Ford Inside News banner

21 - 40 of 123 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,912 Posts
Political winds can reap havoc on industries and economy in the span of an election period. If you read the article, something that got my attention was how much extra energy storage/capacity is needed today for down periods, events, whatever (easy to do currently through storage), and if you think just supplying green energy parity with today's use is hard, now add the 'extra'. The mining challenge to obtain these rare materials, not to mention the recycling of them, is just not achievable. Never mind the cost and impact to industry and economies in the process. The final notable part of the article, was how battery and wind technology is old relative to the ingenious new methods for extracting oil, which is in it's infancy with far more room to improve than the former.


This final quote hits home in a way I have always felt in my gut, but could not convey into words:

"The inexorable march of technology progress for things that use energy creates the seductive idea that something radically new is also inevitable in ways to produce energy. But sometimes, the old or established technology is the optimal solution and nearly immune to disruption. We still use stone, bricks, and concrete, all of which date to antiquity. We do so because they’re optimal, not “old.” So are the wheel, water pipes, electric wires ... the list is long. Hydrocarbons are, so far, optimal ways to power most of what society needs and wants."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
Directly unrelated to topic, but certainly tangentially related, the link below is an exceptional read regarding energy use and the impact on society.

THE “NEW ENERGY ECONOMY”: AN EXERCISE IN MAGICAL THINKING

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf

Executive Summary:

A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal—all of which have turned out to be abundant.

So far, wind, solar, and batteries—the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons—provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s. Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons.

This “new energy economy” rests on the belief—a centerpiece of the Green New Deal and other similar proposals both here and in Europe—that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency. But this core analogy glosses over profound differences, grounded in physics, between systems that produce energy and those that produce information.

In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics—not clever software.

This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing— or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”

Among the Reasons:

--Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.


--Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.


--Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.


--The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
...doesn’t require magical thinking, simply realistic thinking. You don’t need chemical batteries for huge amounts of storage, you need it for quickly available short term storage. Mechanical storage of energy is easy. We’ve been doing it a long long time. Solar panel produces power, power runs pump, pump moves water up hill, water fills collection pond, sun goes down, water head pressure runs turbine, turbine generates electricity. Repeat.

They can easily do this with an electric crane and stacked stones where water doesn’t make sense. Same mechanical storage of energy.

Last, baseline power is always going to be needed, realistically. And, the best solution for that is nuclear. Easy peasy-co2 free-zy.

Trying to **** on renewable is idiotic. We can’t continue to dig and pump billions of tons of **** out of the ground in perpetuity. Work on solutions...like nuclear.

Last, battery materials are 100% reusable, which means once we have the material, we recycle, unlike oil, nat gas, or coal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,007 Posts
I understand the enthusiasm for EVs from some guys here, but the reality is that EVs will be an small part of the auto business for a long time. The proportion of electric cars with respect to the total sold worldwide will reach 1/3 by the year 2040 .... A date not at all close. Or at least, not as much as some would like. Therefore, the ICE cars will reign for, at least, 2 or 3 more decades.


https://qz.com/1620614/electric-car-forecasts-are-all-over-the-map/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Those "concerned" about the well-being of the planet usually have a profit and loss sheet sitting there beneath the list of which country needs to be shown "the benefits of democracy"; facts will always be skewed.



Renewables don't feed the military-industrial complex like natural resources do, the destruction of which then feeds the banks that loan war-torn countries to rebuild, which means a great deal of more energy is sold, I mean consumed. "Oh, look, you country has much oil/lithium. We'll mine it for you and sell it to you".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
Those "concerned" about the well-being of the planet usually have a profit and loss sheet sitting there beneath the list of which country needs to be shown "the benefits of democracy"; facts will always be skewed.



Renewables don't feed the military-industrial complex like natural resources do, the destruction of which then feeds the banks that loan war-torn countries to rebuild, which means a great deal of more energy is sold, I mean consumed. "Oh, look, you country has much oil/lithium. We'll mine it for you and sell it to you".
...lithium is relatively easy to get. The Chinese just came up with a method that reduces cost per ton by close to 80% (about $2200, down from around $12000).

And, once it is mined, it is reused, unlike oil, NG, coal. A mix of nuke, solar, and demand shift/curve smoothing is the best way forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,912 Posts
^

..........Tesla needs to overcome significant hurdles to enter the truck business, such as:

Developing a Test Vehicle. This includes significant "torture-testing" of a model, which will likely involve driving hundreds of prototype trucks millions of miles in the harshest conditions (including towing) for about 24 months. There are no signs that Tesla has even started this process.

Raising Cash. Tesla needs to raise the money to build a pickup-truck factory. How much? Probably at least $1.5 billion and more likely $2 billion.

Creating a Factory. Tesla also needs to actually build said factory. It can't put this factory in China because of a 25% U.S. tariff on non-NAFTA pickup trucks. That means Tesla has to most likely build a fully permitted factory in America -- something that will take probably two years even under the best of assumptions.


The Bottom Line
Even if it does all of the above, can Tesla actually make a profit selling pickup trucks? How many would it need to sell -- and at what price and gross margin -- to do so?

Yes, Tesla will almost certainly unveil a concept pickup truck with great fanfare a few short months from now. But actually producing one and making a profit on it is likely to be several years away.

If the stars align for Tesla, I think 2022 might be a possible target year for mass production. By contrast, Ford is likely to unveil a near-production-ready all-electric F-150 some time in 2020 and possibly put the model into production in 2021's fourth quarter.

And remember, Ford already has both the money and the factories to do so, while consumers will know that an electric F-150 will be fully tested and can be serviced at approximately 3,000 U.S. Ford dealerships. From towing to hauling to going off-road, which brand are truck buyers going to trust more?

What this means for investors over the next two years is that Tesla's price multiple is likely to deflate, whereas Ford has a good opportunity to pick up the electric glory from Tesla.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,007 Posts
...GF3 will be producing cars before year end. Model Y will sell at a rate 10x of the Mach E. I like Ford and think they’re headed in the right direction, but TSLA is a formidable competitor, make no mistake.

Maybe we need to wait until the Mach E will be launched by Ford to compare sales, or not? Inclusive, maybe we need to know the specifications of the Mach E to compare it with those Tesla refrigerators... and maybe we need to wait until we see the Mach E to compare it with those bateries things on wheels, too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
...GF3 will be producing cars before year end. Model Y will sell at a rate 10x of the Mach E. I like Ford and think they’re headed in the right direction, but TSLA is a formidable competitor, make no mistake.

Maybe we need to wait until the Mach E will be launched by Ford to compare sales, or not? Inclusive, maybe we need to know the specifications of the Mach E to compare it with those Tesla refrigerators... and maybe we need to wait until we see the Mach E to compare it with those bateries things on wheels, too...
...let’s. I’ve been waiting a very long time to see the Mach. I’ll just say this, if Ford produces more than 20k in 2020, I’ll be very very surprised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,912 Posts
...GF3 will be producing cars before year end. Model Y will sell at a rate 10x of the Mach E. I like Ford and think they’re headed in the right direction, but TSLA is a formidable competitor, make no mistake.


It's ridiculous, actually pathetic, to compare sales of BEV only.
Ford sells far more products, most of which generate big profits. They will offer BEV's and balance sales of them in future years, based on many criteria. They certainly will not race someone for sales crowns.....LOL.....on a product that generates zero profit. Let the other guy win that race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
...GF3 will be producing cars before year end. Model Y will sell at a rate 10x of the Mach E. I like Ford and think they’re headed in the right direction, but TSLA is a formidable competitor, make no mistake.


It's ridiculous, actually pathetic, to compare sales of BEV only.
Ford sells far more products, most of which generate big profits. They will offer BEV's and balance sales of them in future years, based on many criteria. They certainly will not race someone for sales crowns.....LOL.....on a product that generates zero profit. Let the other guy win that race.
...the Model 3 generates more revenue in CA than the F150 (and anything else, for that matter) The Model Y should sell faster than the Model 3. These are sign posts.

Tesla won’t overtake F overnight, or probably even over the next decade, but stop clasping your hands over your ears and saying “I’m not listening, I’m not listening.”

Tesla, regardless of your personal distaste, is THE driving force in the industry right now and forcing every manufacturer to respond, whether they possess the technical institutional knowledge or not. BMW is in turmoil. Their reluctance to invest in EV could very well be the destruction of the brand.

This **** is real. It isn’t some flash in the pan. The world really is changing and moving away from ICE. I think F understands this and is preparing, unlike BMW, unlike Toyota, unlike Honda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,912 Posts
...the Model 3 generates more revenue in CA than the F150 (and anything else, for that matter) The Model Y should sell faster than the Model 3. These are sign posts.

Tesla won’t overtake F overnight, or probably even over the next decade, but stop clasping your hands over your ears and saying “I’m not listening, I’m not listening.”

Tesla, regardless of your personal distaste, is THE driving force in the industry right now and forcing every manufacturer to respond, whether they possess the technical institutional knowledge or not. BMW is in turmoil. Their reluctance to invest in EV could very well be the destruction of the brand.

This **** is real. It isn’t some flash in the pan. The world really is changing and moving away from ICE. I think F understands this and is preparing, unlike BMW, unlike Toyota, unlike Honda.
Stop trying to paint me as some ignorant Tesla hater. It is so boorish.

The only reason I enjoy pointing out the challenges Tesla faces with competition entering the fray, is to counter annoying fanbois foolish enough to believe Tesla has no head winds coming up, and that somehow Ford and the rest of the industry can never make or produce BEV's that customers want.

Here is my prediction 2 years from now,

Ford will be basking in high profits from high margin products hitting on all cylinders, along with some zero to low margin BEV's.

Tesla might actually finally yield a profit, but given the mega BEV headwinds coming, I would not count on it.

Hate has nothing to do with facts.

Enjoy them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
...the Model 3 generates more revenue in CA than the F150 (and anything else, for that matter) The Model Y should sell faster than the Model 3. These are sign posts.

Tesla won’t overtake F overnight, or probably even over the next decade, but stop clasping your hands over your ears and saying “I’m not listening, I’m not listening.”

Tesla, regardless of your personal distaste, is THE driving force in the industry right now and forcing every manufacturer to respond, whether they possess the technical institutional knowledge or not. BMW is in turmoil. Their reluctance to invest in EV could very well be the destruction of the brand.

This **** is real. It isn’t some flash in the pan. The world really is changing and moving away from ICE. I think F understands this and is preparing, unlike BMW, unlike Toyota, unlike Honda.
Stop trying to paint me as some ignorant Tesla hater. It is so boorish.

The only reason I enjoy pointing out the challenges Tesla faces with competition entering the fray, is to counter annoying fanbois foolish enough to believe Tesla has no head winds coming up, and that somehow Ford and the rest of the industry can never make or produce BEV's that customers want.

Here is my prediction 2 years from now,

Ford will be basking in high profits from high margin products hitting on all cylinders, along with some zero to low margin BEV's.

Tesla might actually finally yield a profit, but given the mega BEV headwinds coming, I would not count on it.

Hate has nothing to do with facts.

Enjoy them
...like the headwinds of Iran seizing tankers in the Straits of Hormuz? You might want to swap that wind’s direction 180°.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,912 Posts
...like the headwinds of Iran seizing tankers in the Straits of Hormuz? You might want to swap that wind’s direction 180°.
Are you talking about the 2% surge in oil prices that CNN reported.
Wow......a blip is now a surge huh?

Gotta love fake news. And America is the largest producer now, and the technology is still young in how we developed new methods to extract the massive oil reserves we are still finding. Thank our current President for this.


Anyway, I see what you did here, deflect deflect deflect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
...like the headwinds of Iran seizing tankers in the Straits of Hormuz? You might want to swap that wind’s direction 180°.
Are you talking about the 2% surge in oil prices that CNN reported.
Wow......a blip is now a surge huh?

Gotta love fake news. And America is the largest producer now, and the technology is still young in how we developed new methods to extract the massive oil reserves we are still finding. Thank our current President for this.


Anyway, I see what you did here, deflect deflect deflect.
...who are you trying to convince? Me or you?
 
21 - 40 of 123 Posts
Top