Ford hits the brakes on $12 billion in EV spending because EVs are too expensive

[manly]

That is a big one. Range would be far less of an issue if there were as many charging stations as gas stations. Secondly, cutting charging times down. Lastly, getting prices down (excluding the land barge problem @Brainonska511 mentioned). I hope to by a BEV in a couple years when it's time to send off my Camry to it's likely last owner.

Unfortunately, growing the EV market 'organically' just won't work and China was the first to recognize this. Straight out subsidies at POS (!tax rebates) would help, as would raising the price limit. If we want to switch over to selling almost exclusively BEV in 20 years, we will have to spend more than the $83B allocated by the Biden Admin and Congress. Changing out and entirely ICE/Fossil Fuel based transport economy is a pretty heavy lift. The very large auto Industry as a whole and consumer momentum argue against any organic growth (particularly on the consumer side based on savings in the first 7-8 years the first owner keeps the car).

You're right about the prices. Consumers claim range is an issue, but a typical daily commute is under 20 miles one way. Most households have multiple vehicles, so keep your ICE SUV for weekend road trips. I'm not saying range isn't a selling point, because it absolutely is. But as a practical matter, anything close to 250 miles real world is more than enough for the vast majority of use cases. My understanding is that 150 kW charging is quite good, and the fastest options are already excellent (and will be mainstream in 7 years). Unfortunately I believe the BIF intends to subsidize the installation of a lot of slow L2 chargers, which are arguably already obsolete.

China is already up to 25% BEV market share of new auto sales (nearly 40% "plugin" market share). They have tons of organic growth, because they have tons of affordable models to choose from. So China is a bit ahead of California, way ahead of the U.S. as a whole, and on pace to replicate what Norway has already done. The EU is very concerned that Chinese BEV automakers will dominate their markets and if that comes to pass, the U.S. could be next (trade war notwithstanding).

Subsidies certainly accelerate the transition, but I mainly disagree with U.S. BEV subsidies as currently constructed. Initially they were designed to aid automakers willing to develop BEVs at a time when there was no market for them. So setting a lifetime manufacturer cap makes a lot of sense to me (probably 200k is too low). Now we've dropped the cap even though Tesla dominates sales, so what ends up happening is that we're all subsidizing the upper middle class purchase of $50k+ BEVs. If your only goal is electrification as quickly as possible, then that's okay. Otherwise it's an inefficient use of funds (notice that there's a massive FY2023 federal deficit and debt servicing costs are growing briskly), and essentially a wealth transfer from all taxpayers to the top 15% of car buyers (my ballpark estimate).

Sure it's a Scandinavian country of barely 5.5M residents, but Norway has proven that it doesn't take 20 years to transition if your consumers appreciate that BEVs are a part of the solution to reducing carbon emissions (and public policy is aligned with this goal). Now if your consumers are addicted to light trucks and inefficient ICE drivetrains and are being told BEVs are evil, then it's anybody's guess how long it'll take us. When there's near price parity between BEV and ICE, and similar options as far as models consumers want, then we can truly judge consumer demand.

 

[Red Squirrel]

They need to make actual affordable EVs, and if that's so hard to do because of the batteries, then focus on plug in hybrids with smaller batteries. Not traditional hybrids, but full EVs with gas generator. Something like the Volt. It's too bad that concept never really took off since it seems like the most logical way to go about it. You'd only really need to use gas when you're going far on the highway, in town just to go to work and such you wouldn't need the gas at all as long as you charge it. Ideally the car would probably want to have a mode where it does use the gas once in a while just to cycle the systems like fuel lines etc.

 

[K1052]

Unfortunately I believe the BIF intends to subsidize the installation of a lot of slow L2 chargers, which are arguably already obsolete.

I think there is a place for L2s still in spots where you're going to be parked for a long time. I'd love for a lot more hotels to have them as we could wake up to a fully charged car after an overnight somewhere instead of trying to hunt down a L3 site.

 

[mindless1]

The issue is still limited battery materials and tech.

With this limit, the smaller the community, or denser the country, the more sense it makes to switch to EVs faster. This can happen because the demand is a small % of available resources, not like if the US suddenly tried to sell 30% EV vehicles this decade which simply isn't possible.

With the lower adoption rate, it makes less and less sense to use tax money to invest in infrastructure that only a minority benefit from, since it isn't really just throwing more charging stations here and there, rather the whole electric grid we're talking about, and then that power has to come from somewhere which is one of the great EV lies, that we can pretend that doesn't cause a lot more carbon dioxide production too.

What is truly sustainable? ICE vehicles, fueled by biofuel, where the carbon in it, came from the *crops* sinking that out of the atmosphere to begin with. Corn just isn't right nor is it right to pour all this money into the failure in logic that EVs are, instead of developing more efficient biofuel generation.

I've stated it before and will state it again. We had EVs over 125 years ago. ICE won out, and still does in the bigger picture, because we still do not have the battery tech to sustain it. After a few more years of EV sales, all the resources to make batteries, will only be able to supply replacement batteries for the existing EV fleet, lest we prematurely junk them all because it's cost prohibitive to buy new batteries for them? That's not green.

What is more green is building modular platform vehicles that are more repairable, stay on the road as long as possible, and use sustainable biofuel. Will that mean that the average person doesn't drive 13K mi per year? Quite possibly, that is part of the problem in the US, the wider expanses and idea that insufficient thought is put towards more conservative traveling. Supposedly the average american travels 40 mi./day just to commute back and forth to work, as the sole vehicle occupant.

We need for vehicles to cost less, stop trying to make them more efficient rather than longer lasting and less expensive to repair, and develop biofuel programs. Cease ALL EV sales until better battery tech is developed. That's always *just around the corner* yet we've been trying for 125 years and still not there yet... so no, it's not reasonable to think it's just around the corner. Until it happens. Right now as it stands, we're raping the planet for the low hanging fruit to get battery materials, and shortages being projected year over year, even at the current low sales rates.

The math does not add up. We will end up having to rape the oceans too, and then pat ourselves on the back for trying to reduce global warming when it's going to happen anyway because the small, actual decrease in CO2 when you factor in all aspects, is just a drop in the bucket compared to everything else.

The bottom line is that the planet has finite resources but gave us a natural way to generate energy from the only input we have, the sun. Solar power (panels) cannot do that because it again depends on finite resources. Biofuel, not so much. Plants will keep growing long after our species has snuffed itself out. Nuclear is a different matter, a reasonable stop gap measure till we get biofuel worked out, but for our other electrical needs, not the waste that is EVs.

 

[drnickriviera]

Can't you say the exact same thing for biofuels? Didn't Rudolph Diesel run some of his first engines on peanut oil? Where's the revolutionary breakthrough in biofuels? They've had 125yrs to work on it! It's been a while since i've followed biofuels, but I remember the same stuff. Always some new algal biofuel that was going to revolutionize the industry and it never went commercial. Even the biodiesel producers from waste oil had to have gov subsidies just to survive.

 

[bbhaag]

PHEVs don't always have a pure EV mode. I expect that, if the latest EPA CO2 rules stand, most cars will have some way (not necessarily an easy or quick way) to plug in a hybrid battery. But it may be only a 48V starter-generator mild hybrid that helps turn the engine. It may still have the desired effect of lowering CO2 emissions, depending on how often it's plugged in, but not by as much as a pure EV.

I'd like to see all the PHEVs I expect are coming add solar panels, so they charge whether they're plugged in or not.

PHEV vehicle support is starting to wane within certain government agencies and journalist circles. The reason being is that most people just treat it like a hybrid and don't take the time to plug it in therefore negating the benefit. Solar panels could help offset this but not to the same extent.

 

[Zorba]

Depending on the car, the decline in value is supply catching up and dealers not being able to pull that dealer markup BS.

It also wouldn't bother me much if used car prices in general returned to a pre-2020 level of sanity.

The sharp decline is also when the tax credit was renewed, which I'd expect to affect the cost of used cars.

I have a Bolt on order, it has been a serious PITA to get. I really wish Chevy would just like me order what I wanted and deliver it 12 weeks later. They are definitely having no problems selling the Bolts, amazing that people want to buy a $22,500 car more than $60,000 car. I am also guessing Venn diagram of people that want big ass cars and care about the environment or saving gas has a small overlap, yet all these companies are just pumping out big ass, expensive cars.

 

[mindless1]

Can't you say the exact same thing for biofuels? Didn't Rudolph Diesel run some of his first engines on peanut oil? Where's the revolutionary breakthrough in biofuels? They've had 125yrs to work on it! It's been a while since i've followed biofuels, but I remember the same stuff.

Yes, I'd imagine you've never followed biofuels if the only concept you have is peanut oil over 100 years ago, opposed to the obvious elephant in the room, which is the sub-optimal farmer-subsidized choice of ethanol derived from corn.

Politics once again gets in the way. Government based on people who mostly strive to win popularity polls, should STFU and let science take over. Not faux-science with an agenda but rather, long term planning. It is insane to plan a transportation method upon a battery tech that is not scalable. Biofuel is scalable, until the population rises beyond the land (and sea) to sustain it. Cultivating the ocean is not the same as raping it. That same population increase poses more problems for EV production to meet vehicle needs, than biofuel vehicle production.

At the same time, if you have a lot of left over peanut oil which would go to waste and a diesel vehicle, go for it.

 

[Ken g6]

I think there is a place for L2s still in spots where you're going to be parked for a long time. I'd love for a lot more hotels to have them as we could wake up to a fully charged car after an overnight somewhere instead of trying to hunt down a L3 site.

Especially free L2's, as a loss-leader to get business in the door. They work for PHEVs too. I think they could be wired for only L1 charging speed and I'd still like them.

It's too bad the bi-directional chargers we need at businesses (to deal with the duck curve) basically need to be the more expensive L3's, even if they only run at L2 speeds.

 

[AdamK47]

Ford and their rush to EV.

 

[Ajay]

Ford and their rush to EV.

Basically true for for any company not named Tesla or the several Chinese car companies that have been doing BEVs for a while and have worked out many of these bugs.

 

[Brovane]

Yes, I'd imagine you've never followed biofuels if the only concept you have is peanut oil over 100 years ago, opposed to the obvious elephant in the room, which is the sub-optimal farmer-subsidized choice of ethanol derived from corn.

Politics once again gets in the way. Government based on people who mostly strive to win popularity polls, should STFU and let science take over. Not faux-science with an agenda but rather, long term planning. It is insane to plan a transportation method upon a battery tech that is not scalable. Biofuel is scalable, until the population rises beyond the land (and sea) to sustain it. Cultivating the ocean is not the same as raping it. That same population increase poses more problems for EV production to meet vehicle needs, than biofuel vehicle production.

At the same time, if you have a lot of left over peanut oil which would go to waste and a diesel vehicle, go for it.

Well except for the fact that battery tech is scalable.
Bravo for the Fox News talking points however.

 

[mindless1]

Well except for the fact that battery tech is scalable.
Bravo for the Fox News talking points however.

Completely backwards. It isn't scalable, which is why they cost so much and there is an impossible shortage that prevents scaling to meet projections, and also caused some to switch to inferior LPF battery tech just to fill the orders they can.

It's a Ford topic, so would it interest you to realize that Ford expects to lose $4.5B on EVs this year? Quote:

It's official: The battery crunch is the new chip shortage

Challenges surrounding electric vehicle production and the battery supply chain are piling up for legacy automakers trying to catch Tesla.

www.businessinsider.com

How do you know so much about Fox News? I never watch it so was this an attempt at a reverse troll that failed miserably?

 

[Brovane]

Completely backwards. It isn't scalable, which is why they cost so much and there is an impossible shortage that prevents scaling to meet projections, and also caused some to switch to inferior LPF battery tech just to fill the orders they can.

It's a Ford topic, so would it interest you to realize that Ford expects to lose $4.5B on EVs this year? Quote:

It's official: The battery crunch is the new chip shortage

Challenges surrounding electric vehicle production and the battery supply chain are piling up for legacy automakers trying to catch Tesla.

www.businessinsider.com

What data shows there is an impossible shortage? Using LFP batteries isn't a problem. I have a bunch of them at my house that I use as stationary storage for my solar system. They are good alternative when you don't need maximum energy density and LFP batteries have a longer cycle life than NCM batteries.

Did you know that Tesla has had $5.5B+ in Net Income for the first 9-months of 2023?

 

[Ajay]

What data shows there is an impossible shortage? Using LFP batteries isn't a problem. I have a bunch of them at my house that I use as stationary storage for my solar system. They are good alternative when you don't need maximum energy density and LFP batteries have a longer cycle life than NCM batteries.

Did you know that Tesla has had $5.5B+ in Net Income for the first 9-months of 2023?

Well, Lithium is a finite resource that doesn't exist in high concentrations in the earth's upper crust. I've seen estimates that there is currently enough Lithium to support ~1.5B BEV's. I can't find a number for the total number of ICE powered vehicles around the globe. But, fleet vehicles alone (cars, trucks, light duty delivery vehicles) are expected to peak out at 2.2B units. So, new technologies will be required if we plan to completely replace ICE vehicles across all market sectors. We are not going to get their by 2035 and probably not even by 2050 - but hopefully we can reach a majority conversion by that later date.

 

[sdifox]

Well, Lithium is a finite resource that doesn't exist in high concentrations in the earth's upper crust. I've seen estimates that there is currently enough Lithium to support ~1.5B BEV's. I can't find a number for the total number of ICE powered vehicles around the globe. But, fleet vehicles alone (cars, trucks, light duty delivery vehicles) are expected to peak out at 2.2B units. So, new technologies will be required if we plan to completely replace ICE vehicles across all market sectors. We are not going to get their by 2035 and probably not even by 2050 - but hopefully we can reach a majority conversion by that later date.

KAUST spinout will extract lithium from seawater - The Engineer

A new venture between King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) and Saudi mining company Ma’aden will use seawater as a source of lithium.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Sea water is where most of the Lithium is. Just do a combined desalination/lithium extraction plant.

 

[Ajay]

KAUST spinout will extract lithium from seawater - The Engineer

A new venture between King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) and Saudi mining company Ma’aden will use seawater as a source of lithium.

www.theengineer.co.uk

Sea water is where most of the Lithium is. Just do a combined desalination/lithium extraction plant.

Interesting - thanks! With enough power - a desal/lithium extraction plant would be a win-win.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well, Lithium is a finite resource that doesn't exist in high concentrations in the earth's upper crust. I've seen estimates that there is currently enough Lithium to support ~1.5B BEV's. I can't find a number for the total number of ICE powered vehicles around the globe. But, fleet vehicles alone (cars, trucks, light duty delivery vehicles) are expected to peak out at 2.2B units. So, new technologies will be required if we plan to completely replace ICE vehicles across all market sectors. We are not going to get their by 2035 and probably not even by 2050 - but hopefully we can reach a majority conversion by that later date.

We could make our lithium supplies go further if we stopped putting oversized batteries in oversized vehicles, but that would require the public to accept smarter sized vehicles. They don't need to be Richard Scary Apple Cars, but selling electrics as sedans and hatchbacks would allow the same number of battery cells to power more vehicles.

 

[Brovane]

Well, Lithium is a finite resource that doesn't exist in high concentrations in the earth's upper crust. I've seen estimates that there is currently enough Lithium to support ~1.5B BEV's. I can't find a number for the total number of ICE powered vehicles around the globe. But, fleet vehicles alone (cars, trucks, light duty delivery vehicles) are expected to peak out at 2.2B units. So, new technologies will be required if we plan to completely replace ICE vehicles across all market sectors. We are not going to get their by 2035 and probably not even by 2050 - but hopefully we can reach a majority conversion by that later date.

How did they arrive at that number of 1.5B BEV's?

 

[Zorba]

Well, Lithium is a finite resource that doesn't exist in high concentrations in the earth's upper crust. I've seen estimates that there is currently enough Lithium to support ~1.5B BEV's. I can't find a number for the total number of ICE powered vehicles around the globe. But, fleet vehicles alone (cars, trucks, light duty delivery vehicles) are expected to peak out at 2.2B units. So, new technologies will be required if we plan to completely replace ICE vehicles across all market sectors. We are not going to get their by 2035 and probably not even by 2050 - but hopefully we can reach a majority conversion by that later date.

This is why we should be trying to reduce the number of cars needed overall.

 

[mindless1]

Farm the oceans... that can't possibly have an environmental impact far greater than some impoverished children being put down into holes in the ground to get it.

Even without that, anyone want to guess why we weren't doing that first? It only makes sense if the cost of batteries continues to rise.

 

[Zorba]

Farm the oceans... that can't possibly have an environmental impact far greater than some impoverished children being put down into holes in the ground to get it.

Even without that, anyone want to guess why we weren't doing that first? It only makes sense if the cost of batteries continues to rise.

We currently farm the oceans for oil, which only makes sense because land oil got more expensive. Before that we farmed the oceans for whale oil.

 

[sdifox]

Farm the oceans... that can't possibly have an environmental impact far greater than some impoverished children being put down into holes in the ground to get it.

Even without that, anyone want to guess why we weren't doing that first? It only makes sense if the cost of batteries continues to rise.

We don't need more than 0.1% of the lithium in the ocean. Also the desalination will help restore salinity in the ocean, though not sure it is enough to counter melting ice dilution.

 

[Ajay]

How did they arrive at that number of 1.5B BEV's?

Can't recall the article, or I would have posted it. But, it was based on known amount of Lithium available today via mining/pumping divided by the average amount of Lithium in BE vehicles today.

 

[Brovane]

Can't recall the article, or I would have posted it. But, it was based on known amount of Lithium available today via mining/pumping divided by the average amount of Lithium in BE vehicles today.

In 2013 the known Lithium Reserves identified worldwide was 39.5 Million Tons. In 2018 known reserves where 53 Million tons. In 2023 known reserves where 98 Million tons. These estimates are from the USGS. Over the last decade continuing exploration has doubled the amount of identified Lithium reserves known worldwide. I don't see having enough Lithium as a issue when we keep identifying more and more reserves every year. I also don't see ~1.5B BEV's as anything other than a SWAG when more reserves are identified every year.