Combined with the investments in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan, this is "bet the company" levels of investment. I pray for Ford's sake they picked the right horse (vis-à-vis, e.g., hydrogen or ammonia).
Its a regulatory bet, not an engineering one. The West is making a civilizational bet on EVs so it's not Ford that loses the bet, its the entire West.
From a technical POV, I disagree with the bet. I think hybridization of ICE while transitioning to CNG+1%NH3 fuel (to have very high compression engines) makes a lot more sense.
Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electric cars make very little sense in the short to mid term (until the marginal power is guaranteed to be sustainable).
EDIT:
A lot of comments so this would be my (preferred) solution. An hybrid ICE that:
- is like the Chevy Volt or Prius
- like the Mazda and Prius, runs on the miller cycle
- like a diesel has 20:1 compression. Knock and NOx considerations follow.
- like diesels has ureas/ammonia injection for NOx from high compression.
- like cars in the third world, runs on CNG (120 octane, high energy to carbon density)
- is sized for average power, not peak power, so when it runs, it runs at full open throttle.
All the bits Ive described exist already but no single car adopts them all.
Even if the carbon emissions match, the drivetrain in an ICE vehicle contains 2,000+ moving parts typically, whereas the drivetrain in an EV contains around 20. The benefits of TVs range beyond direct carbon emissions from the power unit.
Sure, everything they did was, on paper, the correct move. The general prediction of the direction of computing was more or less correct. It just didn't happen on the timescale they envisioned, and simpler and cheaper short-term solutions turned out to be way better. Not to mention that simpler and cheaper solutions are way more flexible and faster moving, meaning nation-scale projects are often way too slow and cumbersome to even do the thing they were supposed to do.
Huge regulatory bets on transportation technology have the same problem. It wouldn't shock me if all of this ends in disappointment and bailouts.
The energy requirements for the kind of full and rapid electrification being pushed (cars, trucks, boats, ships, aircraft, homes) seems daunting to me. Yes, Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 lays it out, and yet the scale of the thing is like nothing the US has done, well, I think I can say, ever.
I mean, we have to build brand-new grid-scale clean energy generation at a scale of almost five times currently installed power generation capacity. That also means the grid capacity to carry it.
My fear is that the haste could create some really serious power problems as the infrastructure lags vehicle deployment.
On the other hand, if things get ugly people won't buy them. This is also a problem. I firmly believe electric cars are the future. We are simply putting fantasy before reality. Reality means that power generation expansion must come first and cars follow based on quotas established to maintain generation/grid integrity.
> Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electric cars make very little sense in the short to mid term (until the marginal power is guaranteed to be sustainable)
Doesn't the need for a car engine to be light enough and small enough to work in the car mean that power plants will almost always be able to be cleaner?
Whats the co2 and environmental impact of building out CNG infrastructure for refueling? That seems vastly more costly in terms of resources than running wires to charge EVs. Especially when the electricity needed to charge an EV is the same as the electricity/energy needed to refine a tank of gasoline.
How much electricity will be needed to compress and refine the natural gas into fuel tanks? How big and heavy are those tanks?
Electric cars have something that previous "green" vehicles never had: rapid acceleration.
EVs are downright fun to drive. Sure they don't have the handling of a lightweight Porsche, but being able to walk a Mustang GT with an F-150 lightning on the highway drag race is something all the "truck guys" can brag about. That's a very important selling factor, especially from a test-drive perspective.
The biggest hurdle is fast-charging infrastructure in cities, but for the majority of Americans that live in suburban/rural areas with a garage, it won't be hard to install a charging system.
>Sure they don't have the handling of a lightweight Porsche, but
Be careful with those old concepts. Lighter weight is no longer always better for handling. Drivers state the Taycan has better turn in and a more neutral balance due to the low center of gravity when directly compared to the 911.
>Electric cars have something that previous "green" vehicles never had: rapid acceleration.
If people really cared about acceleration, why would they buy standard versions of the Model 3/Y (which outsell performance versions)? It's quick, but there are cheaper vehicles that outperform it 0-60.
VW is putting $200B into the transition, so they're not alone in betting the company. I think it's the right move, but since there are companies who aren't putting the same level of resources in as VW & Ford, we will see who the winners are in a few years.
Never going to happen. That will require an Act of Congress, and Congress cant agree on what color the sky is.
Even if it did, it will be marred with all kinds of overreach ripe for judical review and delay,
even if it got past the court challenges, it would be subject to reversal when the power inevitably shifts again...
If Ford is "bet the company" based on some kind of need for Federal Action (which would be very out of character for Ford anyway) they are placing a losing bet. GM would be more likely to look to the Federal Government to enforce their sales model, they are subbed Government Motors after all... ;)
I see very little evidence that hydrogen or ammonia powered cars have anywhere near the probability of success that battery electric cars do, for a number of reasons.
If anything, companies like Ford are taking the pragmatic approach, while Toyota has wasted years with their idiotic stubbornness towards pushing hydrogen fuel cells.
I know they were dumping a ton of cash into software to try and catch Tesla in FSD, but it remains to be seen whether any of that is a good investment at the moment.
Oakville employs 3,000 people, and though salaried, skilled-trade and "some" production workers will continue work through the six-month transformation that begins in the second quarter of 2024, temporarily laid-off employees will be back before the end of next year, said Tony Savoni, plant manager.
So 6 months of unemployment for presumably most of the 3000 employees.
Lots of EVs can support V2H/V2G already - VW ID4, Ford F150 Lightning, Nissan Leaf, etc.
2023 is a big year as companies like Enphase will roll out bidirectional charging support for solar installations [1]. Got a powerwall? How about an additional 5 from your Leaf (or 10 from your Lighting)? Pretty exciting.
I'd bet that Ford is the only legacy American brand that will make it to 2033. And it's because of their heavy investment to manufacture more and not just assemble - great to see it happen
>Ford, along with its rivals, are scrambling to upgrade existing facilities and build new ones as they shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to EVs. Ford has said it wants the production capacity to sell 2 million EVs a year globally by the end of 2026.
Tesla is expected to exceed Ford's 2026 milestone this year. It's safe to assume Ford is 3 years behind Tesla, and won't be able to catch them before the 2035 EV mandates.
> According to Ford’s press release, the American automaker sold a total of 10,866 electric vehicles in the first quarter of 2023, up 41% year over year (YOY).
> Sales of new Tesla electric vehicles rose for the first quarter of 2023, according to sales and production figures released by the EV maker on Sunday. For the three months between the start of the year and the end of March, Tesla delivered 422,875 EVs
Dumb. Ford's sales are mostly their F-150. Very few people want a lightning and very few can afford them. Imagine dumping $60-$100k+ on something that's worse than it's cheaper ICE version in every way.
Also, the used EV market is going to be trash. These are throw away vehicles. The only way they keep selling is government force mandates and rebates.
There are lot of F-150 buyers that want a good Electric Truck...
The F-150 Lightening has a strong launch, and reservation order book... then the actual truck came out and they burned alot of good will with the Community by rushing it to market with poor performance, poor battery tech, etc.
The F-150 Lightening was a BAD first showing for Ford, and it will be hard for them to recover from it with F150 owners.
Readit News
From a technical POV, I disagree with the bet. I think hybridization of ICE while transitioning to CNG+1%NH3 fuel (to have very high compression engines) makes a lot more sense.
Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electric cars make very little sense in the short to mid term (until the marginal power is guaranteed to be sustainable).
EDIT:
A lot of comments so this would be my (preferred) solution. An hybrid ICE that:
- is like the Chevy Volt or Prius
- like the Mazda and Prius, runs on the miller cycle
- like a diesel has 20:1 compression. Knock and NOx considerations follow.
- like diesels has ureas/ammonia injection for NOx from high compression.
- like cars in the third world, runs on CNG (120 octane, high energy to carbon density)
- is sized for average power, not peak power, so when it runs, it runs at full open throttle.
All the bits Ive described exist already but no single car adopts them all.
Sure, everything they did was, on paper, the correct move. The general prediction of the direction of computing was more or less correct. It just didn't happen on the timescale they envisioned, and simpler and cheaper short-term solutions turned out to be way better. Not to mention that simpler and cheaper solutions are way more flexible and faster moving, meaning nation-scale projects are often way too slow and cumbersome to even do the thing they were supposed to do.
Huge regulatory bets on transportation technology have the same problem. It wouldn't shock me if all of this ends in disappointment and bailouts.
The energy requirements for the kind of full and rapid electrification being pushed (cars, trucks, boats, ships, aircraft, homes) seems daunting to me. Yes, Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 lays it out, and yet the scale of the thing is like nothing the US has done, well, I think I can say, ever.
I mean, we have to build brand-new grid-scale clean energy generation at a scale of almost five times currently installed power generation capacity. That also means the grid capacity to carry it.
My fear is that the haste could create some really serious power problems as the infrastructure lags vehicle deployment.
On the other hand, if things get ugly people won't buy them. This is also a problem. I firmly believe electric cars are the future. We are simply putting fantasy before reality. Reality means that power generation expansion must come first and cars follow based on quotas established to maintain generation/grid integrity.
Doesn't the need for a car engine to be light enough and small enough to work in the car mean that power plants will almost always be able to be cleaner?
How much electricity will be needed to compress and refine the natural gas into fuel tanks? How big and heavy are those tanks?
EVs are downright fun to drive. Sure they don't have the handling of a lightweight Porsche, but being able to walk a Mustang GT with an F-150 lightning on the highway drag race is something all the "truck guys" can brag about. That's a very important selling factor, especially from a test-drive perspective.
The biggest hurdle is fast-charging infrastructure in cities, but for the majority of Americans that live in suburban/rural areas with a garage, it won't be hard to install a charging system.
I think it's a smart bet personally.
Be careful with those old concepts. Lighter weight is no longer always better for handling. Drivers state the Taycan has better turn in and a more neutral balance due to the low center of gravity when directly compared to the 911.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/25091/porsche-taycan-to-have-l...
https://www.hotcars.com/taycan-vs-911-road-test/
If people really cared about acceleration, why would they buy standard versions of the Model 3/Y (which outsell performance versions)? It's quick, but there are cheaper vehicles that outperform it 0-60.
Even if it did, it will be marred with all kinds of overreach ripe for judical review and delay,
even if it got past the court challenges, it would be subject to reversal when the power inevitably shifts again...
If Ford is "bet the company" based on some kind of need for Federal Action (which would be very out of character for Ford anyway) they are placing a losing bet. GM would be more likely to look to the Federal Government to enforce their sales model, they are subbed Government Motors after all... ;)
If anything, companies like Ford are taking the pragmatic approach, while Toyota has wasted years with their idiotic stubbornness towards pushing hydrogen fuel cells.
I know they were dumping a ton of cash into software to try and catch Tesla in FSD, but it remains to be seen whether any of that is a good investment at the moment.
Deleted Comment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_re...
So 6 months of unemployment for presumably most of the 3000 employees.
2023 is a big year as companies like Enphase will roll out bidirectional charging support for solar installations [1]. Got a powerwall? How about an additional 5 from your Leaf (or 10 from your Lighting)? Pretty exciting.
[1] https://enphase.com/ev-chargers/bidirectional
Ford has said it wants the production capacity to sell 2 million EVs a year globally by the end of 2026
So Ford's stated goal is to produce the same number of EVs in 2027 that Tesla will produce in 2023.
And infinity more ICE vehicles than Tesla will build in 2023. What is your point?
It doesn't matter what any non-Tesla company says, the Tesla fans will say it's not enough or unattainable.
My point was to show the reality of the situation. Not to say Tesla are the best (I've never even had one), but just show the state of play.
Tesla is expected to exceed Ford's 2026 milestone this year. It's safe to assume Ford is 3 years behind Tesla, and won't be able to catch them before the 2035 EV mandates.
https://electrek.co/2023/04/04/ford-slips-below-gm-for-2-in-...
> Previously, Tesla said that it had delivered around 88,400 vehicles in the first quarter of 2020
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/tesla-tsla-earnings-q1-2020....
and just for reference, this year:
> Sales of new Tesla electric vehicles rose for the first quarter of 2023, according to sales and production figures released by the EV maker on Sunday. For the three months between the start of the year and the end of March, Tesla delivered 422,875 EVs
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/04/tesla-built-more-cars-t...
How is this safe to assume?
Also, the used EV market is going to be trash. These are throw away vehicles. The only way they keep selling is government force mandates and rebates.
The F-150 Lightening has a strong launch, and reservation order book... then the actual truck came out and they burned alot of good will with the Community by rushing it to market with poor performance, poor battery tech, etc.
The F-150 Lightening was a BAD first showing for Ford, and it will be hard for them to recover from it with F150 owners.
F-150 Lightning seems to fulfill nearly ever checkbox wishlist item for the first group... but not much for the second group.
I wager we'll see a lot more Lightnings driving around urban/suburban areas than rural or jobsites.
What are you basing this on? Real world tests of the F150 EV seem to show it gets horrible efficiency while towing.
Why do all you EV diehards have to lie to push the product?