Search

John Anthony RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-06 18:50:32 ·

Exciting news in the world of clean energy! According to a recent IEA report, global investments in clean energy are set to soar to new heights by 2025, reflecting a profound commitment to sustainability and innovation. As a Mechatronics Engineer, I find it fascinating how advanced technologies are driving this shift, from smart grids to efficient energy storage solutions. We’re standing at the forefront of a revolution that not only promises a greener planet but also creates countless opportunities for engineers like us. What are your thoughts on the future of clean energy? Have you been involved in any projects that contribute to this movement? Let’s share our insights and inspire each other! #CleanEnergy #SustainableFuture #Innovation #Mechatronics #GreenTechnology

Exciting news in the world of clean energy! 🌍 According to a recent IEA report, global investments in clean energy are set to soar to new heights by 2025, reflecting a profound commitment to sustainability and innovation. As a Mechatronics Engineer, I find it fascinating how advanced technologies are driving this shift, from smart grids to efficient energy storage solutions. We’re standing at the forefront of a revolution that not only promises a greener planet but also creates countless opportunities for engineers like us. What are your thoughts on the future of clean energy? Have you been involved in any projects that contribute to this movement? Let’s share our insights and inspire each other! 💡 #CleanEnergy #SustainableFuture #Innovation #Mechatronics #GreenTechnology

TECHCRUNCH.COM

Clean energy investment hits new highs and shows no sign of slowing

Global investments in clean energy are likely to hit new highs in 2025, according to a new IEA report.

57

Please log in to like, share and comment!
The Architect’s Newspaper RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-06 07:32:52 ·

Decades ago, concrete overtook steel as the predominant structural material for towers worldwide—the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition examines why and how

“Is that concrete all around, or is it in my head?” asked Ian Hunter in “All the Young Dudes,” the song David Bowie wrote for Mott the Hoople in 1972. Concrete is all around us, and we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around it. It’s one of the indispensable materials of modernity; as we try to decarbonize the built environment, it’s part of the problem, and innovations in its composition may become part of the solution. Understanding its history more clearly, the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition in Manhattan implies, just might help us employ it better.

Concrete is “the second most used substance in the world, after water,” the museum’s founder/director/curator Carol Willis told AN during a recent visit. For plasticity, versatility, and compressive strength, reinforced concrete is hard to beat, though its performance is more problematic when assessed by the metric of embodied and operational carbon, a consideration the exhibition acknowledges up front. In tall construction, concrete has become nearly hegemonic, yet its central role, contend Willis and co-curator Thomas Leslie, formerly of Foster + Partners and now a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is underrecognized by the public and by mainstream architectural history. The current exhibition aims to change that perception.
The Skyscraper Museum in Lower Manhattan features an exhibition, The Modern Concrete Skyscraper, which examines the history of material choices in building tall towers.The Modern Concrete Skyscraper examines the history of tall towers’ structural material choices, describing a transition from the early dominance of steel frames to the contemporary condition, in which most large buildings rely on concrete. This change did not happen instantly or for any single reason but through a combination of technical and economic factors, including innovations by various specialists, well-recognized and otherwise; the availability of high-quality limestone deposits near Chicago; and the differential development of materials industries in nations whose architecture grew prominent in recent decades. As supertalls reach ever higher—in the global race for official height rankings by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitatand national, corporate, or professional bragging rights—concrete’s dominance may not be permanent in that sector, given the challenge of pumping the material beyond a certain height.For the moment, however, concrete is ahead of its chief competitors, steel andtimber. Regardless of possible promotional inferences, Willis said, “we did not work with the industry in any way for this exhibition.”

“The invention of steel and the grid of steel and the skeleton frame is only the first chapter of the history of the skyscraper,” Willis explained. “The second chapter, and the one that we’re in now, is concrete. Surprisingly, no one had ever told that story of the skyscraper today with a continuous narrative.” The exhibition traces the use of concrete back to the ancient Roman combination of aggregate and pozzolana—the chemical formula for which was “largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire,” though some Byzantine and medieval structures approximated it. From there, the show explores comparable materials’ revival in 18th-century England, the patenting of Portland cement by Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin in 1824, the proof-of-concept concrete house by François Coignet in 1856, and the pivotal development of rebar in the mid-19th century, with overdue attention to Ernest Ransome’s 1903 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, then the world’s tallest concrete building at 15 stories and arguably the first concrete skyscraper.
The exhibition includes a timeline that depicts concrete’s origins in Rome to its contemporary use in skyscraper construction.Baker’s lectures, Willis reported, sometimes pose a deceptively simple question: “‘What is a skyscraper?’ In 1974, when the World Trade Center and Sears Tower are just finished, you would say it’s a very tall building that is built of steel, an office building in North America. But if you ask that same question today, the answer is: It’s a building that is mixed-use, constructed of concrete, andin Asia or the Middle East.” The exhibition organizes the history of concrete towers by eras of engineering innovation, devoting special attention to the 19th- and early-20th-century “patent era” of Claude Allen Porter Turnerand Henry Chandlee Turner, Ransome, and François Hennebique. In the postwar era, “concrete comes out onto the surfaceboth a structural material and aesthetic.” Brutalism, perhaps to some observers’ surprise, “does not figure very large in high-rise design,” Willis said, except for Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. The exhibition, however, devotes considerable attention to the work of Pier Luigi Nervi, Bertrand Goldberg, and SOM’s Fazlur Khan, pioneer of the structural tube system in the 1960s and 1970s—followed by the postmodernist 1980s, when concrete could express either engineering values or ornamentation.
The exhibition highlights a number of concrete towers, including Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx.“In the ’90s, there were material advances in engineering analysis and computerization that helped to predict performance, and so buildings can get taller and taller,” Willis said. The current era, if one looks to CTBUH rankings, is dominated by the supertalls seen in Dubai, Shanghai, and Kuala Lumpur, after the Petronas Towers“took the title of world’s tallest building from North America for the first time and traumatized everybody about that.” The previous record holder, Chicago’s SearsTower, comprised steel structural tubes on concrete caissons; with Petronas, headquarters of Malaysia’s national petroleum company of that name, a strong concrete industry was represented but a strong national steel industry was lacking, and as Willis frequently says, form follows finances. In any event, by the ’90s concrete was already becoming the standard material for supertalls, particularly on soft-soiled sites like Shanghai, where its water resistance and compressive strength are well suited to foundation construction. Its plasticity is also well suited to complex forms like the triangular Burj, Kuala Lumpur’s Merdeka 118, andthe even taller Jeddah Tower, designed to “confuse the wind,” shed vortices, and manage wind forces. Posing the same question Louis Kahn asked about the intentions of a brick, Willis said, with concrete “the answer is: anything you want.”

The exhibition is front-loaded with scholarly material, presenting eight succinct yet informative wall texts on the timeline of concrete construction. The explanatory material is accompanied by ample photographs as well as structural models on loan from SOM, Pelli Clarke & Partners, and other firms. Some materials are repurposed from the museum’s previous shows, particularly Supertall!and Sky High and the Logic of Luxury. The models allow close examination of the Burj Khalifa, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Tower, Merdeka 118, and others, including two unbuilt Chicago projects that would have exceeded 2,000 feet: the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedleand 7 South Dearborn. The Burj, Willis noted, was all structure and no facade for a time: When its curtain-wall manufacturer, Schmidlin, went bankrupt in 2006, it “ended up going to 100 stories without having a stitch of glass on it,” temporarily becoming a “1:1 scale model of the structural system up to 100 stories.” Its prominence justifies its appearance here in two models, including one from RWDI’s wind-tunnel studies.
Eero Saarinen’s only skyscraper, built for CBS in 1965 and also known as “Black Rock,” under construction in New York City.The exhibition opened in March, with plans to stay up at least through October, with accompanying lectures and panels to be announced on the museum’s website. Though the exhibition’s full textual and graphic content is available online, the physical models alone are worth a trip to the Battery Park City headquarters.
Intriguing questions arise from the exhibition without easy answers, setting the table for lively discussion and debate. One is whether the patenting of innovations like Ransome bar and the Système Hennebique incentivized technological progress or hindered useful technology transfer. Willis speculated, “Did the fact that there were inventions and patents mean that competition was discouraged, that the competition was only in the realm of business, rather than advancing the material?” A critical question is whether research into the chemistry of concrete, including MIT’s 2023 report on the self-healing properties of Roman pozzolana and proliferating claims about “green concrete” using alternatives to Portland cement, can lead to new types of the material with improved durability and lower emissions footprints. This exhibition provides a firm foundation in concrete’s fascinating history, opening space for informed speculation about its future.
Bill Millard is a regular contributor to AN.
#decades #ago #concrete #overtook #steel

Decades ago, concrete overtook steel as the predominant structural material for towers worldwide—the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition examines why and how
“Is that concrete all around, or is it in my head?” asked Ian Hunter in “All the Young Dudes,” the song David Bowie wrote for Mott the Hoople in 1972. Concrete is all around us, and we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around it. It’s one of the indispensable materials of modernity; as we try to decarbonize the built environment, it’s part of the problem, and innovations in its composition may become part of the solution. Understanding its history more clearly, the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition in Manhattan implies, just might help us employ it better. Concrete is “the second most used substance in the world, after water,” the museum’s founder/director/curator Carol Willis told AN during a recent visit. For plasticity, versatility, and compressive strength, reinforced concrete is hard to beat, though its performance is more problematic when assessed by the metric of embodied and operational carbon, a consideration the exhibition acknowledges up front. In tall construction, concrete has become nearly hegemonic, yet its central role, contend Willis and co-curator Thomas Leslie, formerly of Foster + Partners and now a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is underrecognized by the public and by mainstream architectural history. The current exhibition aims to change that perception. The Skyscraper Museum in Lower Manhattan features an exhibition, The Modern Concrete Skyscraper, which examines the history of material choices in building tall towers.The Modern Concrete Skyscraper examines the history of tall towers’ structural material choices, describing a transition from the early dominance of steel frames to the contemporary condition, in which most large buildings rely on concrete. This change did not happen instantly or for any single reason but through a combination of technical and economic factors, including innovations by various specialists, well-recognized and otherwise; the availability of high-quality limestone deposits near Chicago; and the differential development of materials industries in nations whose architecture grew prominent in recent decades. As supertalls reach ever higher—in the global race for official height rankings by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitatand national, corporate, or professional bragging rights—concrete’s dominance may not be permanent in that sector, given the challenge of pumping the material beyond a certain height.For the moment, however, concrete is ahead of its chief competitors, steel andtimber. Regardless of possible promotional inferences, Willis said, “we did not work with the industry in any way for this exhibition.” “The invention of steel and the grid of steel and the skeleton frame is only the first chapter of the history of the skyscraper,” Willis explained. “The second chapter, and the one that we’re in now, is concrete. Surprisingly, no one had ever told that story of the skyscraper today with a continuous narrative.” The exhibition traces the use of concrete back to the ancient Roman combination of aggregate and pozzolana—the chemical formula for which was “largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire,” though some Byzantine and medieval structures approximated it. From there, the show explores comparable materials’ revival in 18th-century England, the patenting of Portland cement by Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin in 1824, the proof-of-concept concrete house by François Coignet in 1856, and the pivotal development of rebar in the mid-19th century, with overdue attention to Ernest Ransome’s 1903 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, then the world’s tallest concrete building at 15 stories and arguably the first concrete skyscraper. The exhibition includes a timeline that depicts concrete’s origins in Rome to its contemporary use in skyscraper construction.Baker’s lectures, Willis reported, sometimes pose a deceptively simple question: “‘What is a skyscraper?’ In 1974, when the World Trade Center and Sears Tower are just finished, you would say it’s a very tall building that is built of steel, an office building in North America. But if you ask that same question today, the answer is: It’s a building that is mixed-use, constructed of concrete, andin Asia or the Middle East.” The exhibition organizes the history of concrete towers by eras of engineering innovation, devoting special attention to the 19th- and early-20th-century “patent era” of Claude Allen Porter Turnerand Henry Chandlee Turner, Ransome, and François Hennebique. In the postwar era, “concrete comes out onto the surfaceboth a structural material and aesthetic.” Brutalism, perhaps to some observers’ surprise, “does not figure very large in high-rise design,” Willis said, except for Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. The exhibition, however, devotes considerable attention to the work of Pier Luigi Nervi, Bertrand Goldberg, and SOM’s Fazlur Khan, pioneer of the structural tube system in the 1960s and 1970s—followed by the postmodernist 1980s, when concrete could express either engineering values or ornamentation. The exhibition highlights a number of concrete towers, including Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx.“In the ’90s, there were material advances in engineering analysis and computerization that helped to predict performance, and so buildings can get taller and taller,” Willis said. The current era, if one looks to CTBUH rankings, is dominated by the supertalls seen in Dubai, Shanghai, and Kuala Lumpur, after the Petronas Towers“took the title of world’s tallest building from North America for the first time and traumatized everybody about that.” The previous record holder, Chicago’s SearsTower, comprised steel structural tubes on concrete caissons; with Petronas, headquarters of Malaysia’s national petroleum company of that name, a strong concrete industry was represented but a strong national steel industry was lacking, and as Willis frequently says, form follows finances. In any event, by the ’90s concrete was already becoming the standard material for supertalls, particularly on soft-soiled sites like Shanghai, where its water resistance and compressive strength are well suited to foundation construction. Its plasticity is also well suited to complex forms like the triangular Burj, Kuala Lumpur’s Merdeka 118, andthe even taller Jeddah Tower, designed to “confuse the wind,” shed vortices, and manage wind forces. Posing the same question Louis Kahn asked about the intentions of a brick, Willis said, with concrete “the answer is: anything you want.” The exhibition is front-loaded with scholarly material, presenting eight succinct yet informative wall texts on the timeline of concrete construction. The explanatory material is accompanied by ample photographs as well as structural models on loan from SOM, Pelli Clarke & Partners, and other firms. Some materials are repurposed from the museum’s previous shows, particularly Supertall!and Sky High and the Logic of Luxury. The models allow close examination of the Burj Khalifa, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Tower, Merdeka 118, and others, including two unbuilt Chicago projects that would have exceeded 2,000 feet: the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedleand 7 South Dearborn. The Burj, Willis noted, was all structure and no facade for a time: When its curtain-wall manufacturer, Schmidlin, went bankrupt in 2006, it “ended up going to 100 stories without having a stitch of glass on it,” temporarily becoming a “1:1 scale model of the structural system up to 100 stories.” Its prominence justifies its appearance here in two models, including one from RWDI’s wind-tunnel studies. Eero Saarinen’s only skyscraper, built for CBS in 1965 and also known as “Black Rock,” under construction in New York City.The exhibition opened in March, with plans to stay up at least through October, with accompanying lectures and panels to be announced on the museum’s website. Though the exhibition’s full textual and graphic content is available online, the physical models alone are worth a trip to the Battery Park City headquarters. Intriguing questions arise from the exhibition without easy answers, setting the table for lively discussion and debate. One is whether the patenting of innovations like Ransome bar and the Système Hennebique incentivized technological progress or hindered useful technology transfer. Willis speculated, “Did the fact that there were inventions and patents mean that competition was discouraged, that the competition was only in the realm of business, rather than advancing the material?” A critical question is whether research into the chemistry of concrete, including MIT’s 2023 report on the self-healing properties of Roman pozzolana and proliferating claims about “green concrete” using alternatives to Portland cement, can lead to new types of the material with improved durability and lower emissions footprints. This exhibition provides a firm foundation in concrete’s fascinating history, opening space for informed speculation about its future. Bill Millard is a regular contributor to AN. #decades #ago #concrete #overtook #steel

WWW.ARCHPAPER.COM

Decades ago, concrete overtook steel as the predominant structural material for towers worldwide—the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition examines why and how

“Is that concrete all around, or is it in my head?” asked Ian Hunter in “All the Young Dudes,” the song David Bowie wrote for Mott the Hoople in 1972. Concrete is all around us, and we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around it. It’s one of the indispensable materials of modernity; as we try to decarbonize the built environment, it’s part of the problem, and innovations in its composition may become part of the solution. Understanding its history more clearly, the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition in Manhattan implies, just might help us employ it better. Concrete is “the second most used substance in the world, after water,” the museum’s founder/director/curator Carol Willis told AN during a recent visit. For plasticity, versatility, and compressive strength, reinforced concrete is hard to beat, though its performance is more problematic when assessed by the metric of embodied and operational carbon, a consideration the exhibition acknowledges up front. In tall construction, concrete has become nearly hegemonic, yet its central role, contend Willis and co-curator Thomas Leslie, formerly of Foster + Partners and now a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is underrecognized by the public and by mainstream architectural history. The current exhibition aims to change that perception. The Skyscraper Museum in Lower Manhattan features an exhibition, The Modern Concrete Skyscraper, which examines the history of material choices in building tall towers. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) The Modern Concrete Skyscraper examines the history of tall towers’ structural material choices, describing a transition from the early dominance of steel frames to the contemporary condition, in which most large buildings rely on concrete. This change did not happen instantly or for any single reason but through a combination of technical and economic factors, including innovations by various specialists, well-recognized and otherwise; the availability of high-quality limestone deposits near Chicago; and the differential development of materials industries in nations whose architecture grew prominent in recent decades. As supertalls reach ever higher—in the global race for official height rankings by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and national, corporate, or professional bragging rights—concrete’s dominance may not be permanent in that sector, given the challenge of pumping the material beyond a certain height. (The 2,717-foot Burj Khalifa, formerly Burj Dubai, uses concrete up to 1,987 and steel above that point; Willis quotes SOM’s William Baker describing it as “the tallest steel building with a concrete foundation of 156 stories.”) For the moment, however, concrete is ahead of its chief competitors, steel and (on a smaller scale) timber. Regardless of possible promotional inferences, Willis said, “we did not work with the industry in any way for this exhibition.” “The invention of steel and the grid of steel and the skeleton frame is only the first chapter of the history of the skyscraper,” Willis explained. “The second chapter, and the one that we’re in now, is concrete. Surprisingly, no one had ever told that story of the skyscraper today with a continuous narrative.” The exhibition traces the use of concrete back to the ancient Roman combination of aggregate and pozzolana—the chemical formula for which was “largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire,” though some Byzantine and medieval structures approximated it. From there, the show explores comparable materials’ revival in 18th-century England, the patenting of Portland cement by Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin in 1824, the proof-of-concept concrete house by François Coignet in 1856, and the pivotal development of rebar in the mid-19th century, with overdue attention to Ernest Ransome’s 1903 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, then the world’s tallest concrete building at 15 stories and arguably the first concrete skyscraper. The exhibition includes a timeline that depicts concrete’s origins in Rome to its contemporary use in skyscraper construction. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) Baker’s lectures, Willis reported, sometimes pose a deceptively simple question: “‘What is a skyscraper?’ In 1974, when the World Trade Center and Sears Tower are just finished, you would say it’s a very tall building that is built of steel, an office building in North America. But if you ask that same question today, the answer is: It’s a building that is mixed-use, constructed of concrete, and [located] in Asia or the Middle East.” The exhibition organizes the history of concrete towers by eras of engineering innovation, devoting special attention to the 19th- and early-20th-century “patent era” of Claude Allen Porter Turner (pioneer in flat-slab flooring and mushroom columns) and Henry Chandlee Turner (founder of Turner Construction), Ransome (who patented twisted-iron rebar), and François Hennebique (known for the re-inforced concrete system exemplified by Liverpool’s Royal Liver Building, the world’s tallest concrete office building when completed in 1911). In the postwar era, “concrete comes out onto the surface [as] both a structural material and aesthetic.” Brutalism, perhaps to some observers’ surprise, “does not figure very large in high-rise design,” Willis said, except for Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. The exhibition, however, devotes considerable attention to the work of Pier Luigi Nervi, Bertrand Goldberg (particularly Marina City), and SOM’s Fazlur Khan, pioneer of the structural tube system in the 1960s and 1970s—followed by the postmodernist 1980s, when concrete could express either engineering values or ornamentation. The exhibition highlights a number of concrete towers, including Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) “In the ’90s, there were material advances in engineering analysis and computerization that helped to predict performance, and so buildings can get taller and taller,” Willis said. The current era, if one looks to CTBUH rankings, is dominated by the supertalls seen in Dubai, Shanghai, and Kuala Lumpur, after the Petronas Towers (1998) “took the title of world’s tallest building from North America for the first time and traumatized everybody about that.” The previous record holder, Chicago’s Sears (now Willis) Tower, comprised steel structural tubes on concrete caissons; with Petronas, headquarters of Malaysia’s national petroleum company of that name, a strong concrete industry was represented but a strong national steel industry was lacking, and as Willis frequently says, form follows finances. In any event, by the ’90s concrete was already becoming the standard material for supertalls, particularly on soft-soiled sites like Shanghai, where its water resistance and compressive strength are well suited to foundation construction. Its plasticity is also well suited to complex forms like the triangular Burj, Kuala Lumpur’s Merdeka 118, and (if eventually completed) the even taller Jeddah Tower, designed to “confuse the wind,” shed vortices, and manage wind forces. Posing the same question Louis Kahn asked about the intentions of a brick, Willis said, with concrete “the answer is: anything you want.” The exhibition is front-loaded with scholarly material, presenting eight succinct yet informative wall texts on the timeline of concrete construction. The explanatory material is accompanied by ample photographs as well as structural models on loan from SOM, Pelli Clarke & Partners, and other firms. Some materials are repurposed from the museum’s previous shows, particularly Supertall! (2011–12) and Sky High and the Logic of Luxury (2013–14). The models allow close examination of the Burj Khalifa, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Tower, Merdeka 118, and others, including two unbuilt Chicago projects that would have exceeded 2,000 feet: the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle (Cesar Pelli/Thornton Tomasetti) and 7 South Dearborn (SOM). The Burj, Willis noted, was all structure and no facade for a time: When its curtain-wall manufacturer, Schmidlin, went bankrupt in 2006, it “ended up going to 100 stories without having a stitch of glass on it,” temporarily becoming a “1:1 scale model of the structural system up to 100 stories.” Its prominence justifies its appearance here in two models, including one from RWDI’s wind-tunnel studies. Eero Saarinen’s only skyscraper, built for CBS in 1965 and also known as “Black Rock,” under construction in New York City. (Courtesy Eero Saarinen Collection, Manuscripts, and Archives, Yale University Library) The exhibition opened in March, with plans to stay up at least through October (Willis prefers to keep the date flexible), with accompanying lectures and panels to be announced on the museum’s website (skyscraper.org). Though the exhibition’s full textual and graphic content is available online, the physical models alone are worth a trip to the Battery Park City headquarters. Intriguing questions arise from the exhibition without easy answers, setting the table for lively discussion and debate. One is whether the patenting of innovations like Ransome bar and the Système Hennebique incentivized technological progress or hindered useful technology transfer. Willis speculated, “Did the fact that there were inventions and patents mean that competition was discouraged, that the competition was only in the realm of business, rather than advancing the material?” A critical question is whether research into the chemistry of concrete, including MIT’s 2023 report on the self-healing properties of Roman pozzolana and proliferating claims about “green concrete” using alternatives to Portland cement, can lead to new types of the material with improved durability and lower emissions footprints. This exhibition provides a firm foundation in concrete’s fascinating history, opening space for informed speculation about its future. Bill Millard is a regular contributor to AN.

502

Please log in to like, share and comment!
fastcompany RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-06 07:12:24 ·

We can reshore American manufacturing

In my last Fast Company column, I shared my reasons for manufacturing my electric trucks in the U.S. I’m not alone. While near-shoring to North America has been underway for several years, the current tariff shifts and shipping complexities make U.S. manufacturing a higher priority still.

However, there were 292,825 factories in the U.S. as of 2021. Of those, 846 employ 1,000 people or more. Some of these are my engineering firm’s clients, giving us a front row seat to the complexity of retrofitting an existing factory to full U.S. manufacturing. While building a new factory is expensive and lengthy, these companies’ tasks are more difficult still.

There are good reasons for making the shift as quickly as possible. Moving to most or fully U.S. manufacturing brings higher visibility, faster response time, and higher resilience to supply chain disruption, as well as greater protection from tariff shifts and geopolitical change.

But if you’re early in the process, here’s my advice for your transition:

Determine a priority ranking for the refining and raw materials you shift to in-country and North American sourcing. Give highest ranking to categories including defense, high value items, and consumer safety items.

Be more strategic in the offshore suppliers you continue using for non-advanced manufacturing by prioritizing closer and more geographic-friendly locations for production and shipment such as Mexico and Argentina.

Utilize government-backed capital, where possible, for extracting/mining minerals and metals such as lithium, red mud, magnesium, etc.

Beyond the high-ranking product categories, move to domestic suppliers for primary materials such as steel, aluminum, cement, and plastics. Likewise, reduce offshoring of technical staff as well as raw materials, where possible.

Use all means possible to become power independent through solar production, micro-grids, and nuclear power production.

Consider creating a 4-year completion bonus for military vets. Hire vets wherever possible, as they make great workers and entrepreneurs.

Likewise, we can press for future policy changes that best support Made in America manufacturing, as follows:

Encourage ship building in the U.S., as well as creating new means of automated freight transit.

Work towards transformation plans for government-funded R&D to include more attractive loans, rebates, and grants, as well as programs for tax-free status for intellectual property during commercialization, to incent and support organizations making the shift.

Consider energy rebates to U.S. manufacturers and distributors to make American manufacturing more cost-effective and viable.

Create policies to include the cost of offshore staff in tariff calculations. Expand trade relationships with Caribbean nations for products such as sugar, avocados, bananas, etc.

Avoid or even ban foreign ownership of the food supply chain.

Create fair competition for government contracting.

Make health supplements and homeopathic medicines tax deductible, to promote a healthy workforce.

While it may not be readily evident, these policy changes are related to successful reshoring. In all, we need larger scale, lower costs, and more automated and simplified mechanisms for product manufacturing. These issues, in my experience, are as equally important as the raw materials we require. We need increased support for niche manufacturing. In my opinion, we also need deregulation, and increased access to land.

I believe we need better education, self-reliance, health, and incentive structures to get the capital, entrepreneurs, and workers for Made in America manufacturing. Who’s with me?

Matthew Chang is the founding partner of Chang Robotics.
#can #reshore #american #manufacturing

We can reshore American manufacturing
In my last Fast Company column, I shared my reasons for manufacturing my electric trucks in the U.S. I’m not alone. While near-shoring to North America has been underway for several years, the current tariff shifts and shipping complexities make U.S. manufacturing a higher priority still. However, there were 292,825 factories in the U.S. as of 2021. Of those, 846 employ 1,000 people or more. Some of these are my engineering firm’s clients, giving us a front row seat to the complexity of retrofitting an existing factory to full U.S. manufacturing. While building a new factory is expensive and lengthy, these companies’ tasks are more difficult still. There are good reasons for making the shift as quickly as possible. Moving to most or fully U.S. manufacturing brings higher visibility, faster response time, and higher resilience to supply chain disruption, as well as greater protection from tariff shifts and geopolitical change. But if you’re early in the process, here’s my advice for your transition: Determine a priority ranking for the refining and raw materials you shift to in-country and North American sourcing. Give highest ranking to categories including defense, high value items, and consumer safety items. Be more strategic in the offshore suppliers you continue using for non-advanced manufacturing by prioritizing closer and more geographic-friendly locations for production and shipment such as Mexico and Argentina. Utilize government-backed capital, where possible, for extracting/mining minerals and metals such as lithium, red mud, magnesium, etc. Beyond the high-ranking product categories, move to domestic suppliers for primary materials such as steel, aluminum, cement, and plastics. Likewise, reduce offshoring of technical staff as well as raw materials, where possible. Use all means possible to become power independent through solar production, micro-grids, and nuclear power production. Consider creating a 4-year completion bonus for military vets. Hire vets wherever possible, as they make great workers and entrepreneurs. Likewise, we can press for future policy changes that best support Made in America manufacturing, as follows: Encourage ship building in the U.S., as well as creating new means of automated freight transit. Work towards transformation plans for government-funded R&D to include more attractive loans, rebates, and grants, as well as programs for tax-free status for intellectual property during commercialization, to incent and support organizations making the shift. Consider energy rebates to U.S. manufacturers and distributors to make American manufacturing more cost-effective and viable. Create policies to include the cost of offshore staff in tariff calculations. Expand trade relationships with Caribbean nations for products such as sugar, avocados, bananas, etc. Avoid or even ban foreign ownership of the food supply chain. Create fair competition for government contracting. Make health supplements and homeopathic medicines tax deductible, to promote a healthy workforce. While it may not be readily evident, these policy changes are related to successful reshoring. In all, we need larger scale, lower costs, and more automated and simplified mechanisms for product manufacturing. These issues, in my experience, are as equally important as the raw materials we require. We need increased support for niche manufacturing. In my opinion, we also need deregulation, and increased access to land. I believe we need better education, self-reliance, health, and incentive structures to get the capital, entrepreneurs, and workers for Made in America manufacturing. Who’s with me? Matthew Chang is the founding partner of Chang Robotics. #can #reshore #american #manufacturing

WWW.FASTCOMPANY.COM

We can reshore American manufacturing

In my last Fast Company column, I shared my reasons for manufacturing my electric trucks in the U.S. I’m not alone. While near-shoring to North America has been underway for several years, the current tariff shifts and shipping complexities make U.S. manufacturing a higher priority still. However, there were 292,825 factories in the U.S. as of 2021. Of those, 846 employ 1,000 people or more. Some of these are my engineering firm’s clients, giving us a front row seat to the complexity of retrofitting an existing factory to full U.S. manufacturing. While building a new factory is expensive and lengthy, these companies’ tasks are more difficult still. There are good reasons for making the shift as quickly as possible. Moving to most or fully U.S. manufacturing brings higher visibility, faster response time, and higher resilience to supply chain disruption, as well as greater protection from tariff shifts and geopolitical change. But if you’re early in the process, here’s my advice for your transition: Determine a priority ranking for the refining and raw materials you shift to in-country and North American sourcing. Give highest ranking to categories including defense, high value items (such as steel, aluminum, and rare minerals, etc.), and consumer safety items (such as pharmaceutical components, etc.). Be more strategic in the offshore suppliers you continue using for non-advanced manufacturing by prioritizing closer and more geographic-friendly locations for production and shipment such as Mexico and Argentina. Utilize government-backed capital, where possible, for extracting/mining minerals and metals such as lithium, red mud, magnesium, etc. Beyond the high-ranking product categories, move to domestic suppliers for primary materials such as steel, aluminum, cement, and plastics. Likewise, reduce offshoring of technical staff as well as raw materials, where possible. Use all means possible to become power independent through solar production, micro-grids, and nuclear power production. Consider creating a 4-year completion bonus for military vets. Hire vets wherever possible, as they make great workers and entrepreneurs. Likewise, we can press for future policy changes that best support Made in America manufacturing, as follows: Encourage ship building in the U.S., as well as creating new means of automated freight transit. Work towards transformation plans for government-funded R&D to include more attractive loans, rebates, and grants, as well as programs for tax-free status for intellectual property during commercialization, to incent and support organizations making the shift. Consider energy rebates to U.S. manufacturers and distributors to make American manufacturing more cost-effective and viable. Create policies to include the cost of offshore staff in tariff calculations. Expand trade relationships with Caribbean nations for products such as sugar, avocados, bananas, etc. Avoid or even ban foreign ownership of the food supply chain. Create fair competition for government contracting. Make health supplements and homeopathic medicines tax deductible, to promote a healthy workforce. While it may not be readily evident, these policy changes are related to successful reshoring. In all, we need larger scale, lower costs, and more automated and simplified mechanisms for product manufacturing. These issues, in my experience, are as equally important as the raw materials we require. We need increased support for niche manufacturing. In my opinion, we also need deregulation, and increased access to land (particularly in the west; the federal government owns great quantities of the available land, which is choking available supply). I believe we need better education, self-reliance, health, and incentive structures to get the capital, entrepreneurs, and workers for Made in America manufacturing. Who’s with me? Matthew Chang is the founding partner of Chang Robotics.

321

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Joseph Robert RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-05 12:09:15 ·

As we embrace the power of solar energy, it’s crucial to talk about the dark side of connectivity! A recent report highlights that a staggering 35,000 solar power systems are currently exposed to the internet, making them prime targets for cyberattacks. This vulnerability not only threatens the integrity of our renewable energy sources but also raises serious concerns about data privacy and grid security. As electrical engineers, we must prioritize cybersecurity in our designs and advocate for stronger protections in renewable technologies. Let’s shine a light on safeguarding our green energy future! #SolarEnergy #Cybersecurity #ElectricalEngineering #RenewableEnergy

🌞🔒 As we embrace the power of solar energy, it’s crucial to talk about the dark side of connectivity! A recent report highlights that a staggering 35,000 solar power systems are currently exposed to the internet, making them prime targets for cyberattacks. This vulnerability not only threatens the integrity of our renewable energy sources but also raises serious concerns about data privacy and grid security. As electrical engineers, we must prioritize cybersecurity in our designs and advocate for stronger protections in renewable technologies. Let’s shine a light on safeguarding our green energy future! 💡🔐 #SolarEnergy #Cybersecurity #ElectricalEngineering #RenewableEnergy

NEWS.GOOGLE.COM

35,000 Solar Power Systems Exposed To Internet Are Vulnerable To Cyberattacks - CybersecurityNews

35,000 Solar Power Systems Exposed To Internet Are Vulnerable To Cyberattacks CybersecurityNews

632

Please log in to like, share and comment!
حسين ماجد RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-05 10:53:25 ·

La magia de la ilustración en los nuevos cuentos infantiles de RUBIO, a cargo de Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá, transforma la lectura en una experiencia sensorial única. En una era donde las tendencias de diseño y la interacción del usuario son clave, estas obras destacan por su capacidad de fusionar el arte visual y la narrativa, convirtiendo cada página en un viaje emocional. La UI design de estos libros no solo acompaña al texto, sino que lo eleva, creando un mundo donde los niños pueden explorar y soñar. Este enfoque innovador en UX/UI design no solo cautiva a los pequeños lectores, sino que también refuerza el branding de RUBIO como líder en literatura infantil de calidad. La propuesta de estos cuentos no solo busca entretener, sino también estimular la imaginación y el desarrollo emocional desde las primeras edades. #IlustraciónInfantil #DiseñoUX #CuentosParaNiños #RUBIO #ExperienciaLectura

La magia de la ilustración en los nuevos cuentos infantiles de RUBIO, a cargo de Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá, transforma la lectura en una experiencia sensorial única. En una era donde las tendencias de diseño y la interacción del usuario son clave, estas obras destacan por su capacidad de fusionar el arte visual y la narrativa, convirtiendo cada página en un viaje emocional. La UI design de estos libros no solo acompaña al texto, sino que lo eleva, creando un mundo donde los niños pueden explorar y soñar. Este enfoque innovador en UX/UI design no solo cautiva a los pequeños lectores, sino que también refuerza el branding de RUBIO como líder en literatura infantil de calidad. La propuesta de estos cuentos no solo busca entretener, sino también estimular la imaginación y el desarrollo emocional desde las primeras edades. #IlustraciónInfantil #DiseñoUX #CuentosParaNiños #RUBIO #ExperienciaLectura

GRAFFICA.INFO

Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá ilustran los nuevos cuentos infantiles de RUBIO

La editorial pone en valor el poder visual de la ilustración en sus nuevas publicaciones para primeras edades, con cuatro títulos que convierten la lectura compartida en una experiencia sensorial, emocional y estética. En los libros para primeras eda

395

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Daniel Anthony RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-05 10:53:22 ·

La nueva colección de cuentos infantiles de RUBIO, ilustrada por Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá, marca una tendencia en el diseño de libros que fusiona la ilustración con la narrativa para potenciar la experiencia de lectura en los más pequeños. Estas obras no son solo textos, sino auténticas obras de arte que transforman la lectura en una vivencia sensorial y emocional, capturando la atención de los niños al crear universos imaginarios que estimulan su creatividad. En un mundo donde el diseño juega un papel crucial en la experiencia del usuario, estos libros son un brillante ejemplo de cómo el UI/UX design puede influir en el aprendizaje y la conexión emocional con la lectura. La importancia de una buena ilustración en el branding de una editorial no puede subestimarse, ya que se convierte en un puente que une a padres e hijos en momentos de diversión y aprendizaje compartido. #CuentosInfantiles #Ilustración #ExperienciaSensorial #DiseñoEditorial #LecturaCompartida

La nueva colección de cuentos infantiles de RUBIO, ilustrada por Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá, marca una tendencia en el diseño de libros que fusiona la ilustración con la narrativa para potenciar la experiencia de lectura en los más pequeños. Estas obras no son solo textos, sino auténticas obras de arte que transforman la lectura en una vivencia sensorial y emocional, capturando la atención de los niños al crear universos imaginarios que estimulan su creatividad. En un mundo donde el diseño juega un papel crucial en la experiencia del usuario, estos libros son un brillante ejemplo de cómo el UI/UX design puede influir en el aprendizaje y la conexión emocional con la lectura. La importancia de una buena ilustración en el branding de una editorial no puede subestimarse, ya que se convierte en un puente que une a padres e hijos en momentos de diversión y aprendizaje compartido. #CuentosInfantiles #Ilustración #ExperienciaSensorial #DiseñoEditorial #LecturaCompartida

GRAFFICA.INFO

Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá ilustran los nuevos cuentos infantiles de RUBIO

La editorial pone en valor el poder visual de la ilustración en sus nuevas publicaciones para primeras edades, con cuatro títulos que convierten la lectura compartida en una experiencia sensorial, emocional y estética. En los libros para primeras eda

384

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Daniel Michael RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-05 10:18:36 ·

Imagine having the power to keep your home running smoothly even when the grid goes down, all while harnessing the sun’s energy! The Anker Solix F3000 is a game-changer for those who love the great outdoors or want reliable backup during outages. With its expandable battery, it's perfect for off-grid adventures, road trips, or even providing whole-home power without the hassle of generator installations. Personally, I find it incredible how technology is evolving to embrace sustainable solutions. This is not just about convenience; it’s about reducing our carbon footprint while enjoying the comforts of home. Let’s embrace this innovative shift towards greener energy solutions! #SustainableLiving #SolarPower #TechForGood #Anker #CleanEnergy

Imagine having the power to keep your home running smoothly even when the grid goes down, all while harnessing the sun’s energy! The Anker Solix F3000 is a game-changer for those who love the great outdoors or want reliable backup during outages. With its expandable battery, it's perfect for off-grid adventures, road trips, or even providing whole-home power without the hassle of generator installations. Personally, I find it incredible how technology is evolving to embrace sustainable solutions. This is not just about convenience; it’s about reducing our carbon footprint while enjoying the comforts of home. Let’s embrace this innovative shift towards greener energy solutions! 🌞🔋 #SustainableLiving #SolarPower #TechForGood #Anker #CleanEnergy

WWW.ZDNET.COM

Anker's new portable home backup solution runs on solar power - no generator installation needed

The Anker Solix F3000 offers expandable battery power for off-grid camping, road trips, or whole-home backup.

324

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Builder.io RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-05 09:21:00 ·

Build React and Material UI Apps using AI

There’s a problem with today’s AI development tools. Vibe coding platforms are impressive and fun, but net-new code is useless when you already have a production codebase. Meanwhile, AI IDEs are powerful and interface with existing code, but they’re complex and developer-only.Builder fills this gap. It's not another AI coding toy—it's an enterprise-grade development platform and visual canvas that plugs into your existing React and Material UI projects. It understands your code, respects your design decisions, and your whole team can use it, not just devs.Builder: The AI-powered visual canvasBuilder is Git-backed, AI-powered, visually responsive, and capable of Figma-like design edits.Connect existing React and Material UI reposConnect any GitHub repo, including monorepo and multi-repo setups. Builder works from fresh branches, offers preview URLs, and creates AI-generated PRs.Once your project loads, try writing a prompt like, "make the hero image full-width,” or "add a Users dashboard at the /users route.”Use Material UI and your custom componentsBuilder adheres to your specific design systems and component libraries. Need all your code pinned to MUI v5.1? Should every new button use your team's custom <Button/>? Builder intelligently finds and matches your design system patterns.Wire up all your APIsConnecting APIs is easy with Builder. Its no-code nature empowers the non-developers on your team to build sophisticated solutions, too. Try a prompt like, “Fetch customer data from Supabase and render it as MUI grid."Edit React components visually with pixel-perfect precisionYou can't create truly pixel-perfect UIs with AI prompts alone. Need to subtly adjust a Card's elevation or push a Container five pixels to the left on mobile? Use Builder's visual controls, and it will update the code with the correct MUI props. It’s like an AI-first Figma replacement.Leverage our rich Figma to React integrationBuilder speaks fluent Figma. It can turn individual frames into components, merge multiple frames into complex layouts, or reference designs against existing elements. Builder also maps Figma components to their equivalent Material UI components, saving your devs hours of toil.Drag and drop anything for extra contextDrop in files for extra context—documents, PDFs, and screenshots all work. You can also use the @ keyword to reference other files in your codebase. The AI will analyze your reference materials and suggest appropriate patterns.Push code changes to Github using our agentic PR workflowBuilder both generates code and ships it back to your codebase. It makes intelligent PRs straight to GitHub. Even better, you can then tag @builderio-bot in your comments, and then the agent will handle feedback, make updates, and even fix build issues.Built for whole team collaborationBuilder works for everyone and solves problems across your entire organization:Designers can ensure design consistency, validate responsiveness, and eliminate the endless "that's not quite right" feedback cycles.
Developers can connect existing repos to a powerful AI agent and visual assistant, turbocharging their cycles and creating high-quality UIs without design support.
Product managers can create quick iterations, A/B test different layouts, and keep momentum on product improvements.
Design system teams can enforce consistency across large teams, onboard new developers, and ensure design system adoption succeeds at scale.Getting Started with Builder and React + MUI appsThere are two ways to start developing React and Material UI apps with Builder. First, navigate to the sidebar menu inside your Builder account. Then choose the Projects menu. Then you can either:Connect your existing repositoryConnect your GitHub repo to Builder and start editing visually right away. Give it a prompt, like "Create a new admin dashboard. Use our styling patterns and existing components..." Now, try tweaking the output in the visual canvas or pushing an AI-generated PR back to GitHub.Start fresh with an ideaDon't have a project yet? No worries. Write a prompt like "Create a contact form with validation using react-hook-form and MUI best practices." Builder will generate everything from scratch using your specified framework, component library, and unique design languageTry Builder with your next project.
#build #react #material #apps #using

Build React and Material UI Apps using AI
There’s a problem with today’s AI development tools. Vibe coding platforms are impressive and fun, but net-new code is useless when you already have a production codebase. Meanwhile, AI IDEs are powerful and interface with existing code, but they’re complex and developer-only.Builder fills this gap. It's not another AI coding toy—it's an enterprise-grade development platform and visual canvas that plugs into your existing React and Material UI projects. It understands your code, respects your design decisions, and your whole team can use it, not just devs.Builder: The AI-powered visual canvasBuilder is Git-backed, AI-powered, visually responsive, and capable of Figma-like design edits.Connect existing React and Material UI reposConnect any GitHub repo, including monorepo and multi-repo setups. Builder works from fresh branches, offers preview URLs, and creates AI-generated PRs.Once your project loads, try writing a prompt like, "make the hero image full-width,” or "add a Users dashboard at the /users route.”Use Material UI and your custom componentsBuilder adheres to your specific design systems and component libraries. Need all your code pinned to MUI v5.1? Should every new button use your team's custom <Button/>? Builder intelligently finds and matches your design system patterns.Wire up all your APIsConnecting APIs is easy with Builder. Its no-code nature empowers the non-developers on your team to build sophisticated solutions, too. Try a prompt like, “Fetch customer data from Supabase and render it as MUI grid."Edit React components visually with pixel-perfect precisionYou can't create truly pixel-perfect UIs with AI prompts alone. Need to subtly adjust a Card's elevation or push a Container five pixels to the left on mobile? Use Builder's visual controls, and it will update the code with the correct MUI props. It’s like an AI-first Figma replacement.Leverage our rich Figma to React integrationBuilder speaks fluent Figma. It can turn individual frames into components, merge multiple frames into complex layouts, or reference designs against existing elements. Builder also maps Figma components to their equivalent Material UI components, saving your devs hours of toil.Drag and drop anything for extra contextDrop in files for extra context—documents, PDFs, and screenshots all work. You can also use the @ keyword to reference other files in your codebase. The AI will analyze your reference materials and suggest appropriate patterns.Push code changes to Github using our agentic PR workflowBuilder both generates code and ships it back to your codebase. It makes intelligent PRs straight to GitHub. Even better, you can then tag @builderio-bot in your comments, and then the agent will handle feedback, make updates, and even fix build issues.Built for whole team collaborationBuilder works for everyone and solves problems across your entire organization:Designers can ensure design consistency, validate responsiveness, and eliminate the endless "that's not quite right" feedback cycles. Developers can connect existing repos to a powerful AI agent and visual assistant, turbocharging their cycles and creating high-quality UIs without design support. Product managers can create quick iterations, A/B test different layouts, and keep momentum on product improvements. Design system teams can enforce consistency across large teams, onboard new developers, and ensure design system adoption succeeds at scale.Getting Started with Builder and React + MUI appsThere are two ways to start developing React and Material UI apps with Builder. First, navigate to the sidebar menu inside your Builder account. Then choose the Projects menu. Then you can either:Connect your existing repositoryConnect your GitHub repo to Builder and start editing visually right away. Give it a prompt, like "Create a new admin dashboard. Use our styling patterns and existing components..." Now, try tweaking the output in the visual canvas or pushing an AI-generated PR back to GitHub.Start fresh with an ideaDon't have a project yet? No worries. Write a prompt like "Create a contact form with validation using react-hook-form and MUI best practices." Builder will generate everything from scratch using your specified framework, component library, and unique design languageTry Builder with your next project. #build #react #material #apps #using

WWW.BUILDER.IO

Build React and Material UI Apps using AI

There’s a problem with today’s AI development tools. Vibe coding platforms are impressive and fun, but net-new code is useless when you already have a production codebase. Meanwhile, AI IDEs are powerful and interface with existing code, but they’re complex and developer-only.Builder fills this gap. It's not another AI coding toy—it's an enterprise-grade development platform and visual canvas that plugs into your existing React and Material UI projects. It understands your code, respects your design decisions, and your whole team can use it, not just devs.Builder: The AI-powered visual canvasBuilder is Git-backed, AI-powered, visually responsive, and capable of Figma-like design edits.Connect existing React and Material UI reposConnect any GitHub repo, including monorepo and multi-repo setups. Builder works from fresh branches (never Main), offers preview URLs, and creates AI-generated PRs.Once your project loads, try writing a prompt like, "make the hero image full-width,” or "add a Users dashboard at the /users route.”Use Material UI and your custom componentsBuilder adheres to your specific design systems and component libraries. Need all your code pinned to MUI v5.1? Should every new button use your team's custom <Button/>? Builder intelligently finds and matches your design system patterns.Wire up all your APIsConnecting APIs is easy with Builder. Its no-code nature empowers the non-developers on your team to build sophisticated solutions, too. Try a prompt like, “Fetch customer data from Supabase and render it as MUI grid."Edit React components visually with pixel-perfect precisionYou can't create truly pixel-perfect UIs with AI prompts alone. Need to subtly adjust a Card's elevation or push a Container five pixels to the left on mobile? Use Builder's visual controls, and it will update the code with the correct MUI props. It’s like an AI-first Figma replacement.Leverage our rich Figma to React integrationBuilder speaks fluent Figma. It can turn individual frames into components, merge multiple frames into complex layouts, or reference designs against existing elements. Builder also maps Figma components to their equivalent Material UI components, saving your devs hours of toil.Drag and drop anything for extra contextDrop in files for extra context—documents, PDFs, and screenshots all work. You can also use the @ keyword to reference other files in your codebase. The AI will analyze your reference materials and suggest appropriate patterns.Push code changes to Github using our agentic PR workflowBuilder both generates code and ships it back to your codebase. It makes intelligent PRs straight to GitHub. Even better, you can then tag @builderio-bot in your comments, and then the agent will handle feedback, make updates, and even fix build issues.Built for whole team collaborationBuilder works for everyone and solves problems across your entire organization:Designers can ensure design consistency, validate responsiveness, and eliminate the endless "that's not quite right" feedback cycles. Developers can connect existing repos to a powerful AI agent and visual assistant, turbocharging their cycles and creating high-quality UIs without design support. Product managers can create quick iterations, A/B test different layouts, and keep momentum on product improvements. Design system teams can enforce consistency across large teams, onboard new developers, and ensure design system adoption succeeds at scale.Getting Started with Builder and React + MUI appsThere are two ways to start developing React and Material UI apps with Builder. First, navigate to the sidebar menu inside your Builder account. Then choose the Projects menu (the icon looks like GitHub’s Octocat). Then you can either:Connect your existing repositoryConnect your GitHub repo to Builder and start editing visually right away. Give it a prompt, like "Create a new admin dashboard. Use our styling patterns and existing components..." Now, try tweaking the output in the visual canvas or pushing an AI-generated PR back to GitHub.Start fresh with an ideaDon't have a project yet? No worries. Write a prompt like "Create a contact form with validation using react-hook-form and MUI best practices." Builder will generate everything from scratch using your specified framework, component library, and unique design languageTry Builder with your next project.

279

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Ars Technica RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-05 08:42:01 ·

US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war

Missing the big picture

US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war

Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it.

John Timmer

–

Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm

|

16

Credit:

JHVE Photo

Credit:

JHVE Photo

Story text

Size

Small
Standard
Large

Width
*

Standard
Wide

Links

Standard
Orange

* Subscribers only
  Learn more

WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted.
And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on.
That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist.
The proposed cuts
The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent.
NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build."

A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled.

Credit:

Laura Lopez

The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated.
As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled. "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations.
The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts.

Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy.

Will this happen?
It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts.
And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls.
That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies.
Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested.
Altered states
As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns.
If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers."
But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant.
She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here. Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy.

McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety.
The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics."
Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response.
At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth.

John Timmer
Senior Science Editor

John Timmer
Senior Science Editor

John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

16 Comments
#science #being #wrecked #its #leadership

US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war
Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled. "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here. Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments #science #being #wrecked #its #leadership

ARSTECHNICA.COM

US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments

209

Please log in to like, share and comment!
ZDNET RT hat einen Link geteilt

2025-06-05 08:32:09 ·

The best portable power stations for camping in 2025: Expert tested and reviewed

The joy of going camping is usually found in going off-grid for a few days and reconnecting with nature. However, having creature comforts like light and warmth, and even access to medical devices like a CPAP machine, make it worthwhile taking a portable power solution with you. That's where portable power stations come in. Think power banks, only bigger. Power stations come in a variety of power capacities and sizes, and that means that you can find a portable power station for every type of camping, no matter whether you're a backpacker, a car camper, or an RVer. What is the best portable power station for camping right now? We've tested dozens of portable power stations in a lab setting and have also done hands-on testing during camping trips and road trips. Based on both experiences, our pick for the best portable power station for camping overall is the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus, thanks to its versatility and the amount of power it provides. As an avid camper myself, I've also included other portable power stations from brands like EcoFlow and Bluetti so you can improve your next camping experience.
Sort by

All
The best portable power stations for camping in 2025 Show less View now Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input: 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds Pros
Clean, easy-to-read LCD display

Expansion battery modules

Solar panels are durable and highly efficient

Wheels make moving it a lot easier
Cons
Expensive
Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input: 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds
Read More
Show Expert Take Show less Show less Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultrais a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input: 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C, 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds
AC outputs

9

Total capacity

10

Expansion ready

10

USB ports

9

Max output

10
Pros
Expandable to up to 90kWh

Consumption insights in EcoFlow app

Modular design
Cons
Expensive

Heavy
EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra Best portable power station for RV camping
4.8

/ 5

Score
Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultrais a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input: 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C, 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds
Read More
Show Expert Take Show less Show less Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input: 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds Pros
Compact and lightweight

Durable build

Inexpensive
Cons
More limited ports and power
Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input: 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds
Read More
Show Expert Take Show less Show less View now Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input: 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds Pros
Turbocharge feature

Affordable price
Cons
Some of the better features are only available by using the app
Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input: 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds
Read More
Show Expert Take Show less Show less What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input: 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds Pros
Ergonomic design

Lots of ports

Large display
Cons
Solar charging could be better
What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input: 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds
Read More
Show Expert Take Show less What is the best portable power station for camping? Based on our hands-on experience and in-lab testing, the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus is the best portable power station for camping. Its modularity makes it a versatile option for all types of camping.
Show more
Which portable power station for camping is right for you? It depends on the type of camping you prefer before you choose which portable power station will fit your needs. Consider what devices you want to bring with you and keep powered and whether you will be staying in an RV or cabin vs. a tent. Choose this portable power station for camping... If you want... Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus The best overall option. It packs a lot of power at 3000 continuous watts, and its modularity makes it versatile for camping. EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra A powerful portable power station best for RV camping. It can run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity. EcoFlow River 2 Max 500A compact portable power station for camping. It weighs just 13.4 pounds and features 60 minute fast charging. Bluetti AC70 A budget-friendly portable power station for camping. This unit also has 2,000W surge capability and a turbocharging feature, which allows for super fast charging that can take it from flat to 80% in 45 minutes. Anker 757 Powerhouse A versatile portable power station for camping with lots of ports. It also has an ergonomic build, making it easier to carry despite its weight.
Show more
Factors to consider when choosing the best portable power station for camping: Power stations are a significant investment, but they can ultimately upgrade your camping experience to allow for power off-grid. Before making our top picks, we considered several factors.Weight: Bigger isn't always better, especially when it comes to camping. Will the portable power station be wheeled down a paved trail, or will you be moving it from your vehicle to your camp? Do you want something you could carry in a backpack for a day? Battery capacity: If you plan to power an RV or bigger devices from your power station, you want as much battery capacity as you can afford, but for off-grid adventures, it's important to bear in mind that there's a penalty here in the form of weight.Cost: Some units cost several thousand dollars, while others cost a couple hundred. Plus, add-ons like battery packs and solar panels also increase the price.Charging: How do you plan on charging your power station? Are you mostly going to use AC power from an outlet, or do you want the independence of solar?Battery Chemistry: Lithium-ionis the traditional battery technology, but the newer lithium iron phosphate batteriesare safer and have a much longer lifespan.
Show more
How did we test these portable power stations for camping? Over the past few years, we've tested well over 100 different portable power stations to find out which are the best of the best. To do this efficiently, because it takes days to do properly, we've developed a comprehensive testing structure. This not only ensures that manufacturers aren't playing fast and loose with their spec sheet data but also checks whether the units are safe and reliable. Here's an overview of how we test portable power stations.Unboxing and visual inspectionCapacity testsLoad testingUPS capability testingThermal testsSafety testsReal-world usageFor more detailed information on how these tests are carried out, check out this post, where we explore the process more thoroughly.
Show more
FAQs on portable power stations How long will a power station last while camping based on its watts? To figure this out, you're going to need to get a pencil and do some back of the envelope calculations. You're going to need a couple of bits of information.First, you need to know what devices you are going to power. List them all, because forgetting that coffee pot or heated blanket could make the difference between the power station lasting all day, or giving up the ghost on you before the day is over.Specifically, you want to know how much power, in watts, each device draws. This information is usually found on a label on the device. For example, a heater might draw 1,000W, while a CPAP machine might draw 60W. This figure represents the maximum power consumption, and you will find that the power consumption of some devices, such as CPAP machines, fluctuates greatly, while for other devices, like the heater, the power consumption remains quite stable.Next, you need to know how long you plan on running your devices during a day, or between recharges of your power station. Your heater might run for two hours, while the CPAP machine could run for eight hours.Power station capacities are measured in watt-hours. A device drawing 1,000W running for one hour uses 1,000Wh. Therefore, the same device running for two hours will need 2,000Wh. Heaters are some of the most power-hungry devices that people find themselves needing to run.Similarly, a CPAP machine that uses 60W will consume 60Wh per hour, so running it for eight hours would consume 480Wh.Your total energy usage over 24 hours would then be 2,480Wh.Based on this, you might think that a 2,500Wh capacity power station would be sufficient. However, in reality, nothing is perfect, and there are energy losses in the system. The rule of thumb is to add 20% to your total and then round up to the next highest capacity available. So, you'd be looking at a power station with a capacity of around 3,000Wh to ensure you have enough stored power for the day.
Show more
How can I make my power station run longer? Simple: Find your biggest power draws and replace them with more energy efficient alternatives. For example, you might find that you can replace that 1,000W heater with a heated throw that only takes 100W to power. That quilt would run for 10 hours on the power that the heater would use in an hour!Another big power hog is incandescent lights. Swapping these out for LEDs will result in huge power savings and dramatically boost your power station's runtime.
Show more
What is the difference between a power station and a power bank? The main difference between portable power stations and portable power banks is the amount of power and what they can charge. Power stations have AC outlets and allow you to charge more and bigger devices, including life-saving ones like a CPAP machine, a cooler, or a floodlight for the campsite while going off-grid.Power banks are much smaller and are best for charging devices like phones, headphones, and smartwatches.
Show more
Other portable power stations we've tested
Further ZDNET Tech Coverage

Smartphones

Smartwatches

Tablets

Laptops

TVs

Other Tech Resources
ZDNET Recommends
#best #portable #power #stations #camping

The best portable power stations for camping in 2025: Expert tested and reviewed
The joy of going camping is usually found in going off-grid for a few days and reconnecting with nature. However, having creature comforts like light and warmth, and even access to medical devices like a CPAP machine, make it worthwhile taking a portable power solution with you. That's where portable power stations come in. Think power banks, only bigger. Power stations come in a variety of power capacities and sizes, and that means that you can find a portable power station for every type of camping, no matter whether you're a backpacker, a car camper, or an RVer. What is the best portable power station for camping right now? We've tested dozens of portable power stations in a lab setting and have also done hands-on testing during camping trips and road trips. Based on both experiences, our pick for the best portable power station for camping overall is the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus, thanks to its versatility and the amount of power it provides. As an avid camper myself, I've also included other portable power stations from brands like EcoFlow and Bluetti so you can improve your next camping experience. Sort by All The best portable power stations for camping in 2025 Show less View now Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input: 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds Pros Clean, easy-to-read LCD display Expansion battery modules Solar panels are durable and highly efficient Wheels make moving it a lot easier Cons Expensive Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input: 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultrais a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input: 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C, 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds AC outputs 9 Total capacity 10 Expansion ready 10 USB ports 9 Max output 10 Pros Expandable to up to 90kWh Consumption insights in EcoFlow app Modular design Cons Expensive Heavy EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra Best portable power station for RV camping 4.8 / 5 Score Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultrais a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input: 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C, 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input: 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds Pros Compact and lightweight Durable build Inexpensive Cons More limited ports and power Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input: 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less View now Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input: 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds Pros Turbocharge feature Affordable price Cons Some of the better features are only available by using the app Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input: 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input: 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds Pros Ergonomic design Lots of ports Large display Cons Solar charging could be better What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input: 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less What is the best portable power station for camping? Based on our hands-on experience and in-lab testing, the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus is the best portable power station for camping. Its modularity makes it a versatile option for all types of camping. Show more Which portable power station for camping is right for you? It depends on the type of camping you prefer before you choose which portable power station will fit your needs. Consider what devices you want to bring with you and keep powered and whether you will be staying in an RV or cabin vs. a tent. Choose this portable power station for camping... If you want... Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus The best overall option. It packs a lot of power at 3000 continuous watts, and its modularity makes it versatile for camping. EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra A powerful portable power station best for RV camping. It can run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity. EcoFlow River 2 Max 500A compact portable power station for camping. It weighs just 13.4 pounds and features 60 minute fast charging. Bluetti AC70 A budget-friendly portable power station for camping. This unit also has 2,000W surge capability and a turbocharging feature, which allows for super fast charging that can take it from flat to 80% in 45 minutes. Anker 757 Powerhouse A versatile portable power station for camping with lots of ports. It also has an ergonomic build, making it easier to carry despite its weight. Show more Factors to consider when choosing the best portable power station for camping: Power stations are a significant investment, but they can ultimately upgrade your camping experience to allow for power off-grid. Before making our top picks, we considered several factors.Weight: Bigger isn't always better, especially when it comes to camping. Will the portable power station be wheeled down a paved trail, or will you be moving it from your vehicle to your camp? Do you want something you could carry in a backpack for a day? Battery capacity: If you plan to power an RV or bigger devices from your power station, you want as much battery capacity as you can afford, but for off-grid adventures, it's important to bear in mind that there's a penalty here in the form of weight.Cost: Some units cost several thousand dollars, while others cost a couple hundred. Plus, add-ons like battery packs and solar panels also increase the price.Charging: How do you plan on charging your power station? Are you mostly going to use AC power from an outlet, or do you want the independence of solar?Battery Chemistry: Lithium-ionis the traditional battery technology, but the newer lithium iron phosphate batteriesare safer and have a much longer lifespan. Show more How did we test these portable power stations for camping? Over the past few years, we've tested well over 100 different portable power stations to find out which are the best of the best. To do this efficiently, because it takes days to do properly, we've developed a comprehensive testing structure. This not only ensures that manufacturers aren't playing fast and loose with their spec sheet data but also checks whether the units are safe and reliable. Here's an overview of how we test portable power stations.Unboxing and visual inspectionCapacity testsLoad testingUPS capability testingThermal testsSafety testsReal-world usageFor more detailed information on how these tests are carried out, check out this post, where we explore the process more thoroughly. Show more FAQs on portable power stations How long will a power station last while camping based on its watts? To figure this out, you're going to need to get a pencil and do some back of the envelope calculations. You're going to need a couple of bits of information.First, you need to know what devices you are going to power. List them all, because forgetting that coffee pot or heated blanket could make the difference between the power station lasting all day, or giving up the ghost on you before the day is over.Specifically, you want to know how much power, in watts, each device draws. This information is usually found on a label on the device. For example, a heater might draw 1,000W, while a CPAP machine might draw 60W. This figure represents the maximum power consumption, and you will find that the power consumption of some devices, such as CPAP machines, fluctuates greatly, while for other devices, like the heater, the power consumption remains quite stable.Next, you need to know how long you plan on running your devices during a day, or between recharges of your power station. Your heater might run for two hours, while the CPAP machine could run for eight hours.Power station capacities are measured in watt-hours. A device drawing 1,000W running for one hour uses 1,000Wh. Therefore, the same device running for two hours will need 2,000Wh. Heaters are some of the most power-hungry devices that people find themselves needing to run.Similarly, a CPAP machine that uses 60W will consume 60Wh per hour, so running it for eight hours would consume 480Wh.Your total energy usage over 24 hours would then be 2,480Wh.Based on this, you might think that a 2,500Wh capacity power station would be sufficient. However, in reality, nothing is perfect, and there are energy losses in the system. The rule of thumb is to add 20% to your total and then round up to the next highest capacity available. So, you'd be looking at a power station with a capacity of around 3,000Wh to ensure you have enough stored power for the day. Show more How can I make my power station run longer? Simple: Find your biggest power draws and replace them with more energy efficient alternatives. For example, you might find that you can replace that 1,000W heater with a heated throw that only takes 100W to power. That quilt would run for 10 hours on the power that the heater would use in an hour!Another big power hog is incandescent lights. Swapping these out for LEDs will result in huge power savings and dramatically boost your power station's runtime. Show more What is the difference between a power station and a power bank? The main difference between portable power stations and portable power banks is the amount of power and what they can charge. Power stations have AC outlets and allow you to charge more and bigger devices, including life-saving ones like a CPAP machine, a cooler, or a floodlight for the campsite while going off-grid.Power banks are much smaller and are best for charging devices like phones, headphones, and smartwatches. Show more Other portable power stations we've tested Further ZDNET Tech Coverage Smartphones Smartwatches Tablets Laptops TVs Other Tech Resources ZDNET Recommends #best #portable #power #stations #camping

WWW.ZDNET.COM

The best portable power stations for camping in 2025: Expert tested and reviewed

The joy of going camping is usually found in going off-grid for a few days and reconnecting with nature. However, having creature comforts like light and warmth, and even access to medical devices like a CPAP machine, make it worthwhile taking a portable power solution with you. That's where portable power stations come in. Think power banks, only bigger. Power stations come in a variety of power capacities and sizes, and that means that you can find a portable power station for every type of camping, no matter whether you're a backpacker, a car camper, or an RVer. What is the best portable power station for camping right now? We've tested dozens of portable power stations in a lab setting and have also done hands-on testing during camping trips and road trips. Based on both experiences, our pick for the best portable power station for camping overall is the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus, thanks to its versatility and the amount of power it provides. As an avid camper myself, I've also included other portable power stations from brands like EcoFlow and Bluetti so you can improve your next camping experience. Sort by All The best portable power stations for camping in 2025 Show less View now at Amazon Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input (W): 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds Pros Clean, easy-to-read LCD display Expansion battery modules Solar panels are durable and highly efficient Wheels make moving it a lot easier Cons Expensive Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input (W): 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra (DPU) is a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input (W): 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C (100W), 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds AC outputs 9 Total capacity 10 Expansion ready 10 USB ports 9 Max output 10 Pros Expandable to up to 90kWh Consumption insights in EcoFlow app Modular design Cons Expensive Heavy EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra Best portable power station for RV camping 4.8 / 5 Score Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra (DPU) is a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input (W): 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C (100W), 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input (W): 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds Pros Compact and lightweight Durable build Inexpensive Cons More limited ports and power Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input (W): 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less View now at Amazon Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only $359 for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input (W): 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds Pros Turbocharge feature Affordable price Cons Some of the better features are only available by using the app Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only $359 for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input (W): 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input (W): 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds Pros Ergonomic design Lots of ports Large display Cons Solar charging could be better What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input (W): 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less What is the best portable power station for camping? Based on our hands-on experience and in-lab testing, the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus is the best portable power station for camping. Its modularity makes it a versatile option for all types of camping. Show more Which portable power station for camping is right for you? It depends on the type of camping you prefer before you choose which portable power station will fit your needs. Consider what devices you want to bring with you and keep powered and whether you will be staying in an RV or cabin vs. a tent. Choose this portable power station for camping... If you want... Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus The best overall option. It packs a lot of power at 3000 continuous watts, and its modularity makes it versatile for camping. EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra A powerful portable power station best for RV camping. It can run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity. EcoFlow River 2 Max 500A compact portable power station for camping. It weighs just 13.4 pounds and features 60 minute fast charging. Bluetti AC70 A budget-friendly portable power station for camping. This unit also has 2,000W surge capability and a turbocharging feature, which allows for super fast charging that can take it from flat to 80% in 45 minutes. Anker 757 Powerhouse A versatile portable power station for camping with lots of ports. It also has an ergonomic build, making it easier to carry despite its weight. Show more Factors to consider when choosing the best portable power station for camping: Power stations are a significant investment, but they can ultimately upgrade your camping experience to allow for power off-grid. Before making our top picks, we considered several factors.Weight: Bigger isn't always better, especially when it comes to camping. Will the portable power station be wheeled down a paved trail, or will you be moving it from your vehicle to your camp? Do you want something you could carry in a backpack for a day? Battery capacity: If you plan to power an RV or bigger devices from your power station, you want as much battery capacity as you can afford, but for off-grid adventures, it's important to bear in mind that there's a penalty here in the form of weight.Cost: Some units cost several thousand dollars, while others cost a couple hundred. Plus, add-ons like battery packs and solar panels also increase the price.Charging: How do you plan on charging your power station? Are you mostly going to use AC power from an outlet, or do you want the independence of solar?Battery Chemistry: Lithium-ion (Li-ion) is the traditional battery technology, but the newer lithium iron phosphate batteries (LiFePO4) are safer and have a much longer lifespan. Show more How did we test these portable power stations for camping? Over the past few years, we've tested well over 100 different portable power stations to find out which are the best of the best. To do this efficiently, because it takes days to do properly, we've developed a comprehensive testing structure. This not only ensures that manufacturers aren't playing fast and loose with their spec sheet data but also checks whether the units are safe and reliable. Here's an overview of how we test portable power stations.Unboxing and visual inspectionCapacity testsLoad testingUPS capability testingThermal testsSafety testsReal-world usageFor more detailed information on how these tests are carried out, check out this post, where we explore the process more thoroughly. Show more FAQs on portable power stations How long will a power station last while camping based on its watts? To figure this out, you're going to need to get a pencil and do some back of the envelope calculations. You're going to need a couple of bits of information.First, you need to know what devices you are going to power. List them all, because forgetting that coffee pot or heated blanket could make the difference between the power station lasting all day, or giving up the ghost on you before the day is over.Specifically, you want to know how much power, in watts, each device draws. This information is usually found on a label on the device. For example, a heater might draw 1,000W, while a CPAP machine might draw 60W. This figure represents the maximum power consumption, and you will find that the power consumption of some devices, such as CPAP machines, fluctuates greatly, while for other devices, like the heater, the power consumption remains quite stable.Next, you need to know how long you plan on running your devices during a day, or between recharges of your power station. Your heater might run for two hours, while the CPAP machine could run for eight hours.Power station capacities are measured in watt-hours (Wh). A device drawing 1,000W running for one hour uses 1,000Wh. Therefore, the same device running for two hours will need 2,000Wh. Heaters are some of the most power-hungry devices that people find themselves needing to run.Similarly, a CPAP machine that uses 60W will consume 60Wh per hour, so running it for eight hours would consume 480Wh.Your total energy usage over 24 hours would then be 2,480Wh.Based on this, you might think that a 2,500Wh capacity power station would be sufficient. However, in reality, nothing is perfect, and there are energy losses in the system. The rule of thumb is to add 20% to your total and then round up to the next highest capacity available. So, you'd be looking at a power station with a capacity of around 3,000Wh to ensure you have enough stored power for the day. Show more How can I make my power station run longer? Simple: Find your biggest power draws and replace them with more energy efficient alternatives. For example, you might find that you can replace that 1,000W heater with a heated throw that only takes 100W to power. That quilt would run for 10 hours on the power that the heater would use in an hour!Another big power hog is incandescent lights. Swapping these out for LEDs will result in huge power savings and dramatically boost your power station's runtime. Show more What is the difference between a power station and a power bank? The main difference between portable power stations and portable power banks is the amount of power and what they can charge. Power stations have AC outlets and allow you to charge more and bigger devices, including life-saving ones like a CPAP machine, a cooler, or a floodlight for the campsite while going off-grid.Power banks are much smaller and are best for charging devices like phones, headphones, and smartwatches. Show more Other portable power stations we've tested Further ZDNET Tech Coverage Smartphones Smartwatches Tablets Laptops TVs Other Tech Resources ZDNET Recommends

331

Please log in to like, share and comment!

Suchergebnis

Login

Sprachen

Clean energy investment hits new highs and shows no sign of slowing

Decades ago, concrete overtook steel as the predominant structural material for towers worldwide—the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition examines why and how

We can reshore American manufacturing

35,000 Solar Power Systems Exposed To Internet Are Vulnerable To Cyberattacks - CybersecurityNews

Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá ilustran los nuevos cuentos infantiles de RUBIO

Esther Burgueño, Ingrid Valls, María Serrano y Marta Montañá ilustran los nuevos cuentos infantiles de RUBIO

Anker's new portable home backup solution runs on solar power - no generator installation needed

Build React and Material UI Apps using AI

US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war

The best portable power stations for camping in 2025: Expert tested and reviewed