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

321–328 of 328 posts

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

#321

Post by martin_bech »

93po wrote: post #313
martin_bech wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks promising, but the costs are still way higher then putting in EV chargers, and you can set up EV charging at home, for almost no cost. Again the scale of hydrogen fueling stations needed would be massive

A quick Google shows that a Tesla supercharger installation is about $250k including the power grid infrastructure upgrades needed. The self contained hydrogen generator and fueling pump from H2 is about $2 million, but it's also interest free and can be paid over 30 years and the profits of it go to the operator, which isn't true of the Tesla superchargers. Larger and more popular gas stations can do about half a mi…

Thats yoyr problem right there.. its 10x the cost and only feasible if hydrogen cars become the norm, and hydrogen cars will not be the norm if no fillingstations are available. Meanwhile with an EV, I will never really need to visit a charging station, unless Im on a road trip.

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

#322

Post by hattmall »

kortex wrote: post #249
hattmall wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not electrify the road, at least highways, in part.

How? Rail at least provides a direct conductive path. Electrified highways would require inductive charging at 65mph (not feasible) or building overhead pantograph systems (expensive but at least vaguely tractable). Either requires specialized vehicles. Europe could pull it off due to its density, but the stretches of American highway which would benefit the most from it, would be a huge challenge.

Yeah, I don't know, but I was thinking like a strip in the middle and then maybe a metal tire under the middle of the car that contacts the strip. Obviously you wouldn't want it to electrocute you if stepped on and low voltage doesn't travel well so it would certainly require some innovation.

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

#323

Post by nr2x »

Amezarak wrote: post #275
electrondood wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla is well and truly fucked Sorry, this is just absurd. Tesla is the only company designing for massive scale and ruthless simplification from the start. Their entire DNA is based on YAGNI. Every other legacy automaker is pinned between their dealerships, their dependence on consumer debt, their own massive debt, and the fact that they'll need to cannibalize existing business to pivot to EVs. No other company ow…

> Tesla is the only company designing for massive scale In 2020 GM sold 6.8 million vehicles. The other manufacturers are already operating at massive scale. Or are you arguing the automotive market will suddenly dramatically increase in a way existing manufacturers can't deal with? That consumers will suddenly be flush with cash to buy more brand new cars than they are already buying and Tesla will be the most popul…

Exactly. I don’t see the entry level EV that tips the balance coming from Tesla. Model 3 is a luxury vehicle.

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

#324

Post by dv_dt »

carapace wrote: post #265
dv_dt wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't understand, that seems physically impossible? The engine would melt?

A gallon of gas has about 34 kWH of energy in it. Let’s say a ice passenger vehicle gets about 35mpg - so it takes about 1KWH of gas to move the car a mile.

A Tesla 3 has gets takes around 25kWH to go 100mi. So about 0.25 KWh per mile.

The ICE engine limitations cause it to use 400% more energy to go the same distance e. So even if gas is more dense, most of the energy is lost to engine thermodynamic limitations in using that gas - and yes mostly wasted energy in the form of heat dumping out the tailpipe.

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

#325

Post by carapace »

dv_dt wrote: post #324
carapace wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand, that seems physically impossible? The engine would melt?

A gallon of gas has about 34 kWH of energy in it. Let’s say a ice passenger vehicle gets about 35mpg - so it takes about 1KWH of gas to move the car a mile. A Tesla 3 has gets takes around 25kWH to go 100mi. So about 0.25 KWh per mile. The ICE engine limitations cause it to use 400% more energy to go the same distance e. So even if gas is more dense, most of the energy is lost to engine thermodynamic limitations in u…

Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out for me.

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

#326

Post by justapassenger »

namlem wrote: post #319
AngryData wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vertical integration builds up a resiliency against supply chain issues. You have a guarenteed supply of materials and components for a reasonable price no matter how crazy world markets get.

It's often too expensive to be worth it though. Just look at Intel.

It’s often not even about cost. Vertical integration works great if you can always make right R&D decisions. If you bet on wrong horses (even if you have money) you’re hopelessly stuck as you cannot “easily” shift to different suppliers that made better R&D choices. Just look at Intel.

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

#327

Post by snotrockets »

marvin wrote: post #145
signatoremo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did recall Tesla wasn’t serious about battery swapping but can’t find any information about getting credits for doing that, let alone just announcing it. Can you back that up?

The statement is worded critical of Tesla, but IIRC there's some truth to it. They engineered the Model S to be battery-swappable, and there was some advantage wrt. the regulatory credits to doing so. Can't find a link, but I remember reading it. They rolled out this service to a couple of spots in California, which was probably sufficient for the the credit regime, but ended up not expanding the program further and…

I am critical of Tesla, as it success was largely due to to public subsidy, and I believe we should hold such enterprises to the highest of standards, to guarantee the public made a sound investment. But I digress.

A short summary of the extra government subsidy Tesla got out of the non-existing battery swaps is here: https://seekingalpha.com/article/2724835-after-earning-tens-...

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

#328

Post by criley2 »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #179
criley2 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they spend two years demonstrating they are fair weather partners? Was it the part where they locked workers inside of factories producing goods for America to make sure that the Americans got their shipments in spite of the Covid-0 policy? Or was it how China is actually upholding most sanctions against Russia, despite giving less than 0 f's about Ukraine? IMO the real disaster would be a total de-link betwe…

> 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.

>If the fertilizer hits the fan re Taiwan, the CCP will not hesitate to cut off all trade with everyone who supports Taiwan.

Of the ~780 million Chinese who work, ~200 million support the export economy.

So the CCP will put 25% of their workers out of a job over Taiwan?

Feel free! Their regimes lifespan will be measured in months if they do.

This is why trade prevents wars. China has to solve the "200 hundred million jobs" problem before they can start a war.

Post reply on HN