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.
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.
It will become less of an issue as more solar and battery backup gets deployed, and the cars themselves will be used for smoothing as that's a good trade-off for most users.
But yes, some upgrades will be needed. There will probably be tiered pricing too, with energy suppliers offering discounts to people who charge slowly overnight, perhaps on a circuit controlled by the power company (and guaranteed to deliver at least X kWh between 23:00 and 06:00).
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
They have done the math. Stop pretending they haven't. It is not even hard to find. The cost per mile of energy is about 10% to 40% for an electric compared to a ICE engine. On average around 20%
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/defa...
Transmission isn't the largest expense that utilities have to pay for. Saying the infrastructure won't support it is just FUD from someone who doesn't work in the industry.
EV's stabilize the grid, because utilities don't need to scale up and down micro generation as demand changes. This saves a significant amount of money in administration and maintenance on the generation side, which comprises the majority of utility spending. Also EVs provide a massive, new source of revenue to utilities without capital investment, because they're now selling resources that were previously underutilized.
nonsense, the load from cars won't compare to peak daytime load. good thing cars will be charging at night, fine time to do it.
your assertion about needing to cool at night is just nonsense; transformers don't care what happened 12 hours ago , they don'thave some magic heat sink where they store the heat until they can relieve themselves in the wee hours.
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.
it's not an issue now. Let's call the nighttime a "10" right now, peak load is a "17". Electric cars will make the night a 13 or 14...but it will not be a problem especially as it's cooler at night.
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...
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.
An AC making stuff up. What else is new?
Allowing for an 80 kWH battery (Tesla's have 70, IIRC), each EV would use about 20 kg of lithium. A 2011 study found 39 million tons of economically recoverable lithium (at current prices). This is enough to build 2 billion EV cars (there are only one billion cars on Earth right now), or 4 billion EV cars if we go with 40 kWH batteries.
So there is enough proven lithium reserves at current prices to replace 200% to 400% of all cars, not "5%".
But note that "at current prices" bit. The "lithium reserve" estimate is very soft on the upper end. We know there is at least 39 million tons of economically exploitable lithium. But unlike oil it has not intensively exploited so many worldwide resources are likely undiscovered or underestimated. And as is true of many resources, modest increases in price will likely greatly expand the reserves. We can afford to spend more for that 20 kg of lithium (currently costing $180).
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj