Ford Launches Energy Subsidiary to Build Data Center-Scale Batteries at Kentucky Plant


Ford Motor Company has been quietly working on a secret side hustle. The automaker announced Monday the formal launch of Ford Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary that will manufacture and sell US-assembled battery energy storage systems for utilities, large industrial customers and — perhaps most importantly — data centers. Ford hopes to deploy at least 20GWh of storage capacity annually, with the first customer deliveries planned for late 2027.

The pivot has been telegraphed since Ford and SK On killed their $11.4 billion BlueOval SK joint venture last year, splitting the factories and leaving Ford with a very large, very underutilized Kentucky battery plant and a decision to make. Repurposing that Glendale plant for grid-scale energy storage production is the kind of move that looks obvious in retrospect — though “obvious” and “well-executed” are different things. Ford still has to prove it’s capable of the latter.

Ford Energy DC block looks like a shipping container with fans on one end and batteries stacked inside.

The DC Block is a shipping container-sized battery built around LFP prismatic cells.

Ford Energy

The Ford Energy DC Block

Ford Energy’s flagship product is the DC Block, a standardized 20-foot containerized system built around 512Ah lithium iron phosphate, or LFP, prismatic cells. Two configurations will ultimately be offered — the FE-250 (two-hour duration) and the FE-450 (four-hour) — both delivering 5.45MWh of rated energy capacity across a 1,040- to 1,500-volt DC operating range. Ford says it’ll outfit the units with liquid-cooled thermal management and a proprietary battery management system. It’s targeting a 20-year service life, with predictable performance and ease of servicing baked into the design. 

LFP battery chemistry is often thought of as the budget choice for EVs, due to its lower energy density (which means increased weight) compared to lithium-ion tech. However, for stationary applications where weight doesn’t matter, LFP’s improved thermal stability and longer duty cycles make it a smarter, more economical choice. It’s also free from the cobalt and nickel supply chain headaches that have plagued EV battery economics.

Ford Energy’s operations will span the full stack, from electrode coil production through module and container assembly, plus sales and service. That’s an ambitious scope for a subsidiary that only popped into existence this week.

Ford is leaning hard into the domestic manufacturing angle, and for good reason. Battery projects that qualify for the Investment Tax Credit and meet domestic-content requirements are more attractive to utility and data center builders navigating today’s uncertain policy environment. The Kentucky plant, which is well-positioned to hit those ITC thresholds, could be the secret sauce Ford needs to succeed.

Ford, struggling with lower-than-expected EV sales, shifts to battery energy storage and data center energy demand to take up the slack in its surplus battery manufacturing capacity. Where have I heard that before?

Ford

The market is big, but competition is bigger

There’s a strong tailwind behind large-scale energy projects that Ford stands to benefit from. The US is projected to add 24 gigawatts of new utility-scale battery storage in 2026 — nearly double the record 15GW installed in 2025 — with industry forecasts pointing to over 600GWh on the US grid by 2030. AI data center buildout is driving this electricity demand at a pace that’s straining grid infrastructure. Battery storage, which can act as a buffer between spikes in demand and the grid, is becoming critical for large power consumers. 

Shifting to supporting data centers is a move that may not be super popular among those of us feeling the pressure that data centers have placed on everything from computer memory and energy prices to the available water supply. Ford is capitalizing on demand that is, quite frankly, eating the grid alive. However, from a business standpoint, the Kentucky gigafactory conversion is clever asset reuse, especially given the slump in Ford’s EV sales.

Ford’s 20GWh annual target would amount to serious capacity should the automaker-cum-battery-builder hit its goals. At the same time, that’s less than half what Tesla plans to produce from its Houston Megapack gigafactory alone. Tesla deployed 46.7GWh of energy storage in 2025, and its Megapack 3 — promising 5MWh per unit with volume production starting later this year — is the product the industry will benchmark against. Ford is entering a market where the competition has years of operational scale, a mature software stack and customer relationships that took time to build.

Still, the market is large enough that a credible second supplier with domestic manufacturing credentials isn’t an absurd proposition. Ford will need more than a good spec sheet; service infrastructure, software and commercial relationships take time to build, and the window isn’t staying open forever. Then again, this wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen Ford take on an impossible challenge and surprise us.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Lululemon clothing is being investigated for PFAS.Credit: winhorse / Getty Images
Lululemon clothing is being investigated for PFAS.
Credit: winhorse / Getty Images
  • The Texas attorney general is investigating whether Lululemon clothing contains PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals.”
  • PFAS are widely used for stain- and water-resistant products, but their long-term health effects are still not fully understood.
  • Experts say exposure from clothing is likely low, but there are some signs to tell if your clothes contain PFAS.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Monday that his office is launching an investigation into whether clothing from the athleisure brand Lululemon contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), long-lasting compounds commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” The investigation has thrust these chemicals—linked to a range of negative health outcomes and used in a variety of products—into the spotlight. Here’s what to know about the Lululemon probe, PFAS, and what it could mean for your health if these compounds are lurking in your clothing.

What's the Investigation About, Exactly?

According to a press release from Paxton’s office, the investigation will examine whether Lululemon’s clothing contains PFAS "that their health-conscious customers would not expect based on the brand’s marketing.” The office “will also review the company’s Restricted Substances List, testing protocols, and supply chain practices to determine whether Lululemon’s products comply with its stated safety standards,” the release continued.

Per the release, the allegations stem from "emerging research and consumer concerns."

Lululemon, meanwhile, denied using PFAS in its apparel, which includes leggings, workout tops, and casual athleisure wear. In an email to Health, a company spokesperson said: 

"The company phased out the substance in FY23, which had been used in durable water repellent products, a small percentage of our assortment. The health and safety of our guests is paramount, and our products meet or exceed global regulatory, safety, and quality standards. We require all our vendors to regularly conduct testing for restricted substances, including PFAS, by credible third-party agencies to confirm ongoing compliance.”

What Are PFAS?

PFAS is an umbrella term for a class of chemical compounds used in a wide range of everyday products, including furniture, carpets, paint, food packaging, and clothing. They’re often added to fabrics for their stain-resistant or water-repellant properties, said Alex LeBeau, Ph.D., MPH, CIH, a toxicologist, certified industrial hygienist, and owner of Exposure Consulting in Orlando, Florida.

These compounds—which number in the thousands—have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily and have been discovered in soil, air, water, and in animals. They’ve been found in humans, too. Nearly everyone in the U.S. has measurable amounts of PFAS in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

How Harmful Are PFAS?

Scientists still don’t fully know how PFAS affect human health. The chemicals can be particularly challenging to study because the category includes thousands of compounds, products contain varying levels, and exposure can come from many sources.

Two of the most widely studied PFAS—PFOS and PFOA—were phased out in the U.S. in the 2010s, LeBeau said. Those long-chain PFAS, which tend to accumulate in the body and stick around for longer, were largely replaced with short-chain alternatives, which are thought to be less bioaccumulative but may still raise health concerns.

Much of the research into PFAS has focused on what happens when people ingest them through water or food. A 2025 study found a link between PFAS in drinking water and increased incidence of digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and oral cancers. Still, LeBeau said that overall, “the health impacts are still up for debate in the scientific community.” Many human studies have produced mixed results, and much of the existing research has been conducted in animals.  

While it’s possible for PFAS to be absorbed through the skin from clothing, LeBeau said it’s not considered as concerning as ingesting the chemicals. “Dermal PFAS uptake does not appear to be a concerning PFAS exposure route into the body,” he said. “Limited animal studies have suggested that PFAS may permeate the skin, but skin impact may also depend on the PFAS chemical form.”

How to Know If Your Clothing Contains PFAS

There is no federal law requiring clothing manufacturers to stop using PFAS or disclose whether their products contain them. Although, some states have banned their use in apparel and other products, and many well-known brands have said they are voluntarily phasing them out—including Lululemon. 

While LeBeau said people should be most concerned about PFAS in their food and water, it's understandable to want to avoid potentially harmful chemicals altogether. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to tell whether clothing contains PFAS—but there are a few clues.

One is if a garment is labeled as being made with GORE-TEX or Teflon, both of which are PFAS-based materials. Clothing marketed as moisture-wicking, waterproof or water-repellant, or stain-resistant is also more likely to contain PFAS. It’s also a good sign if a brand explicitly labels a product or line as PFAS-free and that claim has been verified through third-party testing.



Source link