Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 328 posts

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#101

Post by ksec »

influxmoment wrote: post #55
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

This is huge. To date, Tesla has been the only non-Chinese manufacturer talking iron. LFP is often touted for being cheaper than NMC, but given growing insecurity around battery-grade nickel supplies, using the far-more-prevalent iron and phosphate isn’t just about cheaper cars. It’s about having cars to sell in the first place. With respect to range anxiety, pretty much every EV in the 200 to 300-mile range is sold…

This is a very forward thinking move for 2018. I look forward to us all driving Chinese BYD cars at this rate of innovation

I will not be surprised if Ford enter into partnership agreement with CATL sometimes later.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#102

Post by ulfw »

cjdell wrote: post #13

I'm not sure why we aren't making EVs with small but upgradeable batteries. Like for example a $20k car with a 10kWh "good enough for now" starter battery that can be bought today. Still good enough for 90% of trips and upgradable to 50kWh with additional after market battery modules should the user decide. As simple as upgrading the RAM on an (old) laptop.

...except that this 'RAM' would weigh hundreds of kilos more and completely and utterly change driving dynamics but yea sure.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#103

Post by tuatoru »

curiousgal wrote: post #41

> Ctrl - F recycle > 0 matches It feels like we are trading one poison for another from a climate change perspective. Just passing down the buck.

Recycling is a last resort.

The mantra goes "reduce, re-use, recycle". In that order.

Recycling is a last resort. Please don't jump to it first. That's what people who want to virtue-signal do, not what smart people do.

Electric cars definitely cause less harm to the natural environment and people's health wellbeing than fossil fuel powered cars, so "reduce" is covered, even if not optimally.

People are also definitely re-using lithium batteries.

Since lithium batteries are a new thing, there is not yet a great enough flow of worn-out batteries to justify recycling at industrial scale as yet. Those as exist are being stockpiled for this, though. And a lot of R&D work is being done to set up for recycling.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#104

Post by MerelyMortal »

nl wrote: post #82
pharmakom wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think the push for hydrogen (highly impractical at scale) by the right wing press is part of fossil fuel industry attempts to spread fud around battery evs.

I hadn't realised until very recently that most hydrogen produced comes from coal: https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/explain... Most of the time it isn't a green fuel at all and is just a way to keep mining coal.

Electrolysis powered by nuclear energy seems very clean and green to me.

With the added benefit of not requiring an overhaul of the electrical grid to be able to handle everyone charging their cars.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#105

Post by MerelyMortal »

martin_bech wrote: post #69
snotrockets wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were plans in Japan for wide use of hydrogen as the fuel of the future. Japanese car manufacturers aligned on that, but weren’t keen on building the necessary infrastructure. You could lease a hydrogen fuel cell car in CA. There was even a lot of state incentives if you did. But very few fueling stations (iirc, only two in the whole Bay Area)

Because the infrastructure needed would be bonkers, and creating fuelibg stations is not really a solved problem. You also loose a big amount of energy converting from electric to hydrogen and back. The cars themselves almost always have low storage because the tanks are very big. Hydrogen car performance is also a lot lower then pure EV.

The infrastructure needed to create a power grid for people to charge electric vehicles at home would be double-bonkers.

Upgrading fueling stations seems much easier than mining all of the copper needed to add all of the extra lines for EV charging, and then upgrading the whole national grid.

Supposedly one company has claimed 95% efficiency on creating hydrogen from electrolysis:

https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electr...

Power that by nuclear energy, and it's a green & clean winner.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#106

Post by treeman79 »

chiph wrote: post #100
tedk-42 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Current-day Ford Motor having to go begging to China - for a major, iron-based component needed to produce more cars - that is laughable, and beyond pathetic. In a dark, miserable sort of way, if you care about America or its future. Sounds similar to Boeing where accounting for personal gain (promotions / raises) of upper managers and executives took effect over the long term advantage of the company.

Funny you should mention Boeing. Alan Mulally went to Ford in 2006 after working for Boeing for 35+ years. In my opinion he was a net positive for the company, securing a credit line just before the 2007 recession so that Ford did not have to get bailed out by the government. He also sold off Jaguar/Land Rover just in time before gas prices spiked and their sales slumped. I think he is one of the "good" Boeing execs,…

Story my dad told of McDonald Douglass merger was that they intentionally hired a drunk incompetent ceo to scare away all of their business. So that the merger with Boeing could be approved.

He had many stories to tell of engineering non sense there. Supposedly they just trained whomever to be an engineer. They offered to make my dad one since they liked him.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#107

Post by Peanuts99 »

iasay wrote: post #39
adrianN wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laptop batteries and EV batteries have a completely different performance profile. The data we have suggests that the battery will retain 80% of its maximum capacity for about as long as the rest of the car is expected to survive.

You miss the point. Most people don’t buy new cars. Most people buy second hand vehicles. They now risk degraded batteries and a huge incidental cost. My car cost me £5000 second hand. The cheapest EV battery replacement here is £12,500. I could write that car off twice for the price of a battery and still have enough money to go on holiday. When you buy the bottom end of the second hand EV market which is realistica…

Most journeys (80%+) are under 15 miles.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#108

Post by NickRandom »

bell-cot wrote: post #67

> Automotive giant Ford is shoring up its battery supply chain — partly by importing lower-cost, iron-based batteries popular in China — as it sprints to increase electric vehicle production. Old geezer's perspective: Back in its heyday, Ford Motor was one of the most vertically integrated (large manufacturing) companies in the world. They owned and operated their own fleet of ore carriers (cargo ships), to haul iron…

And of course as a further example of their supply chain integration no conversation on it would be complete without mention of Fordlandia [1][2]

[1] Lost cities #10: Fordlandia – the failure of Henry Ford's utopian city in the Amazon https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/19/lost-cities-1...

[2] Wikipedia Entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlandia

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#109

Post by JumpCrisscross »

MerelyMortal wrote: post #105
martin_bech wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the infrastructure needed would be bonkers, and creating fuelibg stations is not really a solved problem. You also loose a big amount of energy converting from electric to hydrogen and back. The cars themselves almost always have low storage because the tanks are very big. Hydrogen car performance is also a lot lower then pure EV.

The infrastructure needed to create a power grid for people to charge electric vehicles at home would be double-bonkers. Upgrading fueling stations seems much easier than mining all of the copper needed to add all of the extra lines for EV charging, and then upgrading the whole national grid. Supposedly one company has claimed 95% efficiency on creating hydrogen from electrolysis: https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-e…

There are ancillary benefits to upgrading the grid that retrofitting pipes to pump hydrogen doesn’t bring. Most of America and Europe would do just fine without upgrades, for most of the population. And the jurisdictions touting hydrogen (e.g. Japan) have 70s-era anti-nuke greens in power.

Hydrogen is a smart hedge to pursue. But thank goodness it’s mostly Japanese tax dollars doing it.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#110

Post by chiph »

cjdell wrote: post #40
klondike_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern EV design has the batteries integrated into the structural frame of the car. This is because the batteries are the heaviest part of the car, so you want them to be close to the ground and secure from impact. This also makes it very inconvenient to replace. Lots of companies (even Tesla) have attempted the replaceable battery concept but none have been able to make it work efficiently.

Would it not be significantly easier if we're using 4 or 5 independent modules instead of a giant monolith? Aren't cars routinely lifted into the air when being serviced? I understand that the structure of the car's body may be suboptimal and require extra reinforcement but if we're really serious about EV adoption and reducing battery cost then perhaps a trade-off worth making?

For an EV the main design constraints are aerodynamics and weight. If you need to add additional reinforcement to make up for the battery packs that haven't been installed, you're carrying that weight around all the time and taking a range penalty.

So assume your vehicle has 3 packs. You normally run it with just one pack because that's all you need to commute and run errands during the week. When you go visit the relatives in Florida, you install the other two packs to get the additional range. The car needs additional structural elements to meet safety standards when the extra packs aren't installed and they add 5% additional weight. That's weight you're carrying around every day, and that has a range cost.

Could it be worth it to swap out the extra structure elements when you install the extra packs, so at least you aren't taking the range penalty while driving long distance? Yes, but the manufacturer isn't going to want the liability of a customer removing what is a passive safety device, and then forgetting to reinstall it when they go back to city travel using only one pack.

NHTSA will also have input to this. From what I can tell - the applicable FMVSS is this one that deals with EV side impact protection, electrolyte spills, and electric shock.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/final-rule-occupant-protectio...

Post reply on HN