More on electric vehicles Electric vehicles are huge money-losers for Ford

US News & Politics
1

March 26, 2023

Electric vehicles are huge money-losers for Ford

By Monica Showalter

We know that electric vehicles, whose manufacture requires rare earth minerals mined by third-world children, aren’t clean.

We also know that electric vehicles, which get their electrical charge from coal-fired plants and emit more carbon dioxide than conventional vehicles, aren’t green.

We also know that electric vehicles, as recent storms and heat waves have indicated, aren’t reliable

Now we learn that even at $70,000 a pop, complete with tax savings and government subsidies, green vehicles aren’t profitable, either.

Ford Motor Company says its electric vehicle (EV) unit, “Ford Model e,” is losing billions of dollars, and should be viewed as a startup company.

Model e has lost $3 billion before taxes over the last two years, and is expected to lose another $3 billion this year as the company invests in the new technology, according to a report by Associated Press.

In 2021, Ford’s Model e unit had pretax losses of $900 million. And in 2022, that number was $2.1 billion. Ford reportedly believes Model e will be profitable before taxes by late 2026, with an eight percent pretax profit margin.

Three billion dollars is a lot of money to lose, even for a company like Ford. Breitbart described it as “bleeding red ink.”

With that many negatives, all of which contradict the claims that electric vehicles are the wave of the future, why the heck are these things still being made?

Yet Ford, and probably all the others, keep losing it, because Joe Biden’s politics demand that they keep investing in and making electric vehicles. Too bad about the little kids in the mud pits mining cobalt in the People’s Republic of Congo or those nasty losses on the quarterly earnings report. They’re losing money.

By way of creative explanation, the company argued that its electric vehicle division is actually a startup, so losing money is natural:

“As everyone knows, EV startups lose money while they invest in capability, develop knowledge, build (sales) volume and gain (market) share,” Ford Chief Financial Officer John Lawler said.

Which seems a little after-the-fact, actually. If I had to guess, I suspect the EV unit losses made Ford want to isolate it, calling it a “startup” so they can collect data on how this unit is doing and get rid of it on that basis when the best opportunity comes. Ford’s other vehicles seem to be selling reasonably well, but its electric vehicles are money losers, sucking out all of the company’s capital and affecting even its conventional car business (there were layoffs at its conventional business a few weeks ago), so calling the EV unit a “startup” looks pretty on paper for the shareholders and more importantly, their political overseers.

In real life, they’d call their EV operations a pariah unit and shut it down and move on to something more practical that buyers actually want. But somehow, they keep plodding on.

It may well be that Ford’s executives privately know that the unit is a money pit and want to get rid of it, but their board members are all still enamored of greenie ideology and continue to fancy that EVs are the wave of the future. They’re looking at their peers, who also have money-losing EV units and don’t want to be the odd man out. Meanwhile, getting rid of the green unit would draw the ire of Democrat politicians in Washington, who would find some way to ‘get them’ if they should stray from the dominant orthodoxy.

Each little statement of trouble reveals that green vehicles are unsustainable, costing companies billions and consumers huge dollars, to save the earth, which isn’t happening. Every claim about green vehicles is false now, yet they are still being made. With losses like Ford is seeing, it suggests that the entire auto industry is heading off a cliff.

1 Like
2

And then there is this:

US running short on critical component for key technology

by Brady Knox, Breaking News Reporter |

March 27, 2023 04:11 PM

The United States is running low on a critical component for electric cars and other key technologies.

Electrical steel is an extraordinarily thin metal alloy that is needed for electromagnetic devices like motors, generators, and transformers, [according to](Electrical Steel - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics Science Direct. Aside from critical energy infrastructure, the material is needed for washing machines, power tools, air conditioners, and electric cars, according to the Wall Street Journal.

With a government push to transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric ones, electrical steel is surging in demand, and supply is facing difficulties catching up.

Electrical steel makes up less than 1% of all steel produced annually, and the difficulty in producing it discourages many potential manufacturers.

The highest-grade electrical steel is less than a quarter of a millimeter thick, and its production requires skilled technicians.

“It takes intense focus. You have to have absolute consistency or you scrap the material,” David Stickler, a steel investor, told the Wall Street Journal.

Demand is so mismatched from the supply that the wait time to obtain electrical steel can be up to a year.

Metals Technology Consulting Inc., an Illinois-based consulting firm, estimated that demand would outpace supply by roughly 1 million metric tons per year by 2030 if action isn’t taken to boost production greatly. The total U.S. supply of electrical steel is projected to equal 116,000 tons by 2024.

Several major companies are looking to rectify the problem. U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs are scrambling to boost production and open new plants to match the expected demand. But, as industry experts stress, the process isn’t as simple as opening new plants on a whim.

“You can’t just buy the equipment and start making electrical steel. Those who’ve made the investment will have an advantage for the next five to 10 years,” Stickler said.

3

SEATTLE — When Seattle City Light unveiled five new electric vehicle charging stations last month in an industrial neighborhood south of downtown, the electric utility wasn’t just offering a new spot for drivers to fuel up. It also was creating a way for the utility to figure out how much more power it might need as electric vehicles catch on.

Seattle aims to have nearly a third of its residents driving electric vehicles by 2030. Washington state is No. 3 in the nation in per-capita adoption of plug-in cars, behind California and Hawaii. But as Washington and other states urge their residents to buy electric vehicles — a crucial component of efforts to reduce carbon emissions — they also need to make sure the electric grid can handle it.

The average electric vehicle requires 30 kilowatt-hours to travel 100 miles — the same amount of electricity an average American home uses each day to run appliances, computers, lights and heating and air conditioning.

A U.S. Department of Energy study found that increased electrification across all sectors of the economy could boost national consumption by as much as 38% by 2050, in large part because of electric vehicles. The environmental benefit of electric cars depends on the electricity being generated by renewables.

So far, states predict they will be able to sufficiently boost power production. But whether electric vehicles will become an asset or a liability to the grid largely depends on when drivers charge their cars.

Electricity demand fluctuates throughout the day; demand is higher during daytime hours, peaking in the early evening. If many people buy electric vehicles and mostly try to charge right when they get home from work — as many currently do — the system could get overloaded or force utilities to deliver more electricity than they’re currently capable of producing.

In California, for example, the worry is not so much with the state’s overall power capacity, but rather with the ability to quickly ramp up production when demand is high, said Sandy Louey, media relations manager for the California Energy Commission, in an email. About 150,000 electric vehicles were sold in California in 2018 — 8% of all state car sales.

The state projects that electric vehicles will consume 5.4% of the state’s electricity, or 17,000 gigawatt-hours, by 2030.

Responding to the growth in electric vehicles will present unique challenges for each state. A team of researchers from the University of Texas at Austin estimated the amount of electricity that would be required if every car on the road transitioned to electric. Wyoming, for instance, would need to nudge up its electricity production only 17%, while Maine would have to produce 55% more.

Efficiency Maine, a state trust that oversees energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction programs, offers rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles, part of state efforts to incentivize growth.

“We’re certainly mindful that if those projections are right, then there will need to be more supply,” said Michael Stoddard, the program’s executive director. “But it’s going to unfold over a period of the next 20 years. If we put our minds to it and plan for it, then we should be able to do it.”

A November report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy found that there has been almost no increase in electricity demand nationwide over the past 10 years, while capacity has grown an average of 12 gigawatts per year (1 GW can power more than half a million homes). That means energy production could climb at a similar rate and still meet even the most aggressive increase in electric vehicles, with proper planning.

Charging Times Matter

Charging during off-peak hours would not only allow many electric vehicles to be added to the roads, but also allow utilities to get more use out of power plants that currently run only during the limited peak times.

Seattle City Light and others are looking at various ways to promote charging during ideal times. One method is time-of-day rates. For the Seattle chargers unveiled last month, users will pay 31 cents per kWh during peak daytime hours and 17 cents during off-peak hours. The utility will monitor use at its charging stations to see how effective the rates are at shifting charging to more favorable times.

The utility also is working on a pilot program to study charging behavior at home. And it’s partnering with customers such as King County Metro that are electrifying large vehicle fleets to make sure they have both the infrastructure and charging patterns to integrate smoothly.

“Traditionally, our utility approach is to meet the load demand,” said Emeka Anyanwu, energy innovation and resources officer for Seattle City Light.

Instead, he said, the utility is working with customers to see whether they can use existing assets without the need for additional investment.

Emeka Anyanwu, energy innovation and resources officer for Seattle City Light, speaks at an event unveiling the utility’s new electric vehicle charging stations in the city’s SoDo neighborhood.

Numerous analysts say that approach is crucial.

“Even if there’s an overall increase in consumption, it really matters when that occurs,” said Sally Talberg, head of the Michigan Public Service Commission, which oversees the state’s utilities. “The encouragement of off-peak charging and other technology solutions that could come to bear could offset any negative impact.”

One of those solutions is smart charging, a system in which vehicles are plugged in but don’t charge until they receive a signal from the grid that demand has tapered off a sufficient amount. This is often paired with a lower rate for drivers who use it. Several smart charging pilot programs are being conducted by utilities, though it has not yet been phased in widely.

Utility officials say the technology will be ready by the time widespread purchases of electric vehicles make it necessary.

In Colorado, both time-of-day rates and smart charging will be part of the state’s approach, said Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office.

“There’s a broad consensus that EVs will need to be on time-of-use rates,” Toor said. “It will be easy for people to program their vehicle so they come home, plug it in and it doesn’t actually come on until the electricity gets cheap at 9 p.m.”

Some utilities say localized infrastructure upgrades may be necessary if, for example, one neighborhood or city has a particularly high number of electric vehicles.

“We’re looking at will there be enough capacity, but also from distribution planning at the neighborhood level to make sure we’re not getting overloaded circuits,” Talberg said.

4

Ford Lost $3.1 Billion in the First Quarter - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

1 Like
5

Now we learn that even at $70,000 a pop, complete with tax savings and government subsidies, green vehicles aren’t profitable, either.

What to do???

1 Like
6

Toyota just announced that they are doing away with EV production.

7

If only Deb Haaland’s blank stares could power vehicles

Where do electric vehicle batteries come from? Interior Secretary Deb Haaland seems to think maybe they come from the Rare Earth Fairy.

This was the takeaway from her wide-eyed and persistently clueless testimony this week before the appropriations subcommittee on the interior and the environment. Under questioning from Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT), himself a former interior secretary, Haaland repeatedly gave the impression that she knows nothing about the department she heads or the ramifications of the policies she is pushing through it. Her repeated blank stares and hesitant, sheepish answers suggested she was only for the first time hearing crucial facts related to the nation’s natural resources.

“Are you aware that China controls, by proxy production, the supply chain of critical minerals that are critical to both the [electric vehicle] world and defense?” asked Zinke. “Are you aware, by multiple studies, that in order to satisfy the present requirements of [electric vehicles] and critical minerals to defense, it would take an increase of 2,000% of mining for 20 years?”

Again and again, Haaland thanked Zinke for sharing his information as if she had never heard it before. But these were more than fun facts. The Biden administration gives a great deal of lip service to energy independence and simultaneously makes policies aimed at a so-called clean energy transition. But the two are not compatible. The latter involves pushing everyone toward using windmills, solar panels, and electric vehicles, among other things. Yet at the same time, under Haaland, the Interior has been blocking domestic mining projects, without which any clean energy transition is just a fairy tale.

We noted previously, concerning California’s folly of pursuing electric-only vehicle sales by 2035, that “it is wishful thinking to believe that California,” and most other states for that matter, “will be able to produce enough electricity by 2035 to charge all the cars it is trying to force its residents to buy.” But as we pointed out, this isn’t even the biggest problem. A study by Scientific American found that even if the world’s production of lithium were to triple overnight, it would only provide enough of that metal to maintain — not even to build but just to maintain — the batteries of an all-electric American vehicle fleet. Keep in mind that this would be to the exclusion of the entire rest of the world, which presumably would want some of that lithium.

And it isn’t just lithium, either. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) pointed to a World Bank study that shows demand for the metals involved in electric vehicles alone — copper, nickel, cobalt, and a host of others — would rise so rapidly that it is hard to imagine ever meeting demand. For example, the world would have to produce in the next 25 years the same amount of copper as it has in the last five millennia.

In short, a green energy future is probably impossible under the best circumstances. And unfortunately, the circumstances are far from the best.

The first obstacle is the Biden administration itself. Haaland, as Zinke pointed out, has recently blocked off mining in northern Minnesota’s Duluth Complex, one of the world’s largest undeveloped mineral deposits. Given the scarcity of domestic lithium mining — there is only one lithium mine in the entire country — a pro-electric vehicle policy only increases American dependency on China and decreases its energy independence.

That might be inconvenient under normal circumstances, but senior members of the Biden administration believe the United States might find itself at war with China very soon. And in the nearer term, China is already aiding Russia’s war against Ukraine, which could soon force President Joe Biden to impose economic sanctions. Where will Biden’s electric vehicle materials come from once that happens?

Is Haaland up to the task of figuring this out? Given her clueless and hesitant responses this week, one must ask: Is Haaland ignorant of the Biden administration’s mining policy, its energy policy, its defense policy, or (most likely) all of the above?

One could say Biden’s left hand doesn’t know what his right hand is doing. But more likely, this is a reflection of the true nature and goals of the modern environmentalist movement. This isn’t about saving the planet; it’s about destroying capitalism and lowering human living standards.

2 Likes
8

Need to say more?

2 Likes
9

Stop trying to fix what seems to work !!
Stop listen to woke morons and woke media .

1 Like
10

People are easily manipulated.