FREYR BATTERY Forum: Community User: Mountainclimber

Uns bleibt nichts anderes übrig als auf neue Updates zu warten, egal ob positive oder negative. Und natürlich sind wir hier alle Menschen und jeder geht anders damit um wenn man dick im Minus ist. Aber Solar und Wind und Batterien werden ein Großteil der neuen Energie ausmachen. Noch viele viele Jahre steigendes Bedürfnis. Bis weit nach 2050. Und China dominiert.... Glaubt ihr die USA schauen da zu und wollen nicht ihre eigenen Lieferketten und Fabriken? Die machen sich nicht abhängig von China und T1 ist ein Player.

Das die Lage für die Solarindustrie in den USA sehr verzwickte ist ist klar.Aber mit solchen Aussagen wie dieses Updat zur G2 erzeugen sie bei den Aktionären eine grosse Erwartungshaltung und machen sich selbst Erfolgsdruck.

Das wäre schön wenn sie nichts weiter nach hinten verschieben oder was kürzen. Aber....

Thanks, David. We agree on the big picture and we are appreciative of your confidence. Gonna be a bumpy ride into year end for solar but the future is bright.

Ich habe mir gerade nochmal die Mail durchgelesen die du gestern von J.Spittel bekommen hast.Dort betont er ja nochmal das sich an dem Update das sie vor einigen Wochen zur G2 abgegeben haben nichts geändert hat und die G2 Ende 2026 in Produktion gehen soll. ....

Vielen Dank fürs Teilen und den guten Kontakt zu Jeffrey!

Ich bleibe dabei, langfristig mache ich mir weniger Sorgen um mein Geld. Kurzfristig kann es nochmal runter gehen.... Auch wenn es hier wenige mögen. Dann kommen wieder die ganzen komischen Leute die nur schlechte Laune machen wollen.

Die müssen erstmal gründlich alles prüfen. Das dauert natürlich auch seine zeit. Besser so, als schnell schnell und dann macht man einen Fehler..

Hoffentlich haben sie noch ein Ass im Ärmel mit der G2.

Es wird spannend. Aber wir haben die G1!!! Und das war und ist und wird unsere Rettung.

Jeffrey,  thanks so much for this detailed assessment. I understand the concerns regarding the uncertainty from the OBBB and the Executive Order, especially concerning 'safe harbor' and the FEOC language. It's clear this could put short-term pressure on financing costs and earnings forecasts. However, I share the view that the long-term demand for clean energy, particularly from Big Tech and data centers, provides a strong foundation for T1 Energy. Solar power is often the most cost-effective option, and the need for power will only continue to grow. Given T1 Energy's track record, and unlike the ongoing saga with Freyr battery, the inherent market demand for solar power, I'm confident that the team will take the necessary steps to navigate these regulatory challenges effectively and capitalize on the ongoing energy transition. I trust in the company's ability to adapt and ensure our continued growth. Best regards, David

Bei diesem Chaos von Gesetzgebungen sehe ich nicht mehr durch.Und was will Spittel speziell den deutschen Aktionären damit sagen ? Das T1 nicht dran schuld ist am derzeitigen Aktienkurs oder vielleicht am Scheitern oder der Verschiebung von G2 ?

Sehr lange Mail... Das war's jetzt aber.

20. Trump promised the 3 Freedom Caucus holdouts a tighter clampdown on Green New Scam safe harbor, but 6 Senators pushed for the modified safe harbor window. Republicans are already thinking about a 2nd Reconciliation bill in late 25 or H1 26. They need those 6 Senators more than those 3 Freedom Caucus members, and the 2nd Reconciliation will focus on more Medicaid cuts which ranks much higher for Freedom Caucus than Green New Scam 21. Per my convo with lawyers, the ambiguity is a positive for developers following existing safe harbor rules. It doesn't create an opening for the Trump admin (esp in a post-Chevron world) 22. I would agree on last point. Chevron deference limits (via litigation) how far Treasury could go here 23. I also think the ambiguity is fine for a top 5/10 developer, but will make tax equity, etc. More expensive for others 24. The bullet points above are generally accurate but it underestimates the political imperative (and administrative willingness by this Administration) to break norms and execute in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the Executive Order. I have no doubt the FEOC provisions will become more onerous, and I fear they might seek to sharpen the interpretive guidance around safe harbor and start of construction definitions. Stay tuned…

16. Agree with 9-12 as OBBB codified into law previous IRS notices on safe harbor strategies. 2 things I didn’t see in the notes: The EO refers to solar and wind by name and then “other green energy subsidies”. And then only 45Y and 48E for wind and solar by specific credit #. Does this mean they will not be looking at this as closely for nuclear, geothermal, hydro, storage, etc. OR other credits like 45U, 45X, 45V, 45Z, 45Q? This could be an interesting test in the post chevron world where agencies have less freedom of interpretation and the OBBB legislative text is very clear on referring to 13-29 and 18-59 17. That July 4th 2026 date confused the whole industry. It's basically impossible, if there is no flexibility for companies to go beyond 2026 then this will be a noose instead of beneficial. 18. I am shocked the OBBB solidified 45Q and 45V…as long as a facility is under construction by Jan 1, 2028, then you get 10 years of subsidy and the credit is transferable. At the same time, there’s a hard stop for 45Z in 2029. This is a MASSIVE win for e-fuels folks. It’s completely contradictory to everything Trump has been saying. In speaking directly with several key Senate and House members on this topic, the story is this was a concession needed to get the OBBB passed. The e-fuels lobby success is quite impressive. I am very surprised so many Senators were so supportive of e-fuels. I am told by these members the intention is to make it difficult to receive the subsides via Executive Order, but I don’t think the July 7th EO did that at all. As best I can tell, the only material restriction created by the EO is against using Chinese equipment or materials. That could cause some problems. 19. From what I've heard the consistent message is this - the EO just tells treasury/IRS to do whatever they were going to do anyway. The EO was promised, treasury not going to go that far off the beaten path. And there is a group inside congress who will push back if this gets more serious than essentially a gesture.