Ford loses 3 billion on EV

billt460 said:
"Carbon Credits" were / are nothing more than a money making scheme that paid for nothing. Pollution is pollution. It isn't any better regardless of who pays for it, when that cash goes into someone's pocket.


Tesla is nothing more than a new company introducing a product that has extremely limited use for the overall masses. Even if it becomes immensely successful. It doesn't deserve government money any more than Solyndra did. It's also not a company that's been in business for over a century, and could endanger the economy if it were to collapse.

The government is supporting EV's because it fits their progressive, liberal agenda. It's the only reason Solyndra received government cash. They were even warned that money would never be recovered. No matter, they flushed it right down the drain. Again, not economically driven, but to support a "green" agenda that has nothing to do with being "green". EV's are the same.

My reference to WW II is to show how long debt takes to be paid back. It was a necessary debt. Tesla was / is anything but. If their product is so wonderful, they should not only be turning a profit on their own. They should have more than 1% of the market if they expect to compete.



Simply put, a good product does not need government financial backing. People will line up to buy it. This has NEVER been the case with EV's. And it never will be. Simply because they don't, and can't work for the bulk of the population.

Proof of this is the fact the majority of EV's owners own at least one or more ICE vehicles. Why? I don't own any incandescent light bulbs any longer. No one has picture tube TV's or computer monitors anymore. Because they've all been replaced by something much better, and cheaper. You cannot make that claim with EV's.

And you never will because of the very nature of their design...... They cost more and deliver less. Batteries that don't go very far, and take too long to charge. Assuming you can even find a place to charge them.

That might change in years or decades to come. But it never will until such a battery / charging infrastructure is in place. That will cost billions. Where is that money supposed to come from? More government handouts?

The fact is it's not changing. At least nowhere near fast enough to support an EV market that the pro EV supporters and the government are currently pushing for. And there is no certain indication it ever will be.

No one with an ounce of common sense would argue the entire nations electrical grid needs to be drastically improved before anyone should even be thinking about massive EV sales. That in itself will take trillions of dollars this country does not possess.

If you are all for giving away government money, that's where you should start. The fact is we can easily live without EV's for decades to come. But we can't with a failing power grid that is getting worse by the day.
Click to expand...


As for good product not needing backing not one single automaker would exist today without government money.
At least Tesla paid it back, and didn't BK or still owe us.

We've spent and are spending trillions now.

Aren't we better off spending these trillions building our our own infrastructure or are we better off buying mile high skyscrapers in the desert ?
 
UncleDave said:
As for good product not needing backing not one single automaker would exist today without government money.
At least Tesla paid it back, and didn't BK or still owe us.

We've spent and are spending trillions now.

Aren't we better off spending these trillions building our our own infrastructure or are we better off buying mile high skyscrapers in the desert ?
Click to expand...


But where are all those trillions coming from? Thin air?
 
billt460 said:
"Carbon Credits" were / are nothing more than a money making scheme that paid for nothing. Pollution is pollution. It isn't any better regardless of who pays for it, when that cash goes into someone's pocket.


Tesla is nothing more than a new company introducing a product that has extremely limited use for the overall masses. Even if it becomes immensely successful. It doesn't deserve government money any more than Solyndra did. It's also not a company that's been in business for over a century, and could endanger the economy if it were to collapse.

The government is supporting EV's because it fits their progressive, liberal agenda. It's the only reason Solyndra received government cash. They were even warned that money would never be recovered. No matter, they flushed it right down the drain. Again, not economically driven, but to support a "green" agenda that has nothing to do with being "green". EV's are the same.

My reference to WW II is to show how long debt takes to be paid back. It was a necessary debt. Tesla was / is anything but. If their product is so wonderful, they should not only be turning a profit on their own. They should have more than 1% of the market if they expect to compete.



Simply put, a good product does not need government financial backing. People will line up to buy it. This has NEVER been the case with EV's. And it never will be. Simply because they don't, and can't work for the bulk of the population.

Proof of this is the fact the majority of EV's owners own at least one or more ICE vehicles. Why? I don't own any incandescent light bulbs any longer. No one has picture tube TV's or computer monitors anymore. Because they've all been replaced by something much better, and cheaper. You cannot make that claim with EV's.

And you never will because of the very nature of their design...... They cost more and deliver less. Batteries that don't go very far, and take too long to charge. Assuming you can even find a place to charge them.

That might change in years or decades to come. But it never will until such a battery / charging infrastructure is in place. That will cost billions. Where is that money supposed to come from? More government handouts?

The fact is it's not changing. At least nowhere near fast enough to support an EV market that the pro EV supporters and the government are currently pushing for. And there is no certain indication it ever will be.

No one with an ounce of common sense would argue the entire nations electrical grid needs to be drastically improved before anyone should even be thinking about massive EV sales. That in itself will take trillions of dollars this country does not possess.

If you are all for giving away government money, that's where you should start. The fact is we can easily live without EV's for decades to come. But we can't with a failing power grid that is getting worse by the day.
Click to expand...
Please stay on topic. The topic isn't about whether Tesla deserved federal subsidies.

If you don't grasp the science behind AGW then ya by extension you wouldn't understand anything that has been going on over the last 15 yrs.

I hate to break it to you but you're in the minority with regards to EV's. Demand is only limited by cost and charging infrastructure.
 
PimTac said:
But where are all those trillions coming from? Thin air?
Click to expand...

We're spending them either way.

Right now they come in the form of national debt to the military industrial complex and subsidy to the oil companies.

Where would you rather invest - in our own country, or others?
 
alarmguy said:
Tesla produced cars at a loss for over ten years
In the same ten year period that Tesla lost money every year Ford never lost any money and only recently lost money 2 years in and coming out of Covid.

Gosh, the lack of facts in this posts are scary in a forum like this. Instead of everyones comments why not post facts like this on Tesla?
inconvenient truth?:unsure: Well, here it is side by side (and let's not forget Tesla lost money every year before this chart even goes back)


View attachment 157376View attachment 157377

@mosaud1998 how many dealerships does Ford have compared to Tesla? Lets stick to facts like the above.
Click to expand...
Well sure. Tesla was burning through cash building out the capacity to launch 3 new models from scratch. Fastly different from FORD who already has fully depreciated the capacity decades prior. The irony is that none of the majors would've been given the same leeway as Tesla. BMW for example was well ahead of Tesla with the i3 and i8 but the market wasn't ready.
 
billt460 said:
Simply put, a good product does not need government financial backing. People will line up to buy it. This has NEVER been the case with EV's. And it never will be. Simply because they don't, and can't work for the bulk of the population.

Proof of this is the fact the majority of EV's owners own at least one or more ICE vehicles. Why? I don't own any incandescent light bulbs any longer. No one has picture tube TV's or computer monitors anymore. Because they've all been replaced by something much better, and cheaper. You cannot make that claim with EV's.
Click to expand...

People are lining up to buy them. Look at sales figures. They all have waiting lists. Why do I not have two EVs? Cars cost money and I don't replace both of my cars at the same time. Why do so many take this all or nothing approach? I love cars in general. I don't know that I will have two EVs on my next car deal either. I'm considering a Golf R or GTI. It's very possible that I would buy another EV though too. I'll likely wait another few years.
 
BMWTurboDzl said:
I hate to break it to you but you're in the minority with regards to EV's. Demand is only limited by cost and charging infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but EV's are, and always will be limited to a very small percentage of the automotive public. There are simply too many expensive obstacles that have yet to be overcome.

This whole "just around the corner" philosophy is well intentioned nonsense. Nothing more.
 
Torrid said:
People are lining up to buy them. Look at sales figures. They all have waiting lists.
Click to expand...

So do many ICE vehicles. There is an overall new and used car shortage. Drive by dealers lots. There are a lot of empty spaces. And no one is dealing on anything. Just look at current prices.

Many ICE vehicles are selling for well over list. It's currently a buyers market for most anything that rolls. It has nothing to do with "just EV's".
 
billt460 said:
So do many ICE vehicles. There is an overall new and used car shortage. Drive by dealers lots. There are a lot of empty spaces. And no one is dealing on anything. Just look at current prices.

Many ICE vehicles are selling for well over list. It's currently a buyers market for most anything that rolls. It has nothing to do with "just EV's".
Click to expand...
Weird, so it's like they're all selling well...
 
Biggest issue I see is that efficiency is being thrown out the window. Bigger, heavier batteries to get a usable range... but that weight in and of itself means you're losing more power just to push the thing down the road.

If our charging infrastructure was there, these massive batteries wouldn't be as necessary. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, AND cheaper/easier to replace/rebuild is the long-term future IMO.

Miles per kWh is IMPORTANT. Especially as power costs go up. The Hummer EV manages like... 1.4mi/kWh. Meanwhile in my "inefficient" first-gen Volt which is lugging around an entire gas engine with it can get me home from work (3.0 miles) using 0.6-0.7kWh if I drive efficiently and don't take the highway.

I'm not saying large battery packs don't have their purpose. They do. But just like most people commute in a Corolla, not a Yukon... we need to build efficient, usable EVs. Like the Bolt. Not like the Leaf, though, the batteries need to last more than 5 years!

And currently EVs are mainly for homeowners who can plug them in all night and charge them. Now, I can't charge at home, but the battery in the Volt is small enough I can charge it off a regular wall outlet at work and even with that sloooow charging a few hours a day pretty much takes care of my normal commute and driving around town. Of course if I take the highway to visit my mom an hour away or go somewhere that charge doesn't last long but it has an engine for that. Even if I bought a Bolt, not Volt, I'd be fine as long as I planned my charging and probably used a public Level 2 charger here and there. But if I bought a Hummer EV and tried to drive it only based on Level 1 charging at work or random Level 2 AC ChargePoint stations around town, that would be a huge failure.

But, regardless of how big the batteries in these cars are, they need to get power from somewhere to charge. And while Solar is great for homeowners whose EV sits in front of their house all day, that's a fairly small percent of people. The rest on us rely on the grid. And that grid needs to be powered from something efficient, consistent, and reliable. And that isn't wind or solar. It's nuclear. As a country, we need to invest in that. We can totally have an EV-focused future if we build out nuclear power plants, expand both our Level 2 and DC Fast Charging infrastructure, and do our best to design and build EVs that efficiently use that power. But the Hummer EV ain't that. I'm not meaing to bash on the Hummer in particular, it's a cool truck and if someone wants to buy it and can afford it, fine by me... it's just an example of what won't be the solution to ICE vehicles LOL.
 
billt460 said:
Simply put, a good product does not need government financial backing. People will line up to buy it. This has NEVER been the case with EV's. And it never will be. Simply because they don't, and can't work for the bulk of the population.
Click to expand...
"Simply put" is a good point. In fact, overly simply put.
Please name a major product that has not had government financial backing; direct or indirect.
The free-market system cannot exist without government support (and regulation) because of the problems of externalities.

In economics, an externality or external cost is an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's activity. Cause and effect...
 
billt460 said:
You have absolutely nothing to support that claim. It is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Tesla has been making EV's for over 15 years, (since 2008). Much of it with government cash. And they, along with everyone else who is making them, has failed to capture even a full 2% of the market in all of that time. So at that rate when are fossil fuels going to become a "niche"? 50 years?...... A hundred?..... Never?

EV's will never capture even 25% of the market until their price, range, and charging time drastically improves. THEN, you have to have an electrical grid that will support them........ The exact same way the "niche" gasoline market and infrastructure supports ICE, and has supported ICE for over a century.

How long, and how much money do you think that will take? And more importantly, where is it going to come from? The government printing presses? If they try that we'll have an economy that resembles Zimbabwe. How many EV's are sold there?
Click to expand...
I'm no historian but I think almost every technological revolution has started with nothing more than some wishful thinking?
Societies that didn't progress their technologies haven't done very well so far in human history either... and I don't think that's changing anytime soon.

At some point around 1900 I'm sure internal combustion vehicle's seemed like ridiculous toys for the rich... No fuel available, complicated, dangerous, people burning to death all the time... No roads, no good tires, etc.... Where would you go anyways, to the next town that's the same as yours?! Baah, forget it, government better not spend a dime of my taxes on that junk!

In 1913 Henry Ford figures out a production line for the Model T, and with many years of engineering effort, some more fuel stations, and these metal death traps aren't so bad....

Governments invested huge amounts of money making roads and infrastructure for this new unproven technology back then, do you wish they said no, let's save our money, and subsidise horses and manual labour so internal combustion vehicles fail? The US could have been like China until the 1980's then.... 80% of the population doing subsistence farming...

In the present, the US spends trillions in total on fossil fuels, which will eventually run out, and/or likely cause the mainland US to suffer trillions in property damage or value loss due to extreme heat or extreme weather, or drought, when CO2 levels become 2-3-4 times higher than their geologically recent natural range.
No one knows for sure what will happen, but I think it would be a good idea as a nation to have some capacity to be able to reduce CO2 greatly and still function, and be near the front on alternative energy sources than fossil fuels.
 
Torrid said:
People are lining up to buy them. Look at sales figures. They all have waiting lists...
Click to expand...
Let's be fair, this can not at the present time stand on its own two feet being taxpayers are paying $7,500 for someone to buy an EV instead of an ICE vehicle.
But all is good, there is plenty of demand and a significant portion of the population will like to have one in their driveway but the results are skewed as long as taxpayers foot a significant amount of the price tag.
We really do not know the long term or near term full story until at least 10 percent of vehicles on the road are EVs and taxpayers stop paying for others to buy them.
 
alarmguy said:
Let's be fair, this can not at the present time stand on its own two feet being taxpayers are paying $7,500 for someone to buy an EV instead of an ICE vehicle.
But all is good, there is plenty of demand and a significant portion of the population will like to have one in their driveway but the results are skewed as long as taxpayers foot a significant amount of the price tag.
We really do not know the long term or near term full story until at least 10 percent of vehicles on the road are EVs and taxpayers stop paying for others to buy them.
Click to expand...

People waited in line to buy them when there was no incentive.

Not all of them have incentives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom