Shouldn’t be a division - strategic error not to spin off ab ovo. Sure missing synergies etc but the market hates the new weighed down by the old, even if the old makes sense and the new doesn’t.
Well EVs are far superior to the ICE drive. After all you are just talking replacing an ICEngine with an Electric Motor, EMs are far superior to ICEs. The problem is as always the battery tech is not up to snuff. So hybrids are the obvious choice for light vehicles or the Methanol engine. Especially series hybrids with constant speed extreme efficiency Methanol engine/generators.
However, for heavy duty applications, diesel engines in rail, heavy trucking, mining equipment, construction heavy equipment, buses, ferries, LRTs and short distance shipping it is very cost effective to go BEV. The battery problems can be mitigated with high value transport. Cost savings in the $60k/yr region for a diesel heavy truck replacement. Essentially you are replacing a 30% efficient diesel engine with a 60% efficient gas turbine with gas @ 10% the energy cost of diesel fuel. Tesla has proven the range issue is manageable for most routes. Some use of diesel will always be warranted for long routes in remote areas, i.e. ice roads.
Other than that, for low energy transport applications, which are the most common personal transport in Developing Nations, BEVs are proving more cost effective than ICEVs. That is because small motors and small batteries are suffice. These are light vehicles or motorbikes that are used almost entirely for short range urban transit.
Believe it?!? I know it. That just happens to be the truth. I'm not interested in denialism and reactionary opposition to inevitable change like some low thinker types here.
Well the EV uses considerably less material than the comparable ICE vehicle, except for the battery. For heavy diesel applications the battery weight penalty is much less significant than for a light vehicle. For a Tesla semi-truck total cab weight is just 25% more than a typical diesel tractor. And that proportion becomes much lower for larger diesel machines. Less than a 10% weight penalty for a typical Mine Haulage truck.
Whereas an avg diesel fuel consumption is proportionally ~10X higher than a light vehicle. So for a Tesla semi-truck cab using 5200lbs more material. But the avg diesel semi-truck uses 42,000lbs of fuel per year. A Tesla charging off of CCGT is overall ~50% efficient vs 30% for the semi-Truck and gas being much more plentiful and 10X lower energy cost than diesel. Even a 12% savings in fuel mass is 5,200lbs/yr less mass consumed. Charging off of nuclear, means ~40,000lbs/yr less mass utilization.
The low range, barebones BEV vehicles being used in Developing Nations are likely a similar weight to a replacement ICE vehicle substitute.
Thanks. I would recommend you read "The War Below," by Ernest Scheyder. A very good book describing the problems of mining today. Would also recommend you read anything by Mark Mills, who is very knowledgeable about the supply chain issues associated with batteries and renewables. In a recent publication, "Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream," Mills illustrates that "no one knows how much, if at all, CO2 emissions will decline as EV use rises ."
EVs for local commuters or local overnight deliveries (FedEx, Amazon, e.g.) may prove to be an adequate niche vehicle, but that niche will come at the expense of new mines and the related wasted environments. Has the bicycle become an accepted substitute for ICE's? We've had EVs for over 100 years; fad hasn't exactly caught on.
Replacing freight, long-haul trucks with BEV will not be as frugal as you suggest; batteries are four times their diesel fuel load (2, 8,000 L-ion batteries), and truckers have noted that trucks don't do well with heavy freight—liquids, metal, etc. Heavy loads kills the batteries too quickly. Thus, the 10-minute refueling period would translate to several hours. When was the last time you visited a "Love's" Truck stop. 20 or 30 at a time Buckee's gas stations, which do not serve trucks, have up to 100 pumps, and I've seen times when every damn one was occupied. Tell me, how would that look with 100 EVs, and what would a surge demand from such a large source do to local grid stability?
The pleasantries of electric vehicles are not without substantial environmental risk; as the saying goes, do you prefer the devil you know or the devil you don't know?
I explained that to you, and you ignored everything I said. I'm well aware of the material requirements of batteries. Who said anything about renewables? That's why I'm dead set against utility battery storage for wind/solar.
And BEV light vehicles must remain a niche product for a long time. The point you just aren't getting is heavy trucking uses just 19% of US transportation fuel, light vehicles use 62%. Much worse than that an avg heavy truck will use 200% of battery capacity/day vs a light vehicle only 20% avg. Thus the material significance of BEV light vehicles is some 30X more than for heavy trucking. We can easily mine sufficient battery materials for diesel replacement (largely heavy trucking), that is not an issue. Unlike for light vehicles, unlike for wind/solar battery storage, diesel replacement is HIGH VALUE. A typical semi-truck will save $66k/yr largely in energy savings. That is mostly for diesel fuel that will be in short supply.
And petroleum is also mining minerals. Just as environmentally damaging as mineral mines. If not worse. Just go take a look at the Alberta Oil Sands. The Tesla semi-truck will substantially REDUCE mining. Mining for petroleum which is already in short supply and will get worse. Much worse. What makes you think somehow petroleum mining is exempt from supply issues? What happens when another war occurs in Russia or the Middle East? Petroleum supply is much more precarious than Metals supply.
And what you said about trucking is nonsense, the load penalty of a Tesla semi tractor/trailer fully loaded is ~2000lbs for an 80,000lb rig. Insignificant. Charging is easy, Pepsi is already doing it. The 30min charge to 70% capacity is easily made up by the much faster acceleration, uphill & downhill travel of the Tesla semi. Which can be done during mandated breaks. Those are just typical industrial loads. Heavy trucking is an industrial operation, I don't know why you keep confusing it with Light Vehicles.
Electrifying heavy trucking means replacing diesel @ $33/mmbtu with far more plentiful NG @ $3/mmbtu. And instead of burning diesel in an ICE engine at an avg of 30% efficiency for highway driving (less in the city), burning NG @ 60% efficiency in an combined cycle baseload power plant.
So if you want the truth not bullshit, know this, the NACFE (North American Council for Freight Efficiency) did the tests on Tesla semi-trucks with full loads over a full days operation, actual in service Pepsi Trucks. And they delivered loads at the same rate as diesel trucks. :
This is happening. Tesla has a 3yr backlog of orders for its semi-Trucks. Trucking companies want them. Because total capital plus operating costs are substantially lower than for diesel trucks. And that is going to increase as diesel supply becomes strained.
I don't think I ignored anything you said. I just disagree with your points.
For example, for every "Alberta Oil Sands" there are several Morenci or Bingham Canyon copper mines. You cannot mandate electric vehicles discriminately. Either you mandate all vehicles to be electric, including the family sedan and the long-haul semi-tractor and the farm implements, or you allow the consumer to choose for himself. "Gaming the board" with subsidies are artificial economic interventions that skew or distort conclusive technical comparisons. "Gaming the board" with lame threats of climate catastrophe is, quite simply, a lie.
My point, which you have clearly ignored, is that such a transition will come at great environmental risk, one which I believe is not properly characterized. thus, I believe ANY mandates to be premature until you can prove conclusively that said transition will not result in significant environmental impact. Until you, or Tesla, or any other "science" organization can answer the question of how much will emissions decline with increased EV use, and what will be the resulting change in global temperature from those reductions. Until you can answer that question, any meaningful comparison between ICE and EVs is impossible. If that research comes available in my lifetime, and it shows that EVs will reduce temperatures at rates greater than the average temperature fluctuations throughout a year at any given location, I will change my opinion.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation. I'm sure you disagree, which is fine with me. In disagreement there is learning.
Sure you can mandate EVs discriminately. They already do that. Who said anything about mandates? I've always been against the mandates. You keep using strawman arguments. Trucking companies are eager to go all BEV just because of the cost savings. They don't need mandates. For national security, for our energy security we need to use incentives & infrastructure (i.e. charging stations) for diesel replacement.
Incentives to encourage & facilitate BEV diesel replacement is entirely separate issue from BEV light vehicles, of which you keep conflating. And you keep focusing on environmental issues while I'm talking about the LIFE-THREATENING, ECONOMY DESTROYING issues of diesel supply constraints.
Here is the problem. Listen to B.F. Randall:
"Crude oil is like raw milk, and diesel is the cream, gasoline is like skim milk", "Diesel and jet engines combined with hydraulic fluid perform perhaps 85 percent of all civilizations work"
" diesel fuel is between 40 and 60 percent of their direct costs of farming"
" the limiting factor ultimately is diesel fuel because diesel fuel is such a small fraction of crude oil, And is needed in farming, agriculture, mining, Transportation/Trucking logistics. It's all based on diesel fuel so if you start mining for renewables. That will double or triple the world's mining, you're going to double and triple the demand of diesel fuel and that's going to necessarily result in doubling or tripling the amount of crude oil necessary to support that. It will also make diesel fuel go up and gasoline go down because for every gallon of diesel fuel we make, we make two or three gallons of gasoline. It's automatic so it you can't scale it without starving today.."
So if you replace gasoline with ethanol and batteries, where are you going to get the diesel from? What are you going to do, throw the lighter distillates out? That's real energy efficiency. You could get more heavy oil from Canada. Keystone pipeline anyone? Oh, that was banned. Government idiots.
The conclusion is inescapable, for civilization to survive we need to replace diesel fuel and related heavy distillates. That means batteries, battery materials need to be conserved for replacing diesel engines. Diesel trucking, diesel buses, diesel LRTs, diesel ferries & short distance diesel shipping, diesel generation, diesel mining equipment, diesel train locomotives, diesel heavy equipment. Diesel trucks being 1% of vehicles but use 20% of the transportation fuel. And that is the cream of fuels that keeps our civilization running.
Note that the motor driving the Tesla semi-truck you can pick up and carry away, it's the size of a football. With 3 motors having more power than a big Kenworth diesel. And Tesla's semi has 3X the torque of a big diesel truck. Leaves them in the dust climbing a hill or accelerating. And hardly uses its brakes, including going downhill. With 500mile battery pack weighs 5000lbs more than the Diesel Cab. But can actually pull a couple thousand lbs more in the trailer. With 30m to 70% recharge. You will make up the recharge time easily with increased acceleration and faster downhill travel.
These big battery packs are quite capable of replacing most of the diesel loads I mentioned. That's urgent. That should be the priority for battery usage. That puts batteries to real use. Light vehicles only drive an avg of 30 miles/day, that is a piss poor application for precious batteries. i.e for a Tesla with a 300mile range, that's using 10% of capacity per day. A heavy truck will use 200% of capacity in one day.
The only place batteries for utility storage make any sense is for spinning reserve or storage on a diesel grid, especially if augmented by wind & solar. Wasting 4X the batteries of EV's to store a minimum daily amount of wind & solar on a normal gas/coal/hydro/nuclear grid is just plain stupid. An expensive idiotic waste of batteries. Gas/coal/hydro/nuclear store energy far cheaper and far more effectively than batteries. Use that storage, not waste batteries on it.
Robert: Appreciate the continued truth about EVs. Suugest you take a close look at the reason Ford's Blue Oval City plant under construction in Tennessee. Why would the company invest in that $X-billion plant when loosing so much money per EV? Perhaps a move of EV production to a lesser expensive state? Or another reason?
Might be time for the car companies to stop bending over and taking it. They should have stood up decades ago and told the government to pack salt, but here they are hemorrhaging billions because they can't locate their cojones with both hands.
Toyota will be flourishing as they have a large hybrid line up & to my knowledge are the only sizeable Manufacturer not to blow their brains out with EV’s.
If they can not keep the power up for homes, businesses, etc., how do they plan for the electric cars. With all the electronics out there and new construction being built do you really think our power will keep up..(absolutely not)..
Solar panels are also interfering with the climate change. The way I look at it: if the sun rays help expand power, the panels can reflex back too.
The next clash we're going to see is between tech bros and the green energy lobby. You think the struggling grid is having issues now? Wait until those EVs load up the grid with data centers and artificial intelligence too. Those are absolute power hogs and will likely require the companies to build out their own on-site generation. The future will get interesting.
Grids all over the world incapable of even a 1/3 adoption to EV’s. Sales have fallen as more people have been exposed to all the negatives/lies whether it be “ Zero emission, insufficient & unreliable charging network, Grid instability, 70% higher carbon manufacturing footprint, 90% of rare earth elements in China & price.
I don't think solar panels reflect much sunlight. They heat up under sunlight, but so does everything else. If we're going to start counting joules from everything the sun warms to above ambient temperature, we're going to need a bigger boat.
Suspect that Edsel is a photo of a restored sample. But the idea and the rest of the article (sans Alma) make the point.
I drive a 2016 F150 Lariat. Even when I bought it, I thought the price ridiculous. The only reason I did...I had a very good trade in on a 2011, 'sorta' pickup type vehicle, that knocked the price down. I'm gonna hang on to this this truck for as long as I can.
On a recent trip to a Ford Dealer, I saw a "Lightening"...then I saw the sticker price. I can understand why Ford lost $65K on each one sold. What a useless pile of metal and other materials.
It seems that the best bet now is to greatly improve the billions of venerable ICEs. We propose the "diesoline" technology, which is a hybrid of current mainstream 2-cycle, 4-cycle and diesel, gasoline engine types. Current automobiles need only 2, 3 or 4 cylinders (instead of 4, v6 or v8), and heavy trucks need no aftertreatments (costing industry/economy $billions) - and save fuel by 1/3 or greater and 3 times driving power (torque).
I love her music. It is beautiful. Soothing.
Edsel, the coolest car that never sold.
You have good reason to be proud! She is a good singer.
Shouldn’t be a division - strategic error not to spin off ab ovo. Sure missing synergies etc but the market hates the new weighed down by the old, even if the old makes sense and the new doesn’t.
Well EVs are far superior to the ICE drive. After all you are just talking replacing an ICEngine with an Electric Motor, EMs are far superior to ICEs. The problem is as always the battery tech is not up to snuff. So hybrids are the obvious choice for light vehicles or the Methanol engine. Especially series hybrids with constant speed extreme efficiency Methanol engine/generators.
However, for heavy duty applications, diesel engines in rail, heavy trucking, mining equipment, construction heavy equipment, buses, ferries, LRTs and short distance shipping it is very cost effective to go BEV. The battery problems can be mitigated with high value transport. Cost savings in the $60k/yr region for a diesel heavy truck replacement. Essentially you are replacing a 30% efficient diesel engine with a 60% efficient gas turbine with gas @ 10% the energy cost of diesel fuel. Tesla has proven the range issue is manageable for most routes. Some use of diesel will always be warranted for long routes in remote areas, i.e. ice roads.
Other than that, for low energy transport applications, which are the most common personal transport in Developing Nations, BEVs are proving more cost effective than ICEVs. That is because small motors and small batteries are suffice. These are light vehicles or motorbikes that are used almost entirely for short range urban transit.
Do you still believe this?
Believe it?!? I know it. That just happens to be the truth. I'm not interested in denialism and reactionary opposition to inevitable change like some low thinker types here.
"Low thinker types". I see that you are ready for a robust debate. So typical.
I just did a robust debate, I don't have to repeat myself for your benefit.
How do you rationalize the material requirements?
Well the EV uses considerably less material than the comparable ICE vehicle, except for the battery. For heavy diesel applications the battery weight penalty is much less significant than for a light vehicle. For a Tesla semi-truck total cab weight is just 25% more than a typical diesel tractor. And that proportion becomes much lower for larger diesel machines. Less than a 10% weight penalty for a typical Mine Haulage truck.
Whereas an avg diesel fuel consumption is proportionally ~10X higher than a light vehicle. So for a Tesla semi-truck cab using 5200lbs more material. But the avg diesel semi-truck uses 42,000lbs of fuel per year. A Tesla charging off of CCGT is overall ~50% efficient vs 30% for the semi-Truck and gas being much more plentiful and 10X lower energy cost than diesel. Even a 12% savings in fuel mass is 5,200lbs/yr less mass consumed. Charging off of nuclear, means ~40,000lbs/yr less mass utilization.
The low range, barebones BEV vehicles being used in Developing Nations are likely a similar weight to a replacement ICE vehicle substitute.
Thanks. I would recommend you read "The War Below," by Ernest Scheyder. A very good book describing the problems of mining today. Would also recommend you read anything by Mark Mills, who is very knowledgeable about the supply chain issues associated with batteries and renewables. In a recent publication, "Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream," Mills illustrates that "no one knows how much, if at all, CO2 emissions will decline as EV use rises ."
EVs for local commuters or local overnight deliveries (FedEx, Amazon, e.g.) may prove to be an adequate niche vehicle, but that niche will come at the expense of new mines and the related wasted environments. Has the bicycle become an accepted substitute for ICE's? We've had EVs for over 100 years; fad hasn't exactly caught on.
Replacing freight, long-haul trucks with BEV will not be as frugal as you suggest; batteries are four times their diesel fuel load (2, 8,000 L-ion batteries), and truckers have noted that trucks don't do well with heavy freight—liquids, metal, etc. Heavy loads kills the batteries too quickly. Thus, the 10-minute refueling period would translate to several hours. When was the last time you visited a "Love's" Truck stop. 20 or 30 at a time Buckee's gas stations, which do not serve trucks, have up to 100 pumps, and I've seen times when every damn one was occupied. Tell me, how would that look with 100 EVs, and what would a surge demand from such a large source do to local grid stability?
The pleasantries of electric vehicles are not without substantial environmental risk; as the saying goes, do you prefer the devil you know or the devil you don't know?
I explained that to you, and you ignored everything I said. I'm well aware of the material requirements of batteries. Who said anything about renewables? That's why I'm dead set against utility battery storage for wind/solar.
And BEV light vehicles must remain a niche product for a long time. The point you just aren't getting is heavy trucking uses just 19% of US transportation fuel, light vehicles use 62%. Much worse than that an avg heavy truck will use 200% of battery capacity/day vs a light vehicle only 20% avg. Thus the material significance of BEV light vehicles is some 30X more than for heavy trucking. We can easily mine sufficient battery materials for diesel replacement (largely heavy trucking), that is not an issue. Unlike for light vehicles, unlike for wind/solar battery storage, diesel replacement is HIGH VALUE. A typical semi-truck will save $66k/yr largely in energy savings. That is mostly for diesel fuel that will be in short supply.
And petroleum is also mining minerals. Just as environmentally damaging as mineral mines. If not worse. Just go take a look at the Alberta Oil Sands. The Tesla semi-truck will substantially REDUCE mining. Mining for petroleum which is already in short supply and will get worse. Much worse. What makes you think somehow petroleum mining is exempt from supply issues? What happens when another war occurs in Russia or the Middle East? Petroleum supply is much more precarious than Metals supply.
And what you said about trucking is nonsense, the load penalty of a Tesla semi tractor/trailer fully loaded is ~2000lbs for an 80,000lb rig. Insignificant. Charging is easy, Pepsi is already doing it. The 30min charge to 70% capacity is easily made up by the much faster acceleration, uphill & downhill travel of the Tesla semi. Which can be done during mandated breaks. Those are just typical industrial loads. Heavy trucking is an industrial operation, I don't know why you keep confusing it with Light Vehicles.
Electrifying heavy trucking means replacing diesel @ $33/mmbtu with far more plentiful NG @ $3/mmbtu. And instead of burning diesel in an ICE engine at an avg of 30% efficiency for highway driving (less in the city), burning NG @ 60% efficiency in an combined cycle baseload power plant.
So if you want the truth not bullshit, know this, the NACFE (North American Council for Freight Efficiency) did the tests on Tesla semi-trucks with full loads over a full days operation, actual in service Pepsi Trucks. And they delivered loads at the same rate as diesel trucks. :
Tesla Semi Performance Results Revealed!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AupOhz1Je5E
Tesla Semi Performance Results Revealed!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AupOhz1Je5E
The Truth About The Tesla Semi Revealed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubZgh5L4Cfs
This is happening. Tesla has a 3yr backlog of orders for its semi-Trucks. Trucking companies want them. Because total capital plus operating costs are substantially lower than for diesel trucks. And that is going to increase as diesel supply becomes strained.
Inside Tesla's NEW $7 Billion Semi Truck Factory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20UzkgzENq4
Talking with Value Analyst, Limiting Factor on Secrets of Tesla Semi, Batteries, and Energy. NextBigFuture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkOQOEzk8fA
I don't think I ignored anything you said. I just disagree with your points.
For example, for every "Alberta Oil Sands" there are several Morenci or Bingham Canyon copper mines. You cannot mandate electric vehicles discriminately. Either you mandate all vehicles to be electric, including the family sedan and the long-haul semi-tractor and the farm implements, or you allow the consumer to choose for himself. "Gaming the board" with subsidies are artificial economic interventions that skew or distort conclusive technical comparisons. "Gaming the board" with lame threats of climate catastrophe is, quite simply, a lie.
My point, which you have clearly ignored, is that such a transition will come at great environmental risk, one which I believe is not properly characterized. thus, I believe ANY mandates to be premature until you can prove conclusively that said transition will not result in significant environmental impact. Until you, or Tesla, or any other "science" organization can answer the question of how much will emissions decline with increased EV use, and what will be the resulting change in global temperature from those reductions. Until you can answer that question, any meaningful comparison between ICE and EVs is impossible. If that research comes available in my lifetime, and it shows that EVs will reduce temperatures at rates greater than the average temperature fluctuations throughout a year at any given location, I will change my opinion.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation. I'm sure you disagree, which is fine with me. In disagreement there is learning.
Sure you can mandate EVs discriminately. They already do that. Who said anything about mandates? I've always been against the mandates. You keep using strawman arguments. Trucking companies are eager to go all BEV just because of the cost savings. They don't need mandates. For national security, for our energy security we need to use incentives & infrastructure (i.e. charging stations) for diesel replacement.
Incentives to encourage & facilitate BEV diesel replacement is entirely separate issue from BEV light vehicles, of which you keep conflating. And you keep focusing on environmental issues while I'm talking about the LIFE-THREATENING, ECONOMY DESTROYING issues of diesel supply constraints.
Here is the problem. Listen to B.F. Randall:
"Crude oil is like raw milk, and diesel is the cream, gasoline is like skim milk", "Diesel and jet engines combined with hydraulic fluid perform perhaps 85 percent of all civilizations work"
" diesel fuel is between 40 and 60 percent of their direct costs of farming"
" the limiting factor ultimately is diesel fuel because diesel fuel is such a small fraction of crude oil, And is needed in farming, agriculture, mining, Transportation/Trucking logistics. It's all based on diesel fuel so if you start mining for renewables. That will double or triple the world's mining, you're going to double and triple the demand of diesel fuel and that's going to necessarily result in doubling or tripling the amount of crude oil necessary to support that. It will also make diesel fuel go up and gasoline go down because for every gallon of diesel fuel we make, we make two or three gallons of gasoline. It's automatic so it you can't scale it without starving today.."
So if you replace gasoline with ethanol and batteries, where are you going to get the diesel from? What are you going to do, throw the lighter distillates out? That's real energy efficiency. You could get more heavy oil from Canada. Keystone pipeline anyone? Oh, that was banned. Government idiots.
https://bfrandall.substack.com/p/crude-oil-is-like-raw-milk-and-diesel
The conclusion is inescapable, for civilization to survive we need to replace diesel fuel and related heavy distillates. That means batteries, battery materials need to be conserved for replacing diesel engines. Diesel trucking, diesel buses, diesel LRTs, diesel ferries & short distance diesel shipping, diesel generation, diesel mining equipment, diesel train locomotives, diesel heavy equipment. Diesel trucks being 1% of vehicles but use 20% of the transportation fuel. And that is the cream of fuels that keeps our civilization running.
Note that the motor driving the Tesla semi-truck you can pick up and carry away, it's the size of a football. With 3 motors having more power than a big Kenworth diesel. And Tesla's semi has 3X the torque of a big diesel truck. Leaves them in the dust climbing a hill or accelerating. And hardly uses its brakes, including going downhill. With 500mile battery pack weighs 5000lbs more than the Diesel Cab. But can actually pull a couple thousand lbs more in the trailer. With 30m to 70% recharge. You will make up the recharge time easily with increased acceleration and faster downhill travel.
These big battery packs are quite capable of replacing most of the diesel loads I mentioned. That's urgent. That should be the priority for battery usage. That puts batteries to real use. Light vehicles only drive an avg of 30 miles/day, that is a piss poor application for precious batteries. i.e for a Tesla with a 300mile range, that's using 10% of capacity per day. A heavy truck will use 200% of capacity in one day.
The only place batteries for utility storage make any sense is for spinning reserve or storage on a diesel grid, especially if augmented by wind & solar. Wasting 4X the batteries of EV's to store a minimum daily amount of wind & solar on a normal gas/coal/hydro/nuclear grid is just plain stupid. An expensive idiotic waste of batteries. Gas/coal/hydro/nuclear store energy far cheaper and far more effectively than batteries. Use that storage, not waste batteries on it.
"Critically Endangered Whales"
https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-c28
As if that matters.
Thanks, but where did you get the $65K loss figure? CNN reported a loss of $132K. Is the difference related to whether hybrids are included in sales?
Ford's website promotes EVs:
"Creating exciting new EV’s that drivers really want. But just don’t know it yet."
That last line says it all. They think they know what we want - just like the government. Think again. LOL
It's the operating loss of $1.32 billion on its Model e business divided by the 20,223 EVs sold during the quarter!
Robert: Appreciate the continued truth about EVs. Suugest you take a close look at the reason Ford's Blue Oval City plant under construction in Tennessee. Why would the company invest in that $X-billion plant when loosing so much money per EV? Perhaps a move of EV production to a lesser expensive state? Or another reason?
I use to live in Oakville Ontario & production at the EV Plant has been delayed until 2027. It was announced either last month or the month before…..
Might be time for the car companies to stop bending over and taking it. They should have stood up decades ago and told the government to pack salt, but here they are hemorrhaging billions because they can't locate their cojones with both hands.
Toyota will be flourishing as they have a large hybrid line up & to my knowledge are the only sizeable Manufacturer not to blow their brains out with EV’s.
If they can not keep the power up for homes, businesses, etc., how do they plan for the electric cars. With all the electronics out there and new construction being built do you really think our power will keep up..(absolutely not)..
Solar panels are also interfering with the climate change. The way I look at it: if the sun rays help expand power, the panels can reflex back too.
The next clash we're going to see is between tech bros and the green energy lobby. You think the struggling grid is having issues now? Wait until those EVs load up the grid with data centers and artificial intelligence too. Those are absolute power hogs and will likely require the companies to build out their own on-site generation. The future will get interesting.
Grids all over the world incapable of even a 1/3 adoption to EV’s. Sales have fallen as more people have been exposed to all the negatives/lies whether it be “ Zero emission, insufficient & unreliable charging network, Grid instability, 70% higher carbon manufacturing footprint, 90% of rare earth elements in China & price.
I don't think solar panels reflect much sunlight. They heat up under sunlight, but so does everything else. If we're going to start counting joules from everything the sun warms to above ambient temperature, we're going to need a bigger boat.
Suspect that Edsel is a photo of a restored sample. But the idea and the rest of the article (sans Alma) make the point.
I drive a 2016 F150 Lariat. Even when I bought it, I thought the price ridiculous. The only reason I did...I had a very good trade in on a 2011, 'sorta' pickup type vehicle, that knocked the price down. I'm gonna hang on to this this truck for as long as I can.
On a recent trip to a Ford Dealer, I saw a "Lightening"...then I saw the sticker price. I can understand why Ford lost $65K on each one sold. What a useless pile of metal and other materials.
Re: Alma - thanks for sharing a lovely song rendered by a lovely lady.
Ford stockholders need not panic. Biden will bail out the automakers.
Making products consumers want at prices consumers are willing to pay is not part of the government's game plan.
Brings to mind the Soviet Union's 5-year plans. Those plans produced the economic powerhouse that is Russia today, with a GDP ~1/12 of the U.S. GDP.
With our government's active direction, with the government using carrots and sticks, we can soon match Russia!
sorry the shareholders of GM got screwed when it went Bankrupt. They gave the equity to the UAW
Unfortunately, when “Biden bails out the automakers”, that means you and I, the taxpayers, are bailing them out.
Personally I'm reminded of the 60's when, in response to the oil crisis, the elites pushed econoboxes on everyone but themselves.
It seems that the best bet now is to greatly improve the billions of venerable ICEs. We propose the "diesoline" technology, which is a hybrid of current mainstream 2-cycle, 4-cycle and diesel, gasoline engine types. Current automobiles need only 2, 3 or 4 cylinders (instead of 4, v6 or v8), and heavy trucks need no aftertreatments (costing industry/economy $billions) - and save fuel by 1/3 or greater and 3 times driving power (torque).
Appreciate the tracking of loss-per-EV over time. Great metric to monitor.
Good analogy. The Edsel was known as Project E before its name was decided by a fake contest.
Poet Marianne Means submitted the name "Utopian Turtletop" in the fake contest, which would probably suit the EV as well.