Slashdot Mirror
Ford is Throwing $11 Billion at Its Electric Car Problem (theverge.com)
Ford said on Monday it will boost its investment in electric vehicles to $11 billion in the next five years, more than doubling a previous commitment. Company's chairman Bill Ford said the car maker would have 40 hybrid and fully electric vehicles in its range by the same period. It comes as countries around the world put more pressure on car makers to rein in carbon emissions. From a report: It was a dramatic escalation in Ford's crosstown rivalry with General Motors, which has seen its stock prices rise thanks to its commitments to both electrification and autonomy. GM has said it plans to roll out at least 20 new electric cars by 2023, a goal that puts it in a position to bring battery-powered driving to the mainstream. Last week, it unveiled a concept autonomous car without steering wheel or pedals. Meanwhile, the Blue Oval has had a challenging 2017. It remains strongly profitable, but its sale are stagnant, its costs have increased faster than expected, and its margins have failed to meet targets.
Thanks, Tesla ! Without you, those feet-dragger's would have never done this.
One thing that gets glossed over is how in the world the power grid is going to handle all these electric cars. Most transformers you see on poles are designed to cool down at night when usage goes down, exactly when people will be plugging their electric vehicles in. This is going to require MAJOR power infrastructure investment, and other than industry insider news letters I've not seen many high profile stories on this. Great, we have the cards. Now we need a grid infrastructure that can support it!
Yea, solar on everybody's house too! But solar also has it's own issues. Where does the excess power go? It has to go back to the power company (which is what happens in most cases). You still need the grid to support it. There are other good advantages to having cars plugged in at night though. Some ideas are that people could sign up to have their plugged in cars participate in a battery pool for the power company to smooth things out distribution wise, much like Tesla's battery project in Australia does now.
Ford has very strong binding contracts with dealers. The dealer franchise agreements were set in the era before the consolidation in the auto makers. It is very heavily in favor of the dealers. The traditional car makers have much lower bargaining power against the dealers.
The dealers who sell both IC engines and Electric motor cars, have vested interest in killing the electric cars. We know theoretically electric cars have lower maintenance. But they know actual data, brandwise and model wise, which cars and features produce repair shop revenue and which dont.
Unless Ford forms a distinct subsidiary, unencumbered by the dealership agreements, a separate division like Saturn or something and embrace the direct sales model like Tesla they are doomed.
It is high time all the car makers form distinct divisions without any agreements with NADA. As long as they sell cars through NADA members, the short term short sighted actions by the dealers will doom the car makers.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
These "challenges" seem to cancel each other out: 1) Solar provides cheap electricity, but only during the day. 2) EV's represent a huge shift of energy usage to electricity.
Solution: Ensure electricity prices reflect the cost of supply at any given time of day. Solar will drive down costs during the day so people will want to charge then (when it is cheap to do so).
But can the grid handle all these chargers? No problem. If you are making that many EVs to cause issues with the grid, battery costs should reach the point where each charger could just have a large battery (probably re-used from ones once used in EVs) that is slowly being charged at all times in order to not stress the grid.
In isolation, each problem seems hard, but together they seem not that big of a deal.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Since when is throwing more money at a problem a solution? If the headline had read "Ford to Hire More Engineers For R&D," I'd have been impressed. Increasing budgets, alone, merely drives up costs. MBAs aren't hired to innovate. And their favorite solution, outsourcing to a cheap, poorly run and educated company, will only soak up money. Bragging about burning money by the truckload to produce an underpowered, expensive to buy and own short-lived product only shows why car manufacturers are in the same boat with Java-only programmers.
You can turn off a solar panel like you turn off a light. The panel becomes ever so slightly warmer because a slightly higher percentage of the energy hitting it becomes heat, but since the vast majority becomes heat anyway, this is not a problem.
Ford was going to have an F150 by 2016, then 2017, then 2018, now it's off the table with a hybrid F150 /maybe/ in 2020. I'm happy with being an early adopter, and I'd love an electric truck. I have no interest in a Mustang or any SUV. Given a choice between a Bolt and some giant SUV thing, I'll stick with the Bolt (which I already have). Much easier to park, among other things.
The problem is the high inefficiency of ICE engines compared to electric motors (specifically 3 phase induction motors). The problem is also one of complexity. With emissions ICE vehicles are expensive to maintain and operate and provide less power. With electric you have a simple rotor and stater design with only the rotor moving and no oil changes or moving parts to concern your self with.
The other reason carbon emissions are not a problem is that co2 specifically is a necessary gas and part of the carbon cycle. Without us putting carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of c02 it is likely that we would have a lack of carbon problem. We all know plants love higher co2 levels and that co2 is not even a problem until it gets up to several thousand parts per million. Its current levels of around 400 parts per million are way too low for a healthy ecosystem and I think we should keep ICE around and burn as much oil and coal as we can until they co2 levels get to around 800 to 900 ppm where we have a healthy amount for plants (remember plants make co2 into o2 that we breath). I think electric cars are good for short ranges and city driving with some long range trips. We need about 800 miles of range in electrics before they become road trippers though. I think even with the low energy densities of batteries vs fueled vehicles they have a chance to make that. The only vehicles that will need to have ICE (Hopefully a micro turbine to recharge a small battery every 200 miles or so) will be large passenger aircraft (very high energy needs and very high energy density requirements for long range flight), large ships, trucks and trains. Micro turbines may also be good in cars for people (salesmen, people who like to road trip, or need to visit relatives across the country and do not fly due to rights violations by TSA) who make long trips often and can't afford 5 extra hours every few thousand miles of travel to recharge (When you are driving 5200 miles it can add up quick (this is a round trip a few of my friends take to Glacier Park from Miami and back).
So we should keep producing C02 until their is enough to have a healthy ecosystem but only do so as efficiently as technology will allow. I think our goal should be around 800 to 1000 ppm, but I doubt we will ever get their because plants will take advantage of it and keep it below this amount. I am personally on schedule to buy the first 600 mile range electric truck that comes in under 35k and has batteries than can recharge in under 10 minutes with at least 10,000 recharges to 90% capacity. Until then I am stuck with a light semi with a 7 liter diesel as my daily driver, but at least I am helping replenish the much needed co2 levels and helping the plants when I drive it.
Cheers,
Anonymous Coward
Throwing money at a problem is a solution from people who have either run out of ideas or don't want to cede control to others.
My city has an urban population of about 3 million. The vast majority of us live in apartments and condominiums. The remaining single family homes are converted to higher density housing when the owners die off. These condos and apts are traditionally required to provide one or 1.5 parking spaces per unit; in most cases that's almost entirely outdoor offstreet uncovered parking. Residents with more than one car must park in the street (if they can find a space).
Urban planners say that density must increase to preserve open space elsewhere. Bicycle paths are taking the place of parking spaces and mass transit is encouraged. Fewer parking spaces are required for new buildings under construction.
So the question is: where will these 3 million people charge their EVs?
In fact an electric car is not an option in urban areas. Even if your property manager could provide a charging unit, how would it be metered and billed to you? Who would maintain it in a mostly public space where vandals and theft could be a problem?
Many urbanites will choose Uber or Lyft, but Ford's electric auto sales will not reach the inner city. Privately owned EVs are only practical in suburban & rural single-family home areas.
...omphaloskepsis often...
There's not enough Lithium in the world to replace 5% of all cars with electric vehicles. What's their plan to store power when the Lithium source is exhausted?
They should focus on a true renewable energy source like hydrogen.
CARB (California Air Resources Board) introduced a ZEV mandate. Zero Emissions Vehicle - mostly EVs though Toyota has a hydrogen vehicle on the market. It requires that a certain percentage of each automaker's sales be ZEVs each year. That percentage increases every year (currently about 2%, supposed to be about 15% by 2025). If an automaker fails to hit that percentage or buy enough credits from a company which has exceeded the percentage, it is banned from selling vehicles in California. And since about a dozen other states automatically adopt CARB's guidelines, that automaker would be banned from selling cars in about a third of the U.S. by population. This is why every automaker has developed an EV - none of them want to be banned from 1/3 of the U.S.
Tesla is actually subsidized by this. It always has ZEV credits, so its bottom line is buoyed by selling those to other automakers. That's also why production of the Tesla 3 has been so slow to ramp up. They won't want to produce more of them per year than they're able to sell credits for. If they can't sell the ZEV credit for a Tesla 3, they have to bear the full manufacturing costs for the vehicle themselves.
CARB actually first tried the ZEV mandate in 2000. That's why GM invested half a billion dollars developing the EV-1. Come late 1999, GM was the only automaker with a viable vehicle which could meet the ZEV mandate. They stood to make billions back selling the ZEV credits and licensing the technology to other car companies. But at the last minute the other automakers convinced CARB that technology wasn't yet ready to meet the ZEV mandate, and hybrids were the best technical solution for now. GM destroying all the EV-1s makes a lot more sense when you put it in this context. Overnight CARB turned GM's half billion dollar investment from a gold mine into money down the toilet, then had the temerity to ask GM if it could share the technology with California (so it could be given to other automakers). It's no wonder GM destroyed the EV-1s and buried the R&D so CARB couldn't get their hands on it.
Do note that this means whether or not EVs are economically viable remains to be seen (whether other automakers are feet-draggers, or if CARB is just pushing the market into unviable space). The mandate is an arbitrary bureaucrat-fixed percentage, not a market one. So if the market doesn't want to buy enough EVs to meet the mandate, automakers have to cut prices on EVs until enough of them sell (or are leased) to meet the mandate. That's why a couple years ago VW was offering a 3-year lease on an eGolf for $79/mo with no money down - they were short on ZEV credits that year. And that's why the best EV deals are in California - only EVs sold/leased in California count towards the ZEV mnadate. 2016 and 2017 didn't see as good deals, so EV sales seem closer on track with the ZEV mandate those years. But climbing from 2% to 15% in 7 years is a very steep increase in ZEV sales. If what the market wants deviates from the ZEV mandate, it will show up in the EV discounts. The greater the deviation, the steeper the EV discounts will be.
The research on primary battery seems limited compared to rechargeable, I think because everyone seems to be stuck in the idea that EVs needs to be recharged. I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case. Two primary huddles in adoption of EVs are the energy storage and energy delivery. Often times when I hear about metal-air batteries, I hear about the problems of rechargability. Why not try to develop a battery focused on energy density only? If the energy density of a battery can get any where near gasoline, just swapping the batteries would be simpler and certainly much quicker than charging it. Not only that, building out a network of battery swap stations are much simpler than building out charging stations. The biggest huddle would be building out enough battery recycling plant, but I don't think that would be too hard to overcome. Decline in gasoline use would prompt oil company to divest their interest any way. Of course, there could be a lot of active research going on to fit just the scenario. I just don't know. I think it's a path worth looking into if it is an overlooked idea.
Tax cuts, deregulation, consumer confidence?
I'll take "Things that drive US liberal-progressives nuts" for $1,000 Alex!
An Israeli company, Phinergy, has been working on a pilot system of vehicles that use aluminum battery plates, that are swapped at "charging" stations.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
It comes as countries around the world put more pressure on car makers to rein in carbon emissions.
So much myopia. Sure, switching to all-electric vehicles may help to reduce carbon emissions a little but your modern societies that are still dependant on so much plastic. Plastic that gets produced from fossil fuel polymers.
The entire point of EVs charging at night is that's when power is cheapest, because infrastructure cost is driven by peak usage.
To the extent that EVs increase off-peak usage without increasing peak usage, they're actually saving utilities money by increasing the usage factor of the distribution network.
If EVs end up reversing the peak (which I don't is likely, but let's suppose), then utilities will change their pricing and those who can (not all, but enough to achieve the goal) will switch to charging during the day to take advantage of it. No problem.
Now, on-demand high-rate charging Supercharger-style is a significant grid load, but overnight charging is actually very easy on the grid.
And a nice thing about having all those large, high-current rechargeable batteries distributed around the grid is that they can act as UPSes to actually reduce peak loads. Even if we don't let them back-feed the grid proper, they can let your house drop off the grid during a peak.
As for your comment about transformers heating, an oil-immersed transformer can store a significant amount of heat, but the time constant is on the order of 90 minutes. By three hours after dawn, the effect of night-time temperatures is gone.
While an ICE is an industrial product not made for inter-dependance as a lowly EV. if you thought an ICE was clunky and rough, then buy better fuel or invest in a HHO Water Electolysis, Joe Cell, or PICC.
n/t
Have gnu, will travel.
Before Tesla, EVs were looked down on as toys of interest to die-hard environmentalists only.
Tesla proved that it's possible to make an EV that's an object of desire to average car buyers. Is Ludicrous Speed of any practical use? No. Is it a huge amount of fun? Hell, yes. They blew the market open, and I'd like to sincerely thank them for it.
> Meanwhile, the Blue Oval has had a challenging 2017. It remains strongly profitable, but its sale are stagnant, its costs have increased faster than expected, and its margins have failed to meet targets.
Every car owner on this planet wants an electric car.
This is not about ecology or science fiction. Electric motors are way better. Specially in urban settings where you get a lot more power and torque from t=0.
In roads it might help with the energy recovering improvements.
And if you don't have a way to "refuel" it with electricity, just keep the car electric and add a small gas motor, making it a hybrid. This is so well-known by now that even Ford has a great hybrid car (the Fusion). Wanna reduce costs? Make all cars hybrid. Forget about solely gas powered autos. They're history for a lot of reasons.
Whatever your opinion about gasoline might be, the fact of the matter is that writing is on the wall for it. Many countries already even posted dates when such engines would be made illegal. It makes little difference whether the USA tolerates them: no car maker would last too long just with internal sales.
Many consumer markets are going electric only.
Tesla is flying in those countries, Renault is going "full-throttle" on electric, BMW, too... even those "late to the party" are starting to get with the program. Ford is not so bad, but if they have problems seeling the electric/hybrid cars, maybe something is wrong -- and probably it's Marketing, like trying to sell them at an overprice or offering unwanted models.
Why would I want a gas-only car if I could get a hybrid with ludicrous acceleration? Also, next step is self-driven, which means AI, which means computers, which means complex inter-connected systems powered by electricity. Traditional gas parts will literally get in the way.
It's probably much better to put the energy to other use, such as charging, heating or cooling something opportunistically, than to throw it away.
Ezekiel 23:20
The meaning of official 'reserves' in mined minerals is quite different from petroleum. It is a tiny fraction of what atoms and molecules are actually available---some more drilling and infrastructure could open up more officially bookable reserves for centuries. The matter of 'reserves' is a specific economic, financial, and regulatory issue.
By contrast, petroleum can be detected remotely over much larger distances and the known size of reserves & resources is close to the total amount available to humans.
The most expensive material for Lithium ion batteries is currently cobalt, and next, nickel, not the lithium. New formulations are reducing the amount of the most expensive, and supply constrained cobalt in favor of relatively more nickel.
But a long term, a battery which uses neither would be even cheaper.
If they don't upgrade the grid, the problems will be solved by end users adding local battery storage. This, in turn, improves the reliability of the home supply. Furthermore, it supports the addition of solar which is difficult here in Florida due to laws preventing the selling of solar energy to the utilities.
So, please don't upgrade what doesn't work. My week-long power outage this year was a great reminder of how antiquated our centralized systems are. They just need to go.
What I need more than anything at the moment is a law to prevent HOAs from blocking the installation of chargers. Without laws to remove impediments from the necessary infrastructure changes, many of us are going to be left out of the revolution.
Loss of utility power once a major portion of transportation is moved to electric power will be troublesome. This year we had two examples of extended power outages that caused significant trouble.
Hurricane Maria caused total collapse of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) generation and distribution system. Complete restoration is now hoped to be May 2018.
A construction accident cut power off to the outer banks of North Carolina (Hatteras and Ocracoke). The outage started July 27 2017, and ended Aug 3 2017.
How does emergency response work when the power is out? Backup generation helps but even on the outerbanks where the source feed is more than 60 miles of single circuit primary distribution, the backup generation is not intended to replace the primary utility feed. The backup generation could likely not be able to carry the electrical load of charging the several thousand vehicles that needed to evacuate the island.
They've been selling them for years in Europe. But, of course, no one here wants them. I mean, look at the marketing disaster of the Toyota Prius, nobody bought them... Right?
Oh, maybe the oil companies are losing their power...?
Meanwhile, according to Ed Wallace, the host of "WHEELS'' auto radio show, who has been in the car business for over 40 years, says that todays gas powered cars emit only..... ONE HYDRO CARBON !!! Before 1990, they emitted hundreds of hydrocarbons. Ed Wallace, who is politically Liberal Left, said this on his program on January 13th, 2018. He went on to say that if you maintain your vehicle, even after 100,000 miles, it'll still emit only one hydrocarbon. The pressure on automakers to go full electric is a bit extreme given the circumstances. (I want to own a plug in hybrid by the way)- RS
The Prius may not be a very common car, but it does represent a large fraction of Toyota's sales. It was definitely significant.