Electric Vehicles - Information & Updates

RQA wrote:https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2022/10/19/feds-launch-2-8-billion-for-ev-battery-projects-none-in-michigan/69574183007/

The U.S. Department of Energy on Wednesday announced $2.8 billion in funding across 12 states for electric vehicle battery production. None of the projects — most of which focus on battery mineral processing or component manufacturing — are in Michigan

Maybe I should post this in the Whitmer Is Killing It thread as well.

Since this is all about providing funding for the mining and refining of raw materials and since Michigan is mostly not in the business of mining those raw materials, the Ni mine between Marquette & Negaunee being the exception, but it is fully developed and, in its end-of-life cycle now, it shouldn't be surprising for this phase of funding that Michigan is not in the loop.

Do you really think that someone is going to open up deep rock copper mining in Michigan, again?

However, as the DetNews article notes ---

But that doesn't mean Michigan won't benefit from the influx of cash: It targets a portion of the EV battery supply chain that is particularly weak within the U.S. right now, experts say, and strengthening those links will help Michigan-based companies as they pivot to EVs.

There has been rapid growth in battery cell and battery pack assembly plants over the past three years, including in Michigan, said Sam Abuelsamid, a principal research analyst at Guidehouse Insights.

The DOE officials said there will be multiple rounds of funding and that Michigan projects might receive funding in the future depending on "which part of the supply chain we're solving for." The $2.8 billion in funding is the first round of battery investment from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was enacted last year. The law allocated more than $7 billion for critical materials and components for electric vehicle batteries.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/first-time-ev-owner-shares-cautionary-tale-15-hours-drive-178-miles

But the eager traveler was faced with a harsh truth after a 178-mile route took 15 hours to complete, when normally it would clock in at two-and-a-half hours.

RQA wrote:https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/first-time-ev-owner-shares-cautionary-tale-15-hours-drive-178-miles

But the eager traveler was faced with a harsh truth after a 178-mile route took 15 hours to complete, when normally it would clock in at two-and-a-half hours.

So Biden's plan to cover the nation with fast chargers is needed. Thanks for letting us know Herr RQA, Mr Obvious.

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/07/electric-vehicle-car-ev-charging

https://www.autonews.com/retail/ev-registrations-us-57-through-september

EV registrations in U.S. up 57% through September as Tesla rivals turn up pressure Legacy automakers and non-Tesla startups saw a 71% surge in EV registrations through September. Tesla vehicles, meanwhile, rose 50% during the period, according to data from Experian Automotive

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/10/audi-redwood-ev-battery-recycling

Why it matters: With global demand for lithium-ion batteries expected to grow by more than 500% in the next decade, it's one way to help seed creation of a domestic battery supply chain as envisioned under the climate, health cost reduction and tax law enacted in August.

The big picture: Long term, the auto industry is aiming to create a closed-loop supply of critical battery materials that can be reused in new batteries, reducing the need for imports and avoiding further environmental damage from mining.

The batteries can be fully charged in five minutes, but significantly more powerful chargers than those currently in use are needed for this. By 2025, someone hopes to be able to charge an automobile battery to 100 miles of range in five minutes using the current infrastructure for charging

benefitowys wrote:The batteries can be fully charged in five minutes,

By 2025, someone hopes to be able to charge an automobile battery to 100 miles of range in five minutes

What the fuck poster benefitowys

Too damned bad major players like Costco and Sam’s Club along with gas station/ convenience businesses like Pilot Flyng J, Kum&Go and Wawa are already have redesigns and addition lane for recharging.

The GOP and “conservatives” who worship Trump, Putin and MBS are worried.

GRR Spartan wrote:Too damned bad major players like Costco and Sam’s Club along with gas station/ convenience businesses like Pilot Flyng J, Kum&Go and Wawa are already have redesigns and addition lane for recharging.

The GOP and “conservatives” who worship Trump, Putin and MBS are worried.

The Bipartisan Infrastructue Act has funds to ensure there are highly capable chargers at least every 50 miles along US highways. This is of course just "seed" development.

Commericial highly capable charging stations are already being installed in many locations by private businesses. This is just a typical development cycle for a disruptive technology. As an analogy, we are still in the "dial up bulletin board" era of electric vehicles. Sometime soon people will be creating the "world wide web" and "high speed cable connections"

However, it is beginning to look like the switch it EV's is happening faster than the Electric Power grid can be built.

https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/heres-real-challenge-recharging-electric-trucks?utm_source=dont-miss&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20221115&utm_content=hero-headline

https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/gm-ev-margins-will-nearly-match-ice-mid-decade?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20221118&utm_content=article2-headline

General Motors on Thursday said its electric vehicles would be "solidly profitable" by 2025, when it expects to be building 1 million of them a year in North America and 1.2 million battery cells daily in the U.S.

GM CFO Paul Jacobson told reporters ahead of the company's investor day in New York that the automaker will maintain North American profit margins of 8 to 10 percent in the coming years and that EV margins will nearly match those of internal combustion vehicles with the benefit of additional scale and forthcoming federal tax credits.

The company is projecting low- to mid-single-digit margins on EVs in 2025, including emissions credits and software and aftersales revenue. GM expects to generate more than $50 billion in revenue from EVs and $225 billion in total revenue in 2025. Its global revenue last year was $127 billion

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/bc560041-b7e4-3e8c-bbc6-79b33d9e73b8/the-electric-vehicle-battery.html?utm_source=sy&utm_medium=nsyp&utm_campaign=yh&yptr

"Tennessee has become the center of the automotive universe in this country,"

RQA wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/m/bc560041-b7e4-3e8c-bbc6-79b33d9e73b8/the-electric-vehicle-battery.html?utm_source=sy&utm_medium=nsyp&utm_campaign=yh&yptr

"Tennessee has become the center of the automotive universe in this country,"

Hardly, SE Michigan is still the global center of automotive design & development.

Ford Global Engineerring - Dearborn
GM Global Engineering - Warren
Chrysler Global Engineering - Auburn Hills
Toyota NA Engineering - Pittsfield Township
Nissian NA Engineering - Plymouth Township
Izuzu NA Enginnering - Plymouth Township
Other OEM's have SE Michigan locations.

Numerious teir one suppliers have their Global or NA Headquarters and Engineering in SE Michigan

Honda is the only one I can say for sure didn't put its Engineering in SE Michigan. They are in Marysville, Ohio.

Tennessee & Kentucky are automotive assembly hubs, and have been for at least 50 years.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/m/bc560041-b7e4-3e8c-bbc6-79b33d9e73b8/the-electric-vehicle-battery.html?utm_source=sy&utm_medium=nsyp&utm_campaign=yh&yptr

"Tennessee has become the center of the automotive universe in this country,"

Hardly, SE Michigan is still the global center of automotive design & development.

Ford Global Engineerring - Dearborn
GM Global Engineering - Warren
Chrysler Global Engineering - Auburn Hills
Toyota NA Engineering - Pittsfield Township
Nissian NA Engineering - Plymouth Township
Izuzu NA Enginnering - Plymouth Township
Other OEM's have SE Michigan locations.

Numerious teir one suppliers have their Global or NA Headquarters and Engineering in SE Michigan

Honda is the only one I can say for sure didn't put its Engineering in SE Michigan.  They are in Marysville, Ohio.

Tennessee & Kentucky are automotive assembly hubs, and have been for at least 50 years.

My God you are dumb, or to be more accurate in this instance ignorant.  

Ford and GM - yes Michigan based but as my article pointed out Ford is rapidly transitioning out of Michigan to TN/KY.

Chrysler?   Doesn't exist anymore Trapper!

Toyota?  They have more janitors in Kentucky than engineers in Ann Arbor

Nissan?  They have 11,000 employees in Nashville.   Maybe 100 in SE MI.

Izuzu?   Again about 300 work in SE MI

RQA wrote:

My God you are dumb, or to be more accurate in this instance ignorant.  

Ford and GM - yes Michigan based but as my article pointed out Ford is rapidly transitioning out of Michigan to TN/KY.

Chrysler?   Doesn't exist anymore Trapper!

Toyota?  They have more janitors in Kentucky than engineers in Ann Arbor

Nissan?  They have 11,000 employees in Nashville.   Maybe 100 in SE MI.

Izuzu?   Again about 300 work in SE MI

Your quoted article is a hometown cheerleading piece in a Tennessee media outlet, and you are quoting a hometown politician.  It says nothing about where the Engineering for the products these assembly plants assemble is located.

The number of Employees in an Assembly Plant verses the number of Engineers at an Engineering Center is meaningless in terms of where the center of the Global Automotive Industry is located.  Where the Engineering & other staff functions are located are what matter.

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/a-game-changing-new-hybrid-ev-battery-recharges-in-only-72-seconds

You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars
Science has repeatedly shown EVs are better for humans, despite the meme you just retweeted.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/truth-about-electric-cars-ad-why-you-are-being-lied-to/

To quote the Gray Lady, "the pollution equation evens out between 1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for SUVs and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States." So even if you sign just a two-year lease, by the time you turn in your EV, it has released less CO2 than the equivalent ICE vehicle.

...replacing gasoline with coal (which, for the record, is an abysmal idea) would reduce energy usage by 31 percent. Another way to think about it: Right now, Americans use about 9 million barrels of oil a day for our automotive transportation needs. Magically switching to EVs charged via burning coal would result in only needing the equivalent of about 6 million barrels. That's a big reduction. Replacing gasoline with EVs charged via natural gas would use 48 percent less energy. Green energy (hydro, solar, wind, etc.) instead of gasoline would reduce the amount of energy needed by nearly 75 percent, or 6.7 million barrels of gasoline equivalent, as only 2.3 million barrels equivalent would be needed. That's massive.

Due to the high cost of making EVs thousands of American workers will be losing their jobs.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/automaker-stellantis-lays-off-hundreds-american-workers-blaming-high-cost-making-electric-cars

RQA wrote:Due to the high cost of making EVs thousands of American workers will be losing their jobs.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/automaker-stellantis-lays-off-hundreds-american-workers-blaming-high-cost-making-electric-cars

Hmmm...

Fox wrote:There are about 1,350 workers at the Belvedere plant, which produces the Jeep Cherokee.

It's pretty odd they shut down a production line which is making product which brings in money to pay for development expenses.

ith coal (which, for the record, is an abysmal idea) would reduce energy usage by 31 percent. Another way to t

EVs will be pretty sweet once there is viable fusion power. Going to take a wild guess that Fusion will be magically invented/economically viable once oil starts raising price by quite a lot and a little while after EVs are in pretty widespread use (maybe 50%+ american families have one?).

There's too much money to be made in fossil fuels to let a little thing like fusion get in the way of years of revenues.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

ith coal (which, for the record, is an abysmal idea) would reduce energy usage by 31 percent. Another way to t

EVs will be pretty sweet once there is viable fusion power.  Going to take a wild guess that Fusion will be magically invented/economically viable once oil starts raising price by quite a lot and a little while after EVs are in pretty widespread use (maybe 50%+ american families have one?).

There's too much money to be made in fossil fuels to let a little thing like fusion get in the way of years of revenues.

The costs of renewable electricity generation which is already lower than fossil fuel generation and the costs for EV's, which will be below the costs of currently built ICE's in a few years, will mean that fossil fuel power will not be competitive with an EV based transportation system.  The vehicle manufacturer's scramble to switch shows that their analysis already has shown them this.

Fusion may be a cool technology, but it is going to not be competitive with renewables cost wise.  Technically on the grid it is stuck as being baseline power as it pretty much has to be at 95% usage, just like fission plants today.

The biggest roadblocks, in order, for switching to EV's and a mostly electric based energy system are, in sort of EV / other order are:

1 - Recharging time & enough charging stations (EV's)
2 - Further development of economic and ecologically sound battery & motor technology (EV's & to some extent electric energy systems)
3 - Advanced development of the Electric Power Grid & Smart Control at consumer locations for Grid load leveling. (Both)
4 - Additional generation capacity and roll-over from fossil fuel generation to renewables & nuclear, and battery back-ups. (Both - US right now has enough capacity for 60% to 80% EV fleets if load leveling is applied)

Items 1 & 2 are mostly technical, items 3 & 4 are mostly political.  The economics is lower operating costs, and lower cost for new generation from renewables, with short term higher costs to retire fossil fuel-based generation, and fossil fuel-based vehicle infrastructures such as gas stations, refineries, oil exploration etc, aka the retirement of "sunk costs' via rate hikes for electricity and the huge adjustments in investments and write offs of sunk costs for the fossil fuel infrastructures.

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

EVs will be pretty sweet once there is viable fusion power.  Going to take a wild guess that Fusion will be magically invented/economically viable once oil starts raising price by quite a lot and a little while after EVs are in pretty widespread use (maybe 50%+ american families have one?).

There's too much money to be made in fossil fuels to let a little thing like fusion get in the way of years of revenues.

The costs of renewable electricity generation which is already lower than fossil fuel generation and the costs for EV's, which will be below the costs of currently built ICE's in a few years, will mean that fossil fuel power will not be competitive with an EV based transportation system.  The vehicle manufacturer's scramble to switch shows that their analysis already has shown them this.

Fusion may be a cool technology, but it is going to not be competitive with renewables cost wise.  Technically on the grid it is stuck as being baseline power as it pretty much has to be at 95% usage, just like fission plants today.

The biggest roadblocks, in order, for switching to EV's and a mostly electric based energy system are, in sort of EV / other order are:

1 - Recharging time & enough charging stations (EV's)
2 - Further development of economic and ecologically sound battery & motor technology (EV's & to some extent electric energy systems)
3 - Advanced development of the Electric Power Grid & Smart Control at consumer locations for Grid load leveling. (Both)
4 - Additional generation capacity and roll-over from fossil fuel generation to renewables & nuclear, and battery back-ups. (Both - US right now has enough capacity for 60% to 80% EV fleets if load leveling is applied)

Items 1 & 2 are mostly technical, items 3 & 4 are mostly political.  The economics is lower operating costs, and lower cost for new generation from renewables, with short term higher costs to retire fossil fuel-based generation, and fossil fuel-based vehicle infrastructures such as gas stations, refineries, oil exploration etc, aka the retirement of "sunk costs' via rate hikes for electricity and the huge adjustments in investments and write offs of sunk costs for the fossil fuel infrastructures.

The scramble could be simply after seeing a bunch of small companies like Rivian and Lucid join the fray, they just don't want to be left behind. It would be stupid to sit by making ICE while a company like rivian gains market share on Tesla. They must at least have a major foot in the door to compete once the market makes EV more palatable to everyday consumers.

Renewable vs Coal etc i'm not sure has anything much to do with it. It might factor into it a bit who knows except those making the decisions but I think the scramble can be explained away by the rise of all the little competitors, which is somewhat unprecedented because it takes a LOT of investment to build a vehicle from the ground up, something the traditional OEMS don't have to do any more because they've been building cars for years and years. Do you have any idea how much trial and error goes on with creating a new vehicle from scratch without a known design to work from?

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The costs of renewable electricity generation which is already lower than fossil fuel generation and the costs for EV's, which will be below the costs of currently built ICE's in a few years, will mean that fossil fuel power will not be competitive with an EV based transportation system.  The vehicle manufacturer's scramble to switch shows that their analysis already has shown them this.

Fusion may be a cool technology, but it is going to not be competitive with renewables cost wise.  Technically on the grid it is stuck as being baseline power as it pretty much has to be at 95% usage, just like fission plants today.

The biggest roadblocks, in order, for switching to EV's and a mostly electric based energy system are, in sort of EV / other order are:

1 - Recharging time & enough charging stations (EV's)
2 - Further development of economic and ecologically sound battery & motor technology (EV's & to some extent electric energy systems)
3 - Advanced development of the Electric Power Grid & Smart Control at consumer locations for Grid load leveling. (Both)
4 - Additional generation capacity and roll-over from fossil fuel generation to renewables & nuclear, and battery back-ups. (Both - US right now has enough capacity for 60% to 80% EV fleets if load leveling is applied)

Items 1 & 2 are mostly technical, items 3 & 4 are mostly political.  The economics is lower operating costs, and lower cost for new generation from renewables, with short term higher costs to retire fossil fuel-based generation, and fossil fuel-based vehicle infrastructures such as gas stations, refineries, oil exploration etc, aka the retirement of "sunk costs' via rate hikes for electricity and the huge adjustments in investments and write offs of sunk costs for the fossil fuel infrastructures.

The scramble could be simply after seeing a bunch of small companies like Rivian and Lucid join the fray, they just don't want to be left behind. It would be stupid to sit by making ICE while a company like rivian gains market share on Tesla. They must at least have a major foot in the door to compete once the market makes EV more palatable to everyday consumers.

Renewable vs Coal etc i'm not sure has anything much to do with it. It might factor into it a bit who knows except those making the decisions but I think the scramble can be explained away by the rise of all the little competitors, which is somewhat unprecedented because it takes a LOT of investment to build a vehicle from the ground up, something the traditional OEMS don't have to do any more because they've been building cars for years and years. Do you have any idea how much trial and error goes on with creating a new vehicle from scratch without a known design to work from?

Renewables v nuclear & fossil fuels is all about electric generation that goes on the grid and shows up when you switch on the lights in your home. That was in response to the post about fusion getting closer. Nuclear heat for electric generation was always about lower costs, which didn't work out for fission plants and will not work of for fusion either, IMO.

Today, renewable generating is cheaper per kW than coal generating, even with the upfront capital costs for a new renewable plant verses and existing coal plant, and with natural gas prices rising renewable generation will be cheaper than NG plants soon, also. It is way cheaper than nuclear fission and fusion, which isn't practical yet more than likely will be very expensive. Thus, the generating motivation for the future will be renewables due to cheaper costs.

Regarding vehicle development, yes, with a lifetime of vehicle development experience I have a pretty reasonable understand of the vehicle development process. Luckly so do all the major OEM's.

The difference between a new ICE and a new EV are the power trains. Everything else in the vehicles is pretty much the same, and the design & development steps are the same.

The complexity of an EV power train verses an ICE power train are on the same order of magnitude, with the EV power train with many fewer moving parts but the complexity of battery & motor management in electronics, versus the many more moving mechanical parts so more mechanical complexity in an ICE power train.

The major OEM's are not starting from zero today on this. All the hybrid power trains are both an ICE power train and an EV power train. Switching to an EV only power train is to switch to a power train that is much simpler than a Hybrid power train. The engineering steps and the other development steps are all processes they have already executed for a number of development projects now.

FWIW, EV power trains are still on the cost / performance development curve, so as it progresses the costs for EV's, which is near parity with ICE costs already, will become less.

Trapper Gus wrote:

It's pretty odd they shut down a production line which is making product which brings in money to pay for development expenses.

That would be odd.

So if you used even half of your brain you would conclude that they are not making money on that assembly plant and can do better by closing it and shifting production to underutilized capacity elsewhere.

The plants location in business unfriendly ILL probably is a factor as well.

The situation is more complex than that.

Since the Plant & all the tooling is probably paid for a vehicle in production as long as this one has been there are few expenses to pay for unless, accounting wise, the plant and tooling have been leveraged for loans.

The issue is that the vehicles are not selling for any number of reasons. However, the reasons that the company is giving don't hold up to even the most half-witted examination.

Shutting the plant down doesn't significantly reduce the fixed costs, and the fix costs are what are potentially not covered by lower production volumes. Direct costs are eliminated, but so are any revenue due to the building and selling of the vehicles, and the direct costs are covered by the vehicle sales.

From what can be gleamed from the sales numbers they waited too long to refresh the design, perhaps on purpose.

Here are a number of links discussion the situation, the first one pretty much lays it all out, but I include the others if anyone cares to click on them.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42202778/jeep-cherokee-future-uncertain-plant-closure/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/09/stellantis-to-idle-jeep-plant-lay-off-workers-to-cut-costs-for-evs.html

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/jeep-cherokee-belvidere-plant-to-be-idled-indefinitely-1350-workers-to-be-laid-off-206151.html

https://jalopnik.com/the-jeep-cherokees-future-doesnt-look-all-that-great-1849876815

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/jeep-cherokee-sales-suffering-not-bad-news/

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/jeep-cherokee-replacement-not-due-until-2025-report

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/jeep/cherokee

Jeep Cherokee plant to be ‘idle, not closed,' Stellantis exec says

News that Belvidere Assembly is halting production came a week after state lawmakers approved expanding tax incentives available to retool it for EVs.

https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/jeep-cherokee-plant-be-idle-not-closed-stellantis-exec-says

Redwood Materials plans massive $3.5B EV battery materials plant in S.C.

Redwood Materials' South Carolina factory will recycle and remanufacture lithium, cobalt, nickel and other battery materials. The company said the plant would create about 1,500 jobs.

https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/redwood-plans-massive-35b-ev-battery-materials-plant

There have been rumblings about reuse of EV batteries, here is a plant being built to do that.

Oh Herr RQA,

Seems like Stellantis has plans to build electric vehicles at that Jeep plant.

https://www.stellpower.com/news-2022/hello-stla-medium-belvidere-plant-and-the-2025-tax-breaks/

https://wwmt.com/news/state/electric-vehicle-ev-meijer-first-retailer-freightliner-ecascadia-semitruck-cold-weather-whitmer-michigan-epa-energy-business

Sort of surprised that semi-trucks seem to be leading the pack. Seems like local delivery would make more sense.

The CEO of Toyota, the second largest automotive manufacturer in the world, is again cautioning people against the EV hype.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/toyotas-chief-says-electric-vehicles-are-overhyped-11608196665

This comes on the heels of previous comments in October for which he took a lot of criticism.

https://fortune.com/2022/10/02/toyota-ceo-electric-vehicles-hype-department-store-of-powertrains/

Cynics will suggest this is because Toyota has bet heavily on hydrogen power, but I suspect he's also echoing a silent majority.

-------
Since too many posts were made, this topic has been divided automatically. You can find the rest of this topic here :
https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t24855-electric-vehicles-information-updates