Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by giobox » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

_hypx wrote: post #78

giobox wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history of fuel cell cars doesn't exactly paint a happy picture... I think its critically important we have managed to profitably make EVs at scale - no one has ever turned a profit on fuel cell cars, and indeed often sold them at enormous losses. See any of the ones Toyota shipped - the Mirai is sold at an incredible loss. This isn't to say these can't be fixed, but the best fuel cell cars simply haven't been as…

You do realize that BEVs predate internal combustion cars? You could've said the same thing about all EVs just a few years ago. The problem with BEVs is that they have gigantic resource requirements. It is very much replacing one problematic resource base with another. Fuel cell cars lack this problem. It is not inconceivable that this fundamental problem will force our hand in the future. Also, like I said, a fuel c…

> You do realize that BEVs predate internal combustion cars? You could've said the same thing about all EVs just a few years ago.

Toyota and others have tried and failed for decades, yes. The order of events is irrelevant to the discussion.

BEV sales managed to reach profitability at scale in less than a decade.

BEVs also have benefit of sharing technologies with many other devices, in a way fuel cell does not - its not surprising to me at all BEV is winning, and by a huge margin.

Supplying and pumping compressed hydrogen at temperatures well below freezing (the typical solution) at the pump is also not all that simple compared to an EV plug or even good ole' gas, and the range offered by the compressed tank is not all that amazing either.

Fuel cell tech will find uses I'm sure, but its not going to be affordable personal transport.

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

#82

Post by _hypx » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:02 PM UTC

sbaiddn wrote: post #37

hcurtiss wrote: post #3

Combined with the investments in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan, this is "bet the company" levels of investment. I pray for Ford's sake they picked the right horse (vis-à-vis, e.g., hydrogen or ammonia).

Its a regulatory bet, not an engineering one. The West is making a civilizational bet on EVs so it's not Ford that loses the bet, its the entire West. From a technical POV, I disagree with the bet. I think hybridization of ICE while transitioning to CNG+1%NH3 fuel (to have very high compression engines) makes a lot more sense. Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electr…

It's worth noting that just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean these types of bets are going to work out. I'm reminded of Japan's similar bet on computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Generation_Computer_Syst...

Sure, everything they did was, on paper, the correct move. The general prediction of the direction of computing was more or less correct. It just didn't happen on the timescale they envisioned, and simpler and cheaper short-term solutions turned out to be way better. Not to mention that simpler and cheaper solutions are way more flexible and faster moving, meaning nation-scale projects are often way too slow and cumbersome to even do the thing they were supposed to do.

Huge regulatory bets on transportation technology have the same problem. It wouldn't shock me if all of this ends in disappointment and bailouts.

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

#83

Post by waiseristy » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:06 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #54

zamnos wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they drive instead then?

The plain white worksite trucks you see are F-250's and bigger, mostly. The point was, majority of the F-150's you see cruising around are used maybe once a year to pickup potted garden plants. People like the idea of having a truck, but do not actually need a truck. That's who the Lightning is for, despite it's marketing for professionals, jobsites and the like.

The thing city denizens seem to not understand is that this fair-weather truck user is exactly who the F-150 was designed for. It was designed to be unladen 95% of the time. All the werk-truck wonk is just marketing to make sales. Ford knows who buys their products

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

#84

Post by _hypx » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:09 PM UTC

giobox wrote: post #81

_hypx wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that BEVs predate internal combustion cars? You could've said the same thing about all EVs just a few years ago. The problem with BEVs is that they have gigantic resource requirements. It is very much replacing one problematic resource base with another. Fuel cell cars lack this problem. It is not inconceivable that this fundamental problem will force our hand in the future. Also, like I said, a fuel c…

> You do realize that BEVs predate internal combustion cars? You could've said the same thing about all EVs just a few years ago. Toyota and others have tried and failed for decades, yes. The order of events is irrelevant to the discussion. BEV sales managed to reach profitability at scale in less than a decade. BEVs also have benefit of sharing technologies with many other devices, in a way fuel cell does not - its…

That is all very selective reasoning. You literally ignored what I just said, in that batteries have huge resource issues and that could force our hand. In the end, there's no coherent reason why one (and only one) type of EV must win.

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

#85

Post by Alupis » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #70

Alupis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You unintentionally make my point. If "everyone" is a truck person then no one is a truck person. Majority of people who own trucks do not use it as a truck... rather it's used like a glorified car or SUV. That clearly makes for two types of truck buyers, with two types of needs and wants. An electric truck is not for professionals - it's for your office commuter who likes the idea of a truck. The Lightning fits that…

> 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 truck and bed often.

It's the same with anything - take kitchen knives for example. A professional is going to be looking for something very different than an amateur home cook.

The F-150 Lightning was billed as a jobsite, professional's truck. However, it's much better suited for the other type of truck buyer in the US.

> says my next-door neighbor, who operates a small construction company

He's probably not driving 2+ hours to a worksite out in the middle of no where, hoping there's a charging station in the next-door field.

The Lightning only gets a claimed 230 miles range after all... 320 with the extended battery with an unloaded bed. Your average F-150 boasts 700+ miles range, for comparison.

Glad it works for him - but the Lightning really isn't suited for that type of work.

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

#86

Post by giobox » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

_hypx wrote: post #84

giobox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do realize that BEVs predate internal combustion cars? You could've said the same thing about all EVs just a few years ago. Toyota and others have tried and failed for decades, yes. The order of events is irrelevant to the discussion. BEV sales managed to reach profitability at scale in less than a decade. BEVs also have benefit of sharing technologies with many other devices, in a way fuel cell does not - its…

That is all very selective reasoning. You literally ignored what I just said, in that batteries have huge resource issues and that could force our hand. In the end, there's no coherent reason why one (and only one) type of EV must win.

Whats selective? Look at the world around you - BEV sales are in the millions of units per year. It's just common sense analysis.

Toyota shipped 2000 Mirais in 2022, I feel for the owners.

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

#87

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:16 PM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #80

giobox wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From new, you will get to 100k miles with the above on majority of decent EVs on sale. Beyond 100k, there isn't much, but you will likely need to do things like brake disc replacement or some shock work, but the costs are still minimal vs ICE car maintenance at this stage in an ICE car's lifecycle. If you do pads and discs at 100k on an EV, you will generally be good to 200k again. The shock work is no different to w…

> ICE car maintenance at this stage in an ICE car's lifecycle. What become the big ICE maintenance issues at this point? I know spark plugs can be a royal pain on some vehicles but at least iridium plugs last a very long time. (I’ll admit, I’m starting to deal with more seal leaks at 15 years. Need to track it down to avoid adding ~2L oil between my 10k mile oil change. And I’ve been neglecting trans/diff flushes) My…

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by sbaiddn » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:18 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #67

sbaiddn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a regulatory bet, not an engineering one. The West is making a civilizational bet on EVs so it's not Ford that loses the bet, its the entire West. From a technical POV, I disagree with the bet. I think hybridization of ICE while transitioning to CNG+1%NH3 fuel (to have very high compression engines) makes a lot more sense. Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electr…

> Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electric cars make very little sense in the short to mid term (until the marginal power is guaranteed to be sustainable) Doesn't the need for a car engine to be light enough and small enough to work in the car mean that power plants will almost always be able to be cleaner?

This is an excellent question but a massive one to answer. Probably the length of a scientific paper. It'd involve thermo, engineering economics, etc.

To keep it short, yes there is a return to scale, but it's a diminishing one. Gas turbines run at about 55% thermal efficiency. Large of small it matters little, that limit is set by the blade materials' melting temperature (which sets longevity).

Your car typically runs at about 30%, its efficiency partially offset by heat losses to the cylinder walls (ie the larger the better), but is mostly set by engineering decisions other than fuel efficiency (one big cylinder has less surface heat loss than four little guys but would be unbalanced)

But there are so many legacy design decisions in an ICE that no longer apply if we have hybrid drivetrains and ammonia/urea injection (to mitigate NOx from high compression).

The Prius challenged a lot (but not all) of these decisions and remains, in my opinion, the most revolutionary car of the past 50 years.

I really believe that an fossil fuel car engine can get an efficiency within the transmission losses of the best gas power plant. But even if ICE development were frozen, hybrids still make more sense, from a CO2 POV, than EVs

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

#89

Post by 1970-01-01 » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:20 PM UTC

boc wrote: post #24

hcurtiss wrote: post #3

Combined with the investments in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan, this is "bet the company" levels of investment. I pray for Ford's sake they picked the right horse (vis-à-vis, e.g., hydrogen or ammonia).

Electric cars have something that previous "green" vehicles never had: rapid acceleration. EVs are downright fun to drive. Sure they don't have the handling of a lightweight Porsche, but being able to walk a Mustang GT with an F-150 lightning on the highway drag race is something all the "truck guys" can brag about. That's a very important selling factor, especially from a test-drive perspective. The biggest hurdle i…

>Sure they don't have the handling of a lightweight Porsche, but

Be careful with those old concepts. Lighter weight is no longer always better for handling. Drivers state the Taycan has better turn in and a more neutral balance due to the low center of gravity when directly compared to the 911.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/25091/porsche-taycan-to-have-l...

https://www.hotcars.com/taycan-vs-911-road-test/

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

#90

Post by _hypx » Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 7:20 PM UTC

giobox wrote: post #86

_hypx wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is all very selective reasoning. You literally ignored what I just said, in that batteries have huge resource issues and that could force our hand. In the end, there's no coherent reason why one (and only one) type of EV must win.

Whats selective? Look at the world around you - BEV sales are in the millions of units per year. It's just common sense analysis. Toyota shipped 2000 Mirais in 2022, I feel for the owners.

And over a billion ICE cars...

Not to mention that if you go back a handful of years, BEVs were in the same boat as FCEVs. Like I said, all of this is selective reasoning and doesn't prove anything. And you're still ignoring my point about the resource problem. We could be forced to suddenly change our minds by reality no matter what.

Worth noting that something similar undermined all of the biofuel strategies of the past. Once people realized that biofuels simply couldn't scale, they had to abandon the idea, even though they also got plenty of government support.