The minds behind Bo’s sublime e-scooter met each other while working for the advanced engineering arm at (F1 team) Williams. Their mission was to take their knowledge of designing and building some of the world’s fastest cars to build a better e-scooter. But while they no longer work for a Formula One team, they can’t quite shake that desire to build vehicles that travel at preposterously daft speed. Which is why the company has today unveiled The Turbo, a souped-up version of the standard Bo e-scooter with a potential top speed of more than 100 miles per hour and a range of up to 150 miles.
Bo Mobility
The Turbo (surely, the Tur…Bo, non?) is equipped with a 24,000W dual-motor engine, and a 1,800Wh battery. Naturally, given Bo’s focus on safety and balance, the scooter has F1-style air intakes to keep both the electronics and brakes nicely cool. Given the scooter’s light weight, Bo claims it has a higher power to weight ratio than a hypercar like the Bugatti Veyron. It’s already been tested by former professional BMX rider Tre Whyte. Although he hasn’t quite yet been able to breach the 100mph barrier the company thinks that isn’t far off.
Of course, the Turbo is one way to pull the world’s eyeballs to a product, especially as it’s announcing the US availability of its scooters. Customers in the US can now order a Bo M, with vehicles available at some point in August 2025. If you want the standard Bo M, with a range of 25 miles, will set you back $1,990 while the M2, with a range pushing 40 miles, will cost $2,490. And, if you’re the sort of person who thinks that owning a scooter that can go at road car speeds is a good idea, you’ll actually be able to buy a Turbo: It’ll cost you at least $29,500, with the first delivery going to a collector in Madrid next year ahead of that city's inaugural grand prix.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/this-is-the-daftest-e-scooter-in-the-world-131341641.html?src=rss
Amazon’s decarbonization goals are being undermined by its push to be a leader in generative AI. Its most recent sustainability report concedes its overall carbon emissions grew for the first time since 2022. It reported a six percent increase in its carbon footprint across 2024, laying much of the blame at the feet of its data center rollout.
The reported increase is significant given Amazon’s method of reporting its own environmental impact. Critics have suggested the mega-retailer “dramatically undercounts” its impact by excluding common metrics. In 2022, Amazon revised its climate reporting methodology which also led to the company’s figures falling dramatically.
In addition, the company reported an increase in emissions tied to the purchase of power from outside sources. “The increased energy demand is from AI chips,” says the report, which “require more electricity and cooling than traditional chips.” As well as the power to run and cool those chips, Amazon is building big to increase its server capacity. Data center construction, as well as fuel use by logistics contractors, led indirect emissions to increase by six percent. That said, the company’s own fossil fuel emissions increased by seven percent in 2024, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Amazon is a co-founder of The Climate Pledge, an initiative to reach net zero emissions by 2040. The initiative now has 549 signatories, including MasterCard, Sony and Snap.inc.
In February, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy pledged to invest $100 billion across 2025, with CNBC reporting the bulk of that cash would be spent on Amazon Web Services (the company’s data center and web hosting arm). Given the increase in construction, it’s likely Amazon’s report for 2025 will follow this same upward trend.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/amazons-ai-push-is-undermining-its-sustainability-goals-160156136.html?src=rss
Palo Alto, CA, USA - Feb 18, 2020: The Amazon logo seen at Amazon campus in Palo Alto, California. The Palo Alto location hosts A9 Search, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon Game Studios teams.
Stellantis, the automotive giant behind Chrysler, Citroen, Fiat, Jeep and Peugeot, is pulling out of hydrogen. The company said it’s killing its fuel cell development program in the face of “limited availability of hydrogen refueling infrastructure, high capital requirements and the need for stronger consumer purchasing incentives.” To put that another way, it’s realized hydrogen EVs are facing the same set of challenges it’s not been able to overcome in the last two or three decades.
It’s a stark shift in tone from January 2024, when the company promised to roll out a fleet of commercial fuel cell vehicles. Stellantis sells many of Europe’s most popular panel vans including the Citroen Jumper, Fiat Ducato, Opel Movano and Peugeot Boxer. Back then, it said we’d see hydrogen versions of all those vehicles (as well as its smaller siblings) with maximum ranges of 500km (310 miles).
The decision to pull the plug came relatively late, with the company saying it was due to begin production at its plants in France and Poland “this summer.” It added the decision to kill the range will not impact staffing in production or R&D, with employees transferred to other projects. It will, however, have to delicately negotiate its exit with Symbio, the fuel cell maker it bought a one-third share of back in 2023.
Stellantis isn’t the first company that pledged to put its weight behind fuel cells only to pull back. Toyota has thrown a lot of time, effort and money behind hydrogen, believing fuel cells would be preferable to battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Sadly, as time progressed, the company has had to cede more and more of the market to batteries, and only advertises its third-generation fuel cell as a power unit for heavy industrial vehicles.
Hydrogen was, and has been for some time, an article of faith for fossil fuel companies, the car industry and even some countries that lack their own energy reserves. After all, the promise of being able to pull (theoretically limitless), emission-free energy out of water is the stuff of dreams. Not to mention, it requires much of the same knowledge and infrastructure used by the traditional oil and gas industry, and refueling can only take place at a commercial site.
Had hydrogen made more of an impact, it would have likely preserved the status quo or something much like it, for those industries long into the future. But while the hope was that hydrogen could be a cleaner, greener substitute for oil and gas, its inherent flaws always made that a non-starter.
For instance, hydrogen is far less energy dense than oil and gas, and far less physically dense — it’s so prone to leaking that you have to go above and beyond to seal it in. It’s difficult to mass produce cleanly, especially if you want to power every car in the world, unless you use a dirty process like the steam reformation of methane. So, rather than moving away from fossil fuels and emissions, you’d be further entrenching them into the system and adding to the problem.
And if you did want to just use renewable energy to pull hydrogen from water, then you’d require an unprecedented amount of investment. Back in 2021, I asked Tim Lord, who had previously been in charge of the UK’s decarbonization strategy, about that sort of industrial-scale hydrogen generation. He said that you’d essentially need to double your whole electricity generation output to get close.
That’s before you get to the other factors, like hydrogen’s efficiency as a store of energy or the investment necessary to equip every gas station on the planet with a hydrogen tank. Which is not likely going to pay off given that Toyota’s Mirai, arguably the flagship hydrogen fuel cell EV, has only sold 28,000 models since its launch in 2014. In the US market, there's only the Mirai, the Hyundai Nexo and the Honda CR-V e-FCEV knocking around, nothing compared to how many BEVs are on sale. I think it’s time for everyone to admit that we’re done with hydrogen fuel cell EVs and focus their attention elsewhere.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/another-big-car-company-gives-up-on-hydrogen-133011978.html?src=rss
A lineup of Stellantis-owned vans from different marques that would have promised fuel cell EV versions but for the project's late-in-the-day axing. There are four fans in a line parked outside a factory, with the sun just pushing out from behind the clouds.
The 2 Pro’s lenses are now made of Gorilla Glass 3, which adds a gram or two more weight but should keep them scratch-free for far longer. Given the amount of open-water swimmers that use Form’s goggles, having faith that your lenses can take nature’s elbows is probably worth it.
If you’ve ever used a pair of regular goggles for a long time, you might notice how the anti-fog coating starts to wear off. Especially if you, like me, absentmindedly commit the sin of wiping the inside of their goggles with a finger when your view is obscured. Form may be proud of its current anti-fog coating, but realized there was a better way to keep the lenses clear for longer.
Consequently, the 2 Pro comes with a bottle of anti-fog spray that users need to apply before a swim. This isn’t a way of squeezing more cash out of the user base, however, as the company is proud to admit it’s just baby shampoo diluted with water. But Form has tested the correct ratio for optimal application and there are markings on the bottle showing you what you need to refill.
At the same time, Form is rolling out new features for its premium subscribers, including more data-driven program planning and more tips on where you need to improve. The company also revealed that its premium features are paying off, with swimmers seeing 1.4 times the gains in speed compared to the users who use the hardware alone.
The Form Smart Swim 2 Pro is available to buy July 15 for $329 in the US, $449 in Canada and €329 in Europe.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/wearables/form-makes-its-smart-swimming-goggles-tougher-with-gorilla-glass-lenses-060019264.html?src=rss
E-scooters could be a vital tool to eliminate unnecessary car journeys, cutting emissions and journey times. Unfortunately, the UK is the last major European nation to not allow them to be ridden on most public roads. They've proliferated illegally anyway, and are now an issue the country can no longer afford to drag its heels on.
The benefits of e-scooters are obvious: They’re cheap to buy and maintain, cost very little to run and have a small physical and environmental footprint. In 2022, the Fraunhofer Institute found that e-scooters contributed to a drop in carbon emissions in several cities that embraced micromobility. The raw materials that go into making one EV could be used for more than one hundred e-scooters. Collaborative Mobility UK (CoMoUK), the national organization for shared transport, found that 21 percent of all shared e-scooter trips in the UK were made in place of using a car. Richard Dilks, CEO of CoMoUK said that e-scooters “plumb directly into so many policy goals that [the] government has,” most notably its need to reach net zero emissions by 2050: CoMoUK’s research indicates more than half of all car trips could be replaced by e-bikes or scooters, eliminating one megaton of CO2 emissions per year.
Unfortunately, the UK does not have a vehicle class addressing personal transportation outside the realm of bikes, motorcycles and cars. E-scooters, Segways, “hoverboards,” gas-powered kick scooters, u-wheels (like the OneWheel) and electric unicycles are all in this gray zone. In the UK, they’re given the umbrella term of “Powered Transporters,” but have no strict legal definition. Consequently, they’re legally defined as motor vehicles, but because they lack most of the key features of a motor vehicle — which includes both a lack of safety equipment like seatbelts and airbags as well as the owner paying road tax, having insurance and being licensed to drive one — it’s illegal to use them on public roads and sidewalks. The absurdity of the situation is made worse given that e-bikes have fairly minimal regulations on speed and motor output power — and have consequently become ubiquitous.
Despite this classification issue, it’s legal to buy e-scooters at a number of major retailers. All a seller has to do is provide “accurate information about the legal restrictions on their use” — that they're only allowed to be used on private land — and they’re in the clear. Take this retail listing for the Pure Air 5, which even advises users it’s good for “quick trips,” “comfortable rides” and “daily use.” It’s only at the very bottom of the page, hidden below the cart pop-up, that the disclaimer saying they cannot be used on public highways, is displayed. As you can imagine, technically illegal use of e-scooters on roadways is rampant.
There is no accurate data on precisely how rampant, but the UK government believes more than onemillion privately-owned e-scooters are used on public roads. These e-scooters, not part of a sharing scheme and therefore illegal, are nevertheless used with impunity. The London Assembly believed that, in 2021, there were more than 150,000 privately-owned e-scooters in London alone. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police, the force covering greater London, seized only 1,067 e-scooters between 2021 and mid-2024. It’s an all too common sight to see people riding these scooters despite the risks, which are severe. It varies between police forces, but riders caught face losing their e-scooter, a fine of up to £300 (around $400) and having at least six penalty points put on their driving licence. Easy availability and limited enforcement mean the rules on e-scooter use isn’t clear in the public’s mind. Last year, the UK government published data showing almost half the people polled incorrectly believed private e-scooter use on public highways was legal.
Finnbarr Webster via Getty Images
In 2020, as part of its strategy to broaden public transit options during the COVID lockdowns, the UK authorized a series of short-term e-scooter trials. As well as offering people low-carbon ways of traveling that didn’t involve sharing other people’s air, the trials would inform how the government regulated e-scooters. These trials were run by sharing companies in 30 areas, which were subject to speed limits, age restrictions and were only allowed to be ridden on roads or cycle paths, rather than walkways. Many companies insisted only riders with driving licenses were allowed to participate.
Two years later, the country stated its intention to classify and regulate powered transporters at the start of that legislative period. But the collapse of the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s cabinet meant it was put on hold. Then the UK went through three Prime Ministers in the following three years, and micromobility has not been a priority for any of them so far. In fact, the only thing the government has done is repeatedly extend the deadline for the trial operations — most recently to May 2026. And that’s where we’re at. Late last year, transport secretary Louise Haigh said that the government "will look to legislate" at some point in the future. The earliest that could happen is at the next legislative session, which would not begin until the fall of 2025. Naturally, the passing of such a law would not be a swift process, and would likely be held up as e-scooters are their own front in the culture war.
The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Accidents (RoSPA) believes, not unsurprisingly, that the legal regime should impose strong safety standards and vehicle checks. It also advocates a system to train riders, which has to be completed before they are permitted to operate an e-scooter. Additionally, given its concern for other users, it wants to see safe and accessible parking implemented in order to prevent the issue of e-scooters dumped in the street.
I myself would go further, insisting upon mandatory helmet use, a licensing system and the requirement for insurance. I’d like e-scooters to be able to share segregated routes alongside bicycles rather than forcing riders to vie with traffic. It would also be beneficial if drivers were potentially at risk of additional penalties to encourage them to further respect e-scooters. It would also, perhaps, be worth unifying the legal regime for powered transports and e-bikes since they are all similarly capable of traveling at injurious speed.
The one thing I wouldn’t advocate is a cap on maximum power output given the risk it may hamper e-scooter development. After all, the UK has plenty of steep hills that e-bikes, capped at 250W maximum output, simply will not climb even at full power. This is why a cap on overall speed, rather than power — for every device in this category — since it’ll enable manufacturers to at least make sure their vehicles can manage elevation changes. This is a minor issue, but one that’s likely to get lost in the clamoring when uninformed voices get to shout louder than the rest.
The UK government doesn’t know how many privately-owned e-scooters are on its roads, but it is starting to collect data about its effects. The Department for Transport published statistics through to the end of 2023, but admitted the numbers aren’t entirely accurate. Still, the trends are obvious: Accident tallies spike each summer, mostly taking place between 4 and 6pm – during the evening rush hour. And young people are being injured in far greater numbers — males between the ages of 10 and 29 make up the majority of those affected. Earlier this year, BBC News reported two children, aged 16 and 9, died as a result of their e-scooter being struck by a car. In short: the lack of regulation hasn't just stunted an environmentally preferable alternative to cars, it seems to also be putting young riders at risk.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/the-uk-needs-to-deal-with-its-e-scooter-problem-133056724.html?src=rss
Escooter rider and passenger on 9th October 2024 in London, United Kingdom. A scooter-sharing system is a shared transport service in which electric motorized scooters, also referred to as e-scooters, are made available to use for short-term rentals. E-scooters are typically dockless, meaning that they do not have a fixed home location and are dropped off and picked up from certain locations in the service area. (photo by Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)
The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” has passed with plenty of nasty treats for the US technology and manufacturing industries. As well as swinging the sword at basic environmental protection measures, the bill sticks its thumb in the eye of the EV industry. Tim Stevens takes you on a tour of the most salient changes, like the imminent end of the EV tax credit. Joining that on the bonfire is the used EV incentive, as well as the rebates for the purchase of commercial EVs.
An earlier version of the bill also contained moves that could only be described as weirdly vindictive. It previously proposed an annual EV tax of $250 (and $100 for hybrid owners) as well as a general levy on all wind and solar projects. Why? A cynic might suggest it was due to the bill being drafted to benefit fossil fuel companies at the expense of literally everyone else.
Anyway, hopefully you can enjoy the holiday and won’t need to spend it panic-buying an EV and US-made solar panels. Although that’s not actually a bad way to spend a long weekend.
Nothing has launched its third-generation flagship, the $799 Nothing Phone 3, complete with a new eye-catching gimmick. Whereas previous models had the Glyph Interface, a series of flashing lights on the rear cover, the 3 gets a tiny dot-matrix display called the Glyph Matrix. Wanna find out if it’s going to be worth your cash? Check out Mat Smith’s detailed hands-on.
The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” will, if passed, make sweeping changes to the US’ clean energy market. While some of the worst provisions affecting the industry were stripped out during Senate proceedings earlier this week, it’s still pretty bad. In fact, the current language of the bill might as well be a middle figure to the domestic solar manufacturing industry.
As it stands, the bill guts many of the clean energy programs of Joe Biden's signature 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. That includes killing off incentives for domestic and utility-scale solar power as well as the Clean Electricity Production Credit. Even worse, the bill axes the Domestic Content bonus that incentivized the use of US-made gear.
There were a number of provisions that did not survive its journey through the Senate, like the excise tax on renewable energy. As CBS News reported, the levy would have imposed an additional charge on projects that used materials from foreign countries. As CNN explained, this would have cut renewable energy projects in favor of extending the life of coal and gas turbine plants.
Rob Gardner is Vice President of Congressional and Regulatory Affairs for SEMA, the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America coalition. He walked me through the bill, explaining the effects of the changes for the US solar industry. “A positive is that it maintains production tax credits for manufacturers of clean energy components,” he said.
One tweak from an earlier version of the bill was the speed at which the existing tax credits would be withdrawn. As it stands, projects that are already approved will qualify for the present regime, as will any project beginning construction before June 2026. “Basically, a year after enactment [companies have] to begin construction on utility-scale solar projects to receive the full amount of the credit,” said Gardner. And, according to § 70512 (4)(a) those plants will need to be “placed in service” no later than December 31, 2027.
The bigger issue, however, is that the bill creates “uncertainty for long-term demand for US products,” according to Gardner. Put simply, American-made solar panels are more expensive than their Chinese counterparts due to higher manufacturing costs. By removing the incentives, including the Domestic Content bonus, the US is opening the door for Chinese-made alternatives. Gardner added “after the tax credits that incentivize domestic production and consumption expire, you will see a flood of Chinese product [in the market.]”
The US's Environmental Information Administration projects that the US’ total domestic energy consumption will grow by almost two percent in the next year. A slowdown in new energy additions is the last thing the US needs, especially as renewables made up almost 90 percent of all new power generation capacity in 2024. But it’s likely that even with all of the changes in the bill, solar will remain the biggest technology used to implement new power generation capacity.
Abigail Ross Hopper, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association pulls no punches in her statement. She said the bill “undermines the very foundation of America’s manufacturing comeback.” Hopper added that “families will face higher electric bills, factories will shut down, Americans will lose their jobs and our electric grid will grow weaker.”
Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association described the bill as a “step backward” for American energy policy and an “intentional effort” to undermine “one of the fastest-growing sources of electric power.”
Environmental groups also believe the bill’s passing marks a dark day in the world’s fight against climate change. Greenpeace USA Deputy Climate Program Director John Noël, said in a statement that “this is a vote that will live in infamy” for its role in “doling out fossil fuel industry handouts.”
Environmental Defense Fund’s Vice President for Political and Government Affairs Joanna Slaney agreed. She said that the bill is “effectively cutting off supply of cheap energy right when the US needs it most.” In contrast, the bill offers a “10-year reprieve from paying a fee on wasteful methane pollution,” a gas significantly more harmful than carbon dioxide to the environment.
Research by clean energy company Cleanview suggests the bill may jeopardize up to 600GW of new renewable energy capacity. This is because of the tight deadlines the bill imposes to qualify for the existing credits, which again, need to begin construction before June 2026. That 600GW figure includes solar farms and battery storage projects in California and Texas that would need to be rushed to get working.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/trumps-big-beautiful-bill-is-a-middle-finger-to-us-solar-energy-152042835.html?src=rss
Login
