Massive Ford EV investment in KY and TN, not Michigan

[Trumpeteer]

Ironic in that the hillbillies down there most likely disparage electric vehicles and their leaders are wedded to fossil fuels.

DetroiterOnTheWestCoast STAY THERE and your fucking Hillbillies comment. How's your sister Pelosi doing??

[djtomt]

We have spent over 30, maybe 40 years sending our kids to college in the name of getting "good high paying jobs". All the same time, we stripped manufacturing in this country to the absolute bone. Now...we are feeling it. Here we are. Our next move will define at least 3-4 generations to come.

[Genesyxx]

Ford is scrambling to keep its existing workforces, so I'm not mad at this. Michigan needs the jobs sure, but we need more than just the automotive industry.

[Henry Whalley]

[QUOTE=djtomt;616540]...we stripped manufacturing in this country to the absolute bone.[QUOTE]

It's called neo-liberalism and it's the guiding philosophy of both parties. I believe Brits tried liberalism [[economic liberalism not moral liberalism) in the nineteenth century, which resulted in the collapse of that empire. So when we tried it, it was called neo-liberalism. It came from Adam Smith IIRC.

[Richard]

We have spent over 30, maybe 40 years sending our kids to college in the name of getting "good high paying jobs". All the same time, we stripped manufacturing in this country to the absolute bone. Now...we are feeling it. Here we are. Our next move will define at least 3-4 generations to come.

agreed,it is also a matter of National security,factories and production win wars,we are now held hostage as a country over a electronic chip that governs our daily life,that is less then the size of a dime.

How many times has one heard,manufacturing is dead,it is never coming back.

If it does not,we will be dictated to by the rest of the world.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Hillbillies? Obviously a libtard. And if you think there is even a slim chance we will eliminate fossil fuel in the near future your living in a bubble.

I feel just as “owned” by the libtard label as I do every time I read about another anti-vaxxer “owning” me by dying from Covid-19. Just pointing out the irony of building batteries in states which would most likely resist the infrastructure needed to support electric vehicles.

[Richard]

^ well they did say 6 months back or so,it was to expensive to ship batteries across the county,so irony has little to do with it.

Ford actually built model Ts in them thar parts back in the day,so nothing new.

Interesting enough even with the news,in the EV stock aspect,Ford is currently 5th with decreasing double digit stock while GM is first and the company that buys the Chinese built bodies and is already in production with a last mile vehicle.

Their stock is in the triple digits,at this time the confidence in Ford is not very stellar,which may change in the future as they get more established and ramped up,so it is a long term game.

All of these EV manufacturers are just positioning,no different then the 100s of startups in Detroit 100 years ago.

The little last mile commercial vans available only have 125 mile range,but for the small plumber,carpenter etc it may be all they need and they are like 40 to 50k but their savings is only 35% over fossil fuel,so it does not justify dropping current small fleets to go EV.

It probably will be another 15-20 years before they even start to make an impact.

GM is building their commercial EVs in Canada,so it could also be said,why not in the US let alone 3 states away.

https://m.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ELECTRIC-LAST-MILE-SOLUTI-112682608/news/Electric-Last-Mile-GM-s-commercial-EV-unit-to-expand-vehicle-lineup-add-Verizon-as-customer-36537267/

But they always had big footprints.

485 new auto manufacturers entered the field when the automobile Industry first started,1 in 100 did not make it the first 5 years,the rest fell along the wayside as time went on.

Right now they are only predicting less then 60% total EVs by the 2050 deadline or goal,and that is not even addressing the heavy industry,trucking etc.

[Henry Whalley]

Environmental issues vis-a-vis Lithium

The manufacturing processes of lithium, including the solvent and mining waste, presents significant environmental and health hazards.^{[132][133][134]} Lithium extraction can be fatal to aquatic life due to water pollution.^[135] It is known to cause surface water contamination, drinking water contamination, respiratory problems, ecosystem degradation and landscape damage.^[132] It also leads to unsustainable water consumption in arid regions [[1.9 million liters per ton of lithium).^[132] Massive byproduct generation of lithium extraction also presents unsolved problems, such as large amounts of magnesium and lime waste.^[136]
In the United States, there is active competition between environmentally catastrophic open-pit mining, mountaintop removal mining and less damaging brine extraction mining in an effort to drastically expand domestic lithium mining capacity.^[137] Environmental concerns include wildlife habitat degradation, potable water pollution including arsenic and antimony contamination, unsustainable water table reduction, and massive mining waste, including radioactive uranium byproduct and sulfuric acid discharge.

[bust]

You are right to highlight the environmental costs of lithium.
Extracting resources is almost always a dirty business, but some are worse.
The direction we're headed [hopefully] is toward reliance upon resources that are not so dirty.
There should be strong economic incentives for that.
Otherwise, shame on us.

[Richard]

Environmental issues vis-a-vis Lithium

The manufacturing processes of lithium, including the solvent and mining waste, presents significant environmental and health hazards.^{[132][133][134]} Lithium extraction can be fatal to aquatic life due to water pollution.^[135] It is known to cause surface water contamination, drinking water contamination, respiratory problems, ecosystem degradation and landscape damage.^[132] It also leads to unsustainable water consumption in arid regions [[1.9 million liters per ton of lithium).^[132] Massive byproduct generation of lithium extraction also presents unsolved problems, such as large amounts of magnesium and lime waste.^[136]
In the United States, there is active competition between environmentally catastrophic open-pit mining, mountaintop removal mining and less damaging brine extraction mining in an effort to drastically expand domestic lithium mining capacity.^[137] Environmental concerns include wildlife habitat degradation, potable water pollution including arsenic and antimony contamination, unsustainable water table reduction, and massive mining waste, including radioactive uranium byproduct and sulfuric acid discharge.

People are aghast when it comes to blood diamonds,slaves being sold,sweat shops producing their clothes,child labor etc but turn a blind eye to all of that when it comes to their electronic devices,then it all okay and added bonus if you are saving the planet in the process.

We are saving the planet dammit,even if we have to destroy it in the process.

Interesting enough we have one of the largest rare earth deposits in the world.

Located under a mountain top that is environmentally protected,so inexcessable.

But we do not bat an eye when it comes to destroying other countries environmental systems for our satisfaction.

It’s like the wind turbine blades,dig a hole and bury them as a disposable method because they are toxic.

Thats like we did in the past with all our excess chemicals that were to toxic to dispose of,that came back to bite us in the rear pretty bad.

2021 - hey this is toxic what do you want to do with it ?

Meh,just bury it nobody will see it and when the toxins leach into the drinking water systems we will be retired.

Where is Erin Brockovich? Hold on she is in the cell phone.

This all does not seem to be very well thought out long term,deal with it later.

[bust]

^Whaley was right, but this troll farm steers astray.
Sounds like the deceptions and distractions the cigarette companies came up with.
It's not deja vu:

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-sway-public1/

BTW, plastic recycling is largely a sham, but Ford plans to recycle lithium, and that isn't.

Ford will recycle its EV batteries with ex-Tesla exec’s startup
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/22/2...ng-jb-straubel

[Richard]

^ lol kinda not different then now.

What is your answer for disposing of and offsetting the toxic waste that all of this generates?

Apparently no answer.

You are just as bad looking for justification to kick the can down the road and worry about the ramifications later.

We can put a man in space but cannot figure out how to save the planet without destroying it in the process?

That is not false equivalencies,that is fact.

They can recycle lithium batteries but out of the millions produced in the world less then 5% are recycled,and those are sent offshore to be recycled in 3rd world countries so nobody complains.

In order to meet the goal of 2030 it is estimated that 2 million metric tons of li-ion batteries will be needed.

Got any ideas what you are going to do with that waste?

Think maybe it might be a good idea to figure that out before hand?

Why are you worried about it anyways,by your accord we were all dead from climate change 10 years ago,we are now just living in another dimension.

You do not think the same analogy that you used for cigarettes cannot be used for pushing any other agenda?

How do you not know they are not doing the same thing in reverse,creating an emergency where one does not exist?

We went through the Industrial Age,which created billionaires.
We went through the dot com age which created billionaires
We went through the tech stage which created billionaires
we are now going to the green stage which creates billionaires

The common denominator in all of that ?

Each stage was a means to an end.

These companies saying that they will increase EV production by 40% in the next couple of years,have you figured out yet how to replace that 40% decrease in road tax,think the roads are bad now?

That just not cover gas at the pump,it also includes home heating,propane,nat gas.

Wonder what it will cost in electricity to charge an EV when those means are also eliminated?

Meh just figure it out later,nothing like putting people in crisis to encourage them to open their wallet.

At least back in the day people were smart enough to figure out how to put the horse in front of the cart.

[bust]

Replacing carbon fuels with electric generation massively offsets the environmental costs of lithium extraction. Lithium batteries enable vehicles propelled by electric power which is vastly less toxic to our planet than billions of engines propelled by petroleum, perpetually refueled.

The environmental costs of mining are largely local. Local costs matter, of course they do. Don't forget petroleum has since forever been extracted, refined, and burned very dirtily. Southwest, River Rouge, Dearborn, Delray, Downriver, want more?!

By far the biggest lithium reserves are in Chile and Australia. They are allies and democracies; we can work with them to mine more responsibly. Once we refuse to be distracted and fooled by the PR shams of international corporations we will.

There have not yet been economic incentives to broadly recycle lithium but that is easy to fix. Ford and Tesla, probably others, already are.

There have not yet been enough economic incentives to produce electricity more cleanly. Also easy to fix through responsible regulation. It's working, too.

[Richard]

But why do you have to economically incentives some thing that some are so hell bent on having?

So what is being said is,I support saving the planet,but am not prepared to pay the price it takes.

I support socialized transportation when it comes to rail and buses etc. but if one wants to drive an EV because in their mind,they are making a difference,they should be prepared to pay full boat on the costs.

Otherwise they are not that dedicated to the cause as they would have others believe.

If you have to pay somebody to embrace your cause,there is something wrong.

Factories are factories,what it takes to build the factory,power the factory and build the finial product is the exact same thing it took in the past.

Raw materials,those materials have to be harvested,and conditioned for use and the byproducts have to be disposed of in a safe manner.

If you cannot do that then what are you really accomplishing outside of creating another revenue stream?

Look at how the raw materials are currently being mined,strip mining,kids digging tunnels in the ground like gophers.

Look at South Africa and the rare earth strip mining,it is no different then Minnesota looked from iron ore strip mining,or strip mining for coal.

The difference is we had the funds to restore the environment 40 years later after the fact,these other countries are being converted into waste land where after the materials are mined,there is no more farm land to grow food to eat.

Use wind turbines that are dependent on the wind,built out of products that you have no idea what to do with yet after their short useful life is gone.

It was mentioned,and I am not sure,but that weed factory in Detroit will require 35,000 kw to run that one business,try that with some solar panels

For example, in Germany - where about 40% of the energy mix is produced by coal and 30% by renewables - a mid-sized electric car must be driven for 125,000 km, on average, to break even with a diesel car, and 60,000 km compared to a petrol car. It takes nine years for an electric car to be greener than a diesel car, assuming an annual average mileage of 13,500 km [[as was the case in Germany in 2002, compared to 12,700 km in England in 2013). Most consumers will have bought a new car by then. The case is similar in the US, but less pronounced in nuclear-powered France.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...-power-energy/

In less then those 9 years it will be time to replace the batteries and at what costs.

Before we can go green and spend trillions in the process we have to have the infrastructure to support it otherwise we are going green while remaining dependent on dirty fuel and destroying what we are supposed to be saving in the first place.

To me anyways,at this time nuclear is the only clean source that can provide enough power at cost per KW.

But even at that,nuclear also has its dirty side.

Demand also increases price,Cobalt has shot up in price and scumbags are stealing catalytic converters for the platinum which has increased in price 200%.

A kid digging cobalt 14 hours a day collects $1 per pound from the wholesaler,collects 3lbs per day,the wholesaler sells it to the distributor for $350 a lb.

It’s like every thing else,unless we step back and look at what we are doing,those at the top make bank while everybody else pays the price.

What exactly is being accomplished,outside of creating revenue streams and having to pay people to buy your product.

Tesla built a battery factory 23 miles outside of a city,now has 1000 employees driving 23 miles one way in order to go to work,what is that carbon footprint?

I Agee with the concept of we need to be figuring out how for people to actually drive less which would decrease the carbon footprint.

[bust]

But why do you have to economically incentives some thing that some are so hell bent on having?

According to the Wall Street Journal, even Rupert Murdoch's flagship: "fossil fuel companies enjoyed more than $3.3 trillion in direct support from 2015 to 2019."

The incentives are all wrong.

Oil and Gas Subsidies Are Under Pressure
Growing focus on walking-the-talk on climate action promises raises uncertainty about whether generous support for fossil fuels will last
https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-and...re-11626785455

Your posts are all blah blah blah.
One paragraph and it's obvious there's no point reading more.

[Jimaz]

...There have not yet been enough economic incentives to produce electricity more cleanly. Also easy to fix through responsible regulation. It's working, too.

Today I learned that a big part of Ford's decision was based on cheaper electricity in Tennessee. Then I remembered the story of the TVA
{created in 1933 as part of FDR's New Deal} down there. I find it interesting that something that old is still influencing decisions today.

FWIW, "In 1955 coal surpassed hydroelectricity as TVA's top generating source."

I smell irony in there somewhere but wasn't able to isolate it.

[Zacha341]

Ah-yes, the short-term satisfying stuffs, keeping us all at each others throats as puppet-masters at the higher realms control the strings.

As the world watches. And waits.

DetroiterOnTheWestCoast STAY THERE and your fucking Hillbillies comment. How's your sister Pelosi doing??

[canuck]

Today I learned that a big part of Ford's decision was based on cheaper electricity in Tennessee. Then I remembered the story of the TVA
{created in 1933 as part of FDR's New Deal} down there. I find it interesting that something that old is still influencing decisions today.

FWIW, "In 1955 coal surpassed hydroelectricity as TVA's top generating source."

I smell irony in there somewhere but wasn't able to isolate it.

Yes, the problem with electric cars is that the source of that electric power is not kosher with the goals of reducing pollution and other effects on the environment. I don’t know too many territories worldwide that get their electric juice from renewable sources. Quebec is one of them. We are lucky enough to have hydro and wind generation provide 99% of our electric needs, and export a whole lot to New England states as well. In that context, bring on the EVs.

[Richard]

^ hello

Hydro comes at a cost

These often involve megaprojects, which repeat the problems identified with big dams built in the past by the United States and European nations: disrupting river ecology, causing substantial deforestation, generating loss of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them [[9⇓⇓–12). The sustainability of these undertakings is commonly insufficiently scrutinized by those promoting them. The priority in large dam construction is to generate energy to serve growing industries and urban populations—these two things often overwhelm socioeconomic and environmental considerations [[13)

.https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891

Starting in the late 1960s, big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed, the costs became too high, and most importantly, growing environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable

Looks like a zero sum game,the at what cost always rears up.

Does it make sense to destroy everything in order to save it?

A city in California has a message on the side of their buses.

The cleanest running fleet in the world.

But yet they have 60,000 homeless sleeping in the streets.

Places like Ghana,you can buy a child slave for $80 to mine materials ,people in this country look for reparations for slavery that happened 200 years ago while buying products and pushing green which is being built on the back of not only slaves but child slaves,today.

Is there a point in time when one needs to take a step back and seriously evaluate what it is exactly they are doing?

Auto manufacturer’s and financial institutions are coming up with a 86 month auto loan,that is 7 years,what automobile retains what percentage of value at the 7 year end.

It is an indication of how expensive it will become and in the process we really need to be doubling down on public transport,because when it is all said and done,a majority of the population will not be able to afford going green with EVs,once the honeymoon is over it will be an expensive endeavor.

[canuck]

^ hello

Hydro comes at a cost

These often involve megaprojects, which repeat the problems identified with big dams built in the past by the United States and European nations: disrupting river ecology, causing substantial deforestation, generating loss of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them [[9⇓⇓–12). The sustainability of these undertakings is commonly insufficiently scrutinized by those promoting them. The priority in large dam construction is to generate energy to serve growing industries and urban populations—these two things often overwhelm socioeconomic and environmental considerations [[13)

.https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891

Starting in the late 1960s, big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed, the costs became too high, and most importantly, growing environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable

Looks like a zero sum game,the at what cost always rears up.

Does it make sense to destroy everything in order to save it?

A city in California has a message on the side of their buses.

The cleanest running fleet in the world.

But yet they have 60,000 homeless sleeping in the streets.

Howdy!

Well, in Quebec’s case, the situation was different in a number of ways, as territorial imposition was concerned. The major projects in northern territories were built in areas above the tree line, and had no agricultural occupation.

[Richard]

^ I believe the concern would be what happens downstream.

Layman’s terms would be great for the beneficiary sucks for everybody else,that is what they figured out in the 1960s anyways.

Las Vagas is a prime example,nice hydro dam,until the flow stops.

I watched some exploration vids about Islands in remote regions of Canada,mostly developed in the 20s for resources but defunct
sense the close of WW2,a few were run by hydro plants that were touted as being able to produce enough to power a city which is what they were actually doing.

Wonder why they do not bring this back online?

[canuck]

Sure, hydro has its negatives, and those windmills visually polluting the landscape are not much better than the Xmas trees pumping oil in Los Angeles.

The trade off in NYC is that they will be importing power from Quebec instead of building a new gas powered plant in Queens in a heavily populated area. There is opposition to burying submarine cable under lake Champlain and the canals leading up to NYC in spite of them not building overhead lines. Damned if you dam, damned if you don’t.

[oladub]

Today I learned that a big part of Ford's decision was based on cheaper electricity in Tennessee. Then I remembered the story of the TVA
{created in 1933 as part of FDR's New Deal} down there. I find it interesting that something that old is still influencing decisions today.

FWIW, "In 1955 coal surpassed hydroelectricity as TVA's top generating source."

I smell irony in there somewhere but wasn't able to isolate it.

FDR's hydro projects have paid for themselves many times over. Some of that hydro power in the northwest is being removed in favor of fly fishermen, environmentalists and Native American concerns. However Canada, with the exception of BC, views hydro as a non-carbon source of energy. BC, the last I heard, allows more efficient generators to up electrical power supplies in existing power plants but doesn't want additional hydro plants built.

Norway with a similar landscape to those of BC and Alaska, manages to provide hydro power with a lot of environmental touches. 98% of Norway's energy is derived from hydro allowing Norwegians to purchase 72% EV cars in August and ban the sale of non EV cars by 2025.