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

Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#111

Post by [deleted] »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #106
phpisthebest wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance the manufacturing environment can move that fast. I know I work in it. The government can place all the magic words on the page they want, there are structural limits to how fast mines, plants, and other things can be built, even if Ford, GM, VW etc can switch their factories to EV's there is an entire supply chain that can not spin up that fast. Copper and Lithium production alone would need to…

So you're saying that production capacity of electric cars is going to slow down their growth? EV production capacity increased by ~5 million per annum last year (4 million of that in China). Current rate of production growth means 60% EV's in 2027.

[deleted]

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#112

Post by r00fus »

phpisthebest wrote: post #92
bryanlarsen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before 2030 we'll be seeing $7500 rebates on $15000 cars. That's a pretty strong mandate. Also, this proposed EPA rule is an even stronger mandate: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/climate/biden-electric-ca...

There is zero chance the manufacturing environment can move that fast. I know I work in it. The government can place all the magic words on the page they want, there are structural limits to how fast mines, plants, and other things can be built, even if Ford, GM, VW etc can switch their factories to EV's there is an entire supply chain that can not spin up that fast. Copper and Lithium production alone would need to…

How the hell did the US (or Germany for that matter) accomplish what they did in WW2?

If we treated the coming climate catastrophe as an actual crisis and waged war on carbon emissions, I'm sure as hell we could outdo what was done 80+ years ago.

The problem is that now we have to coddle the corporate elite who need to make guaranteed profits. And that takes time. Hope we have enough left.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#113

Post by r00fus »

outside1234 wrote: post #65

I'm super excited about our EV future. All we need is for V2G (Vehicle to Grid) and V2H (Vehicle to Home) technologies to land.

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.

[1] https://enphase.com/ev-chargers/bidirectional

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#114

Post by r00fus »

grecy wrote: post #15

it will begin modernizing the site in the second quarter of 2024 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.

All the better for consumers who want EVs.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#115

Post by rootusrootus »

pornel wrote: post #110
rootusrootus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are two types of F-150 buyers The F-series isn't the most popular vehicle in America because there are only two types of buyers. Roughly, the answer to "who is a truck person?" is "everyone."

This is so weird from a non-American perspective. Almost all of these luxury truck-shaped vehicles never see a speck of dirt, and are used to carry one person and maybe a grocery bag. People drive every day in oversized vehicles with dangerously poor visibility just because they might need to carry a larger item once in a while, even though their crew cab models have barely more cargo space than hatchback. Not to men…

> Almost all of these luxury truck-shaped vehicles never see a speck of dirt, and are used to carry one person and maybe a grocery bag.

That has not been my experience.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#116

Post by rootusrootus »

Alupis wrote: post #85
rootusrootus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do not use it as a truck Could you elaborate? It sounds like you're trying to suggest that towing an RV is the only use for a truck? But then you mentioned worksite, and the Lightning is very well suited for that (says my next-door neighbor, who operates a small construction company, and is quite happy to be electrified and not spending $1500/month fueling a gas-powered half ton).

I am specifically talking about your urban/suburbanites that commute daily in their trucks, and use the bed once or twice a year for small home projects. The rest of the year, a car or SUV would be more than sufficient. The point isn't that these people should not have a truck, the point is they do not need a truck and therefore the factors that influence their purchase are different than professionals that use the t…

> I am specifically talking about your urban/suburbanites that commute daily in their trucks, and use the bed once or twice a year for small home projects.

The very definition of truthy. Sounds good, even without a shred of evidence to back it up.

> A professional is going to be looking for something very different than an amateur home cook.

I guess. The home cook might be inclined to buy an absurdly priced knife. The pro and competent home cooks both will reach for a basic Victorinox knife for everyday use.

> He's probably not driving 2+ hours to a worksite out in the middle of no where,

Most work trucks are driven around town. There's a niche for people who travel hundreds of miles in a day, but it's not the most common use case at all. The Lightning works great for >90% of all the usual things trucks get used for.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#117

Post by Teever »

sbaiddn wrote: post #91
Teever wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that but all the innovations that we see in batteries can trickle down to all kinds of consumer devices.

In the face of civilizational collapse due to taking the wrong strategy vis a vis carbon emissions, my iPhone's battery life seems inconsequential.

I was thinking more like solar panels charging high capacity batteries that allow people to live off grid reducing the need to implement expensive to maintain infrastructure to rural locations.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#118

Post by robomartin »

ender341341 wrote: post #68
robomartin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From a technical POV, I disagree with the bet. 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 scal…

> 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. None of the players are willing to expand power generation for some future possibility, we have to scale up demand before they're willing to invest in that. It also ignores that the biggest problem currently isn't generation bu…

> Even california with all it's problem has enough capacity if there was better scheduling available to help flatten the curve.

I don't think so. Not enough power. I am in CA. Power problems are already serious enough.

Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero.

Also, power problems are guaranteed. This isn't theoretical and one can't wave it away with concepts such as scheduling. Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 explains that we have to go from 1,200 GW of power generation today to 5,338 GW for full electrification. That, again, cannot be waved-off with scheduling. Even half of that cannot be solved by shuffling cards. The problem is real and power generation has to come ahead of electrification.

I am not saying we need to double power generation five years before adding electric cars. No. What I am pointing out is that we are putting the cart before the horse.

CA says no more ICE vehicles after 2030 (I forget the year, I think that's right). That's 7 years from today. And yet, we did not simultaneously announce immediate projects to add power generation and delivery in support of the new vehicles to be sold starting in 2030.

How long does it take to add non-trivial power generation? Decades?

Somewhere around TWO MILLION new cars are sold in CA per year. The grid and power generation isn't ready for two million electric cars added every year starting in 2030. Those projects had to be launched three years ago, not five years from now.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#119

Post by Scoundreller »

sbaiddn wrote: post #109
bmelton wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't it make more sense to put the wear on your (cheap, easily replaceable) brakes than the (expensive, harder to replace) clutch though?

Manual tranny - blip the throttle before downshifting Auto tranny - downshift on the crest of the hill (Inlive in a very hilly area. Otherwise I don't bother)

> blip the throttle before downshifting

I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't do that at all. Clutch still good after 15 years.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#120

Post by ender341341 »

robomartin wrote: post #118
ender341341 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. None of the players are willing to expand power generation for some future possibility, we have to scale up demand before they're willing to invest in that. It also ignores that the biggest problem currently isn't generation bu…

> Even california with all it's problem has enough capacity if there was better scheduling available to help flatten the curve. I don't think so. Not enough power. I am in CA. Power problems are already serious enough. Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K…

> Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero.

With proper incentives a lot. The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day, so if we can get people to cool their homes down more during lulls in usage, and charge their cars during those periods too it would take a lot of slack, ACs are likely a much bigger hit to most grids in the southwest over the next several decades than EVs will be. With well regulated (see not Texas) demand pricing it shouldn't be hard to convince people to do a couple times a year changes to their thermostats & enable settings on their EVSEs or EV to lower usage during peak.

Your argument mostly boils down to "what if everyone stopped to fill up gas at the same time, there's not enough pumps, we can't support ICE vehicles".

Also sorry if I came off as dick-ish, I don't disagree that we should be expanding energy production as fast & cleanly as we can, but I think we as a society are much to unwilling to take the slightest inconvenience, and it feels like with scheduling too many people are at the position of "we've tried the absolute minimum and it didn't solve it, it's doing more isn't going to work."

Post reply on HN