Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

251–260 of 328 posts

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

#251
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could solve that problem pretty easily by just not relying on cars.

Solving for battery chemistry is cheaper and faster than rebuilding all of America (outside of a few metros where cars aren’t needed) around mass transit and walkability. Personally, I would love if urban planning was structured in a way so that all new development was anti-car, and redevelopment slowly transitioned away from prioritizing automobiles, but that doesn’t appear to be in the cards.

I think redevelopment can happen, and in fact the growth in BEV tech is the trigger. Ebike sales have been staggering since the pandemic era started, and high gas prices have kept the trend going. And while some may switch back in time, the entire calculus of what vehicles are feasible for tripmaking changes with small BEV - an assisted cargo bike can go pretty fast! While the highways are out, they use the available battery resources more efficiently than a car for nearby destinations, which are the majority of trips, so in a competition for tripmaking market share they will come out ahead. That makes them part of an emerging virtuous cycle, where more people see an opportunity to save fuel and maintenance costs, so they get bikes, so there are more bikes on the street, so there's more demand for bike infrastructure.

This pattern has emerged in every city that has a bikeshare or other micromobility scheme: Consumers can dip into the waters and try it out without being "cyclists" and worrying about theft or maintenance. They can put up with poor infrastructure in other respects as a result and use it for the subset of trips where they feel it's appropriate to do so. And the operators(who are in a profitable, growing market) can provide the financial muscle to sway City Hall's policy and make the infrastructure better - because the resulting network growth goes right back into their pockets. And with learning effects, it becomes increasingly easy to deploy at a larger and larger scale. The first few years when these companies emerged and spilled e-scooters all over the streets made for disastrous PR, but their execution has improved greatly since then, with sturdier vehicles, better battery lifetimes, and closer working relationships with cities to address safety.

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China spent the last two years demonstrating that they're "fair weather partners" when it comes to trade. And winter is coming. So obviously it's not bad _per se_ to rely on China ; but if it's not possible to diversify sourcing, this is begging for a disaster next time whatever geopolitic hits the fan.

> Fairweather What do you even mean, it wasn't them whom started the whole tradewar... It was the US gov

I meant that in any situation where china has to choose between interior market / upholding CCP plans / régional partnership vs trading with the global west, they will chose the former in times of crisis. Which is not a bad thing, again, it's just that everyone is relying on them as if they are an infinite factory of everything with unlimited supply, and it seems that, well, it's not true any more.

But if they decide to stop trade with Russia tomorrow, I'll reconsider.

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

#253

To me it seems that batteries in EVs make less sense than e.g. alcohol fuel ICE or hybrids. The main consideration is energy density, but alcohol is easy to make and handle, carbon-neutral, and the exhaust is non-toxic. This wouldn't make sense for the whole of car traffic because we use way too much fossil fuel to replace it all with e.g. industrial ethanol. But it could work as part of a transitional strategy. Fuel…

Almost all of the energy density advantage disappears in an ICE powertrain via largely unavoidable thermodynamic loss.

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

#254

> 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.

Not sure what your ctrl-f is hooked to:

https://brandessenceresearch.com/blog/top-5-lithium-ion-batt...

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

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trade prevents war because war would mean decimation of their economies and lead to likely depressions 1913 is calling and wants its optimism back. If the fertilizer hits the fan re Taiwan, the CCP will not hesitate to cut off all trade with everyone who supports Taiwan.

They won't stop trading with Taiwan supporting countries. They don't have any plans of that as far as anyone knows and never threatened it. The threat is that the US executes it's public plans of sinking ships trading with China in such a contingency.

That will sound tongue in cheek, and to some extend it is, but if the last few years have shown us anything, it's the perils of starting a sentence by "xxx won't yyy" (for several values of x and y.)

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

#256
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could solve that problem pretty easily by just not relying on cars.

Less car crash deaths too. But society will disintegrate if we move away from using cars, as opposed to disintegrating if we keep using them.

> society will disintegrate if we move away from using cars

why?

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

#257
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We could solve that problem pretty easily by just not relying on cars.

Without a solid plan this is a dead end.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trade prevents war because war would mean decimation of their economies and lead to likely depressions 1913 is calling and wants its optimism back. If the fertilizer hits the fan re Taiwan, the CCP will not hesitate to cut off all trade with everyone who supports Taiwan.

They won't stop trading with Taiwan supporting countries. They don't have any plans of that as far as anyone knows and never threatened it. The threat is that the US executes it's public plans of sinking ships trading with China in such a contingency.

War is hell.

In WW I, the Germans didn't move to "unrestricted submarine warfare" until 1917. The fact that the CCP doesn't plan for it now means absolutely nothing.

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, Ford explicitly said that if it hadn't been for the effect of the bailouts of an other manufacturers on shared supply chains, it would have needed a bailout.

Could you explain this with a couple sentences, I don't understand.

When dominoes start tipping they can all fall over.

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, Ford explicitly said that if it hadn't been for the effect of the bailouts of an other manufacturers on shared supply chains, it would have needed a bailout.

Could you explain this with a couple sentences, I don't understand.

Totally made up example (with easy to follow numbers):

Let's say GM, Chevrolet and Ford all buy 12V car batteries from BatteryCo at the rate of 1,000,000 a year (each). BatteryCo has fixed annual costs of $3,000,000 and per battery costs of $1. Right now, Ford pays $2/battery. If GM and Chevrolet both go out of business, Ford's 1,000,000 batteries need to absorb the whole fixed operating cost of $3,000,000. Therefore, Ford's per battery cost doubles to $4/battery.

You can imagine other numbers and other parts of the supply chain all working similarly.

Post reply on HN