electricity production and distribution are currently double that of the equivalent emissions for gasoline, that’s more than offset by the tailpipe emissions of gasoline vehicles, which represent nearly three quarters of their total lifecycle emissions, the DOE previously noted.
Source link by Green Car Reports
Author news@greencarreports.com (Stephen Edelstein)
#PHEV #sales #SUVs
Editor’s note: Paul posted this on X and tagged me. It’s basically an article, so I’m posting it here with minor edits. Enjoy. —Zach
5 interventions in 10 miles v12.5.4.1 on a 4 year old Model Y, north of Tampa.
#1 — after 6 years of development, it still can’t reverse out of my garage, but we are told this feature is coming soon.
Navigated to a restaurant 5 miles from my home. FSD was smooth and did a great job with a u-turn.
#2 — I got to an intersection that only the left lane could go straight (and we needed to go straight) and it picked the right lane and then tried to cut in front of 20 cars that were in the left lane. I disengaged, since I didn’t want to rudely force my way into the left lane or if nobody let me in block the right lane for someone wanting to take a right turn, so I turned right and had to reroute to the destination.
The next 3 miles were great until
#3 — I needed to be in the left lane to turn into the restaurant. There was plenty of time to get in the left lane, but it stayed in the center lane too long and missed the turn (because there was a car in the way at the last minute).
#4 — On the way home it was good all the way home until I got to the community gate (which has caused thousands of disengagements). FSD needs to go within 2 feet of the bar code reader so that it let’s my car in. But it still goes 6 feet away, so I have to disengage.
#5 — It won’t park in my garage.
So am I to believe that just one year ago this 10 mile trip would have had 500 disengagements? No way, maybe it would have been 8 or 10, but it wasn’t that bad a year ago. I took a 3000 mile trip from Tampa to Seattle with my son and used FSD most of the way. Maybe had 8 or 10 disengagements but also didn’t use it if it was a tricky area or in heavy snow.
So why am I not seeing 100 times better driving? Is it not trained in Tampa? Is it not good on the 4 year old cars with the old computer? Or is it something more nefarious, like they aren’t telling the truth?
This isn’t a cherry picked route. I drive all over Tampa and this is about par for the course. I’ve had better and worse drives. I also drive a lot in Denver when I visit my daughter (she has two Model Y’s, a HW4 and a HW3). It’s maybe a bit better in Denver and maybe a bit better on HW4, but not 10 times better, maybe 30% better.
I don’t buy the line that the software is so good they have to drive many miles to find a mistake. I don’t have any problem finding issues on every trip.
On most upgrades it has the same issues as the last release. Maybe the turns will be a bit better or speed control will be slightly better. But lane selection and parking and unparking and my community gate have been broken for 6 years. I’m not to worry because it’s all going to be great with V13 by the end of October. /s
Under a new agreement inked between Ford and LG, the companies will move production of EV batteries for the Ford Mustang Mach-E from Poland to its Michigan facility in 2025. This (of course) has everything to do with the IRA and tax credits.
“To capitalize on competitive market conditions,” the new agreement moves Ford Mach-E battery production to the US, where those batteries can take advantage of America’s various incentives. Over in Europe, LG plans to take advantage of incentives over there by supplying a total of 109 GWh of batteries to Ford for its electric commercial vans starting in 2026.
“These agreements attest to our experience and expertise in powering commercial vehicles with innovative battery technologies designed to handle extreme user environments,” said David Kim, CEO of LG Energy Solution. “Capitalizing on our local production capacity, we will secure leadership in the European market and deliver unmatched values to our customers through advanced battery technologies that effectively address diverse needs.”
It’s about Ford, but not ONLY about Ford
2024 Toyota bZ4X; via Toyota.
Ford isn’t the only automaker are also entering into strategic agreements to build out Americam battery supply chains in order to qualify for the (up to) $7,500 New Clean Vehicle Tax Credit on EVs and PHEVs. LG Energy also announced that it was investing $3 billion in its Michigan battery facility as part of a separate agreement to supply lithium to Toyota that will be used in batteries for future, US-built EVs.
In addition to the LG deal, Ford has a deal with SK On to build batteries in Kentucky for the updated E-Transit commercial van and F-150 Lightning electric pickup beginning mid-2025.
Electrek’s Take
Ford Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lighting; via Ford.
Fossil fuels have enjoyed government subsidies in the form of government stockpiles, OPEC deals, and municipal fleet spending to build economies of scale for generations. As such, it’s only fair that a fraction of those subsidies trickle down (ha!) to the electric vehicle market. Ford, Toyota, GM, and everyone else moving their battery manufacturing to the US are doing it right.
While you’re thinking of all those incentives, click on the links below to see what kind of deals you can get on Ford Mustang Mach-E, Lightning, and Toyota bZ4X models near you:
SOURCE | IMAGES: LG Energy Solutions, via PR Newswire.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Source link by Electrek
Author Jo Borrás
#Ford #set #move #battery #production #Poland #Michigan
The new Mercedes-Benz eEconic is a first of its kind all-electric tanker truck helping to reduce emissions at Airbus’ Donauwörth facility by pumping sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) into new Airbus Helicopters.
Co-developed with Mercedes-Benz Special Trucks and aircraft support specialists ROHR Spezialfahrzeuge GmbH, this eEconic tanked is fitted with a 16,500 liter fueling rig specially designed to pump sustainable aviation fuel … but that’s not the new truck’s best truck.
The eEconic reduces both on-site emissions and downtime – and not just because EVs need far less maintenance than their diesel counterparts. Airbus Helicopters’ early experiences show that, with the truck’s installed batteries, the SAF tanker can be used in normal operation for a full week without the need for intermediate charging.
Getting it done
The electric tanker’s pump is equipped is operated hydraulically via an electric power take-off system (ePTO). The SAF pump in the tank body also draws on the energy stored in the vehicle’s three 105 kWh batteries (315 kWh total).
Those 315 kWh’s worth of energy also power two electric motors integrated into the Mercedes eEconic’s e-axles that generate a continuous output of 330 kW (up to 400 peak kW, or nearly 540 hp). More than enough to hustle across an airport to top off a rescue helicopter. And, despite the trucks’ relatively long wheelbase of 5.5 meters (approx. 18 feet), the eEconic has a tight turning circle radius thanks to a steered rear axle that also works to ensure it can position itself wherever it’s needed once it’s hustled to where it needs hustled to.
Airbus has committed to cutting their carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, and sees the use of SAF as an important lever here. Today, all Airbus aircraft operated on a 50% SAF blend. By 2030, all ICE Airbus aircraft will be certified to operate on 100% SAF.
Electrek’s Take
With the short distances driven at limited speeds under extreme loads, ground handling equipment at airports present a nearly ideal use case for battery-electric vehicles. That’s a good thing, too — as demand for on-road fossil fuels drops, airports and airlines – historically responsible for about 4% Earth’s global warming – are becoming a bigger and bigger slice of a rapidly shrinking pie when it comes to fossil fuel emissions.
Projects like the Mercedes-Benz eEconic just go to show that EVs have a place in reducing carbon emissions, even while fossil fuels are still in play.
Audi commemorated the 25th anniversary of its cult-classic A2 hatchback by converting one into an EV.
The Audi A2 E-Tron is a one-off project undertaken by apprentices. It’s not the first such project; Audi apprentices previously converted an NSU Prinz 4 from one of the automaker’s predecessor brands into a speedy EV concept to mark 150 years of manufacturing at the site of Audi’s Neckarsulm, Germany plant.
Audi A2 E-Tron concept
The hatchback is powered by a single electric motor from an Audi Q8 E-Tron, tuned for 197 hp and 261 pound-feet of torque. A 25.9-kwh battery pack from an Audi Q7 plug-in hybrid (a model not sold in the U.S.) was installed under the cargo floor and provides an estimated 129 miles of range (likely based on the European WLTP testing cycle). Audi claims there is room for a second pack, which would boost range to an estimated 248 miles.
The A2 also received exterior modifications like smooth wheels, deleted door handles, and illuminated front and rear badges similar to the Audi Q6 E-Tron and A6 E-Tron. Those two new EVs share the Premium Platform Electric (PPE) that’s key to Audi’s strategy to focus primarily on upmarket models—the opposite direction of vehicles like the A2.
Entering production in November 1999, the Audi A2 was a forward-thinking subcompact that emphasized efficiency with aluminum bodywork, frugal gasoline and diesel engines, and a distinctive shape that lent a low drag coefficient of between 0.25 and 0.29.
Audi A2 E-Tron concept
However, low gas prices around the turn of the century meant the A2 wasn’t as popular when new as it might be today. Never sold in the U.S., it was also more expensive than conventional small cars in Europe. So while the A2 maintains a loyal fanbase today, it sold poorly when new and was not replaced after production ended in 2005. The less-radical A1 became Audi’s entry-level model in Europe.
Audi was developing a smaller, fully electric A2 city car a decade ago, but it canned the project. The Audi Q4 E-Tron remains the automaker’s smallest EV for the U.S., sharing the Volkswagen Group MEB platform with the VW ID.4 and ID.Buzz, among other models.
Source link by Green Car Reports
Author news@greencarreports.com (Stephen Edelstein)
#Audi #ETron #restomod #remixes #forwardthinking #city #car
Heavy on heritage and light on details, the launch event showed Scout’s concepts for an EV 4×4 that’s every bit the equal of Jeep or Bronco.
Scout Motors, the startup electric-truck maker owned by Volkswagen, took the wraps off concepts for its first two 4×4 models outside Nashville on Thursday evening. The Terra truck and the Traveler SUV share most design and interior cues, with the truck riding on a longer wheelbase. While the vehicles shown will change, Scout executives suggested that what the assembled fans, owners, and reporters saw was 85 to 90 percent of the production vehicles.
Two different powertrains will be offered: a battery-electric version with up to 350 miles of range, and the Harvester model with a range-extending gasoline engine that delivers a combined range of more than 500 miles. It’s not a plug-in hybrid but a range-extended EV, meaning the gasoline engine powers a generator that recharges the battery, but cannot power the wheels mechanically. Scout prices will start at roughly $60,000 before incentives, and the company targets initial production in 2027.
Despite their electric powertrains, the two Scout models use a newly developed body-on-frame architecture unlike anything found elsewhere in the VW Group. For 4×4 capability, they feature a solid rear axle and locking differentials both front and rear. If they debut on schedule in 2027, they will compete against off-road-capable models that include Ford’s Bronco 4x4s and Jeep’s Wrangler and Gladiator, all gasoline-powered, and electric trucks like the GMC Hummer EVs and the Rivian R1S and R1T. All those vehicles will likely have been updated from today’s specs by the time the Scouts go on sale.
Photos by John Voelcker.
Scout plans to sell the vehicles directly through its own sales and service network, foregoing the franchised dealers that sell all other VW Group vehicles in North America—none of whom have experience with either body-on-frame vehicles or serious 4x4s. The Scouts are to be built in a brand-new factory now under construction near Columbia, South Carolina. Consumers can reserve the new models on the Scout Motors website.
Over the long run, we’d expect Scout to end up selling more Traveler SUVs than Terra trucks—just as Rivian said it would, and has, with the R1S utility vehicle against the R1T pickup truck that preceded it in production.
Heavy on heritage, light on details
Leaning heavily into the heritage theme, the launch event featured a few dozen original International Scouts, including the first one built in 1960 and the last Scout II built in 1980. Scout owners and enthusiasts at the event were uniformly delighted the brand would return, though many said they were dubious about the idea of Scouts powered by batteries and electric motors.
Those original Scouts we saw would be compact to midsize trucks in today’s terms. The new Scouts are full-size trucks, dimensionally far closer to a Ford F-150 and Expedition than to the Rivian R1T and R1S. The longer of the two, the Terra pickup, is 229 inches long, 77 in high, and 92 in wide. Riding on a wheelbase that’s a whopping 28 inches shorter than the Terra’s 148 in, the Traveler SUV is 21 in shorter in length.
Photos by John Voelcker.
The bed of the Terra is 5.5 feet long, roughly a foot more than that of the Rivian R1T. And 6-foot adults will easily fit into the rear seats, which are reached via exceptionally long doors. A middle seat is even available for the front row, making the two-row Scouts capable of carrying six passengers rather than the usual five.
Weight remains an open question; any battery-electric vehicle with 100 kWh of battery or more likely weighs 3 to 4 tons.
Those who watched the event online commented a lot on similarities to Rivian, with some presuming the Scouts were based on Rivian underpinnings. Given VW’s joint-development agreement with Rivian, announced in July, that wasn’t unreasonable. But excluding Scout’s use of Rivian’s zonal electric architecture—which allows over-the-air updates and additional features to be added during the life of the vehicle—Scout executives uniformly said no structural, mechanical, or interior components came from Rivian.
Details on the specifics of the electric drive trains were sparse. No power output was given, though torque was projected at “near 1,000 lb-ft” with acceleration from 0 to 60 mph as low as 3.5 seconds. Scout gave no details on the range-extending combustion engine, which will be located under the load bay behind the rear axle. (One exec confirmed it will NOT be a diesel, ahem.) The betting among reporters was that the engine will be a version of the Volkswagen EA288 inline-4, likely supplied from VW’s factory in Puebla, Mexico.
Base suspension is mechanical, but air suspension will be available as an option. Wheels up to 35 inches in diameter will be offered, with ground clearance of more than 12 inches and projected wading depth of nearly 3 feet. Payload for each model was quoted as “near 2,000 pounds,” with projected towing capacity given as 10,000+ pounds for the Terra truck and 7,000+ pounds for the Traveler SUV.
Owners doing it for themselves
One theme of the reveal was the simplicity of old-fashioned controls. The Scouts have fixed door handles, not the flush or retracting ones used by Rivian and Tesla to reduce aerodynamic drag. Knobs and dials perform every major function in the cabin—an implicit rebuke to Volkswagen, which has replaced many hard controls in its latest models with onscreen icons and virtual controls.
There’s a small front trunk, which Scout claims is large enough to store a bag of golf clubs, a cooler, and a gym bag. A rectangular panel at the back of the left-rear fender, under the taillight, opens to reveal a NACS charging port—standard on every Scout—and three 120-volt power outlets. Three 240-volt outlets were mentioned as well, something that startled and impressed Scout owners in attendance.
The Scout faithful in attendance clapped and cheered at several points during the presentation over specific features—the bench seat, the power outlets, the locking axles. But the loudest, longest applause came at the end, during a moment when Scout CEO Scott Keogh paused in front of a screen saying “One more thing”.
The screen then displayed a jerry can of gasoline, and Keogh announced the range extender and its name—Harvester, another nod to Scout’s heritage, given its birth as a product from the International Harvester farm-equipment company.
Will Harvester EREVs get plugged in?
Keogh went on to stress the Scouts are still EVs, with all the associated benefits, including the front trunk. But, he noted, the combination of a smaller battery pack and the range-extending generator would provide more than 500 miles of range—something very few EVs offer today.
Afterward, I caught up with Phil Coonrod, the owner of the very first Scout (# 501). He’d had a blast during the day, with the Scout faithful appreciating and complimenting his preservation of the 1960 model. What did he think of the new ones, I asked? He loved them, he said, and planned to order one that evening for his wife.
Which model, the battery-electric or the range-extended one? “Oh, the hybrid,” he said.
Fair enough. Would he plug it in? He paused.
“I don’t know. Probably.”
We’ll see whether the affluent suburban families who are likely to buy the bulk of the new Scouts take the same attitude. As passionate as the heritage Scout community is, and as much as they appreciate their trucks’ 4×4 capabilities, a full-size electric SUV will more likely be used as family transportation than for rock-crawling—as a Scout executive quietly acknowledged.
With more than two years until the start of production, there’s a lot left to learn about the new Scouts. But it seems safe to say the market for full-size, body-on-frame pickup trucks and SUVs—a vehicle category largely confined to North America—will have a new electric entrant in a few years. The new Scouts had a successful debut. Now the company has to do the hard work of getting them into volume production. Stay tuned.
Scout Motors provided airfare, lodging, and meals to enable Charged to bring you this first-person report.
Source link by Charged EVs
Author John Voelcker
#Scout #Motors #unveils #Terra #truck #Traveler #SUV #concepts #including #Harvester #range #extender
In cement production, there are two key sources of emissions: high-heat, gas-fired kilns and the limestone used as an ingredient in Portland cement, which releases CO2 when heated up. Steelmaking emissions mainly come from the use of coal-fired blast furnaces to make iron.
Many of these industrial sectors have historically been described as “hard-to-decarbonize,” but in recent years experts have pushed back on that label as new pathways to cleaning up heavy industry have emerged or been proven out.
Rhodium, for its part, sees the oil and gas industry’s fugitive methane problem as solvable thanks to “cost-effective mitigation solutions that exist today,” the report notes. Plus, if global fossil-fuel consumption falls due to the rise of clean energy, heat pumps, and EVs, those emissions will follow suit.
The report also sees a solid pathway for the steelmaking sector to become less carbon-intensive by increasing both the use of electric arc furnaces, which use electricity to recycle scrap steel, as well as an alternative, coal-free ironmaking process called direct reduction, which can be fueled by fossil gas or hydrogen.
The research firm is less optimistic about cement emissions in the near term, citing a lack of mature technologies. Major cement producers and startups are working on different techniques to chip away at emissions, and companies are also devising ways to produce low-carbon Portland cement, but the industry is still far from the wholesale transformation needed to radically reduce emissions.
To get the cement industry — and the rest of the industrial sector — on track to completely eliminate emissions will, at the very least, require a “considerable acceleration in policy and innovation,” as Rhodium puts it.
Clean Energy Counsel is the only mission-driven law firm exclusively focused on renewable energy and clean technologies. From early-stage venture investment, offtake, site control, equipment supply, and EPC contracting, through project acquisitions, debt, and tax equity, we counsel clients through every stage of the project life cycle. Visit our website to explore how we can work together toward a sustainable future.
