Is there increasing resistance against EV’s?

[California_Ocean]

Yes, $1.78 billion was 2% of overall revenue.

2%…..




Your argument is based on ROI ‘targets’? Targets?

If so then you have to compare targets of the other companies, Tesla target to sell 1.8m electric cars in 2023.

If legacy auto are making anywhere near these margins these are in ICE vehicle sales which are going one way and it’s not up….

The interesting thing is how the legacy manufacturers are going to persuade people to buy their out of date technology which make profits (ICE vehicles) whilst also persuading them to buy their loss making EV’s whilst trying to stay in business.

I can't quote actual ROI as this is confidential information, but for the manufacturers I mentioned, those targets are achieved.

... and as mentioned before, 2% of revenue but with zero cost to generate that revenue ... therefore a high percentage of net operating profit.

 

[RodCouncil]

Tesla have cut their sales price by 20% since the chart was created, the carbon credits are paid by manufacturers like GM to Tesla. So the GM profit is atrificially lowered due to buying carbon credits and Tesla is artificially raised.

In the link you posted, automotive gross profit was $20,354 of which $1,776 (9%) came from carbon credits paid by other manufacturers. Carbon credits are pure profit, there are no manufacturing or material costs associated with them and they will disappear over time.

Ignore, using the Q4 Earnings.

Yes, agreed it's substantial and will absolutely reduce.

 

[RodCouncil]

I can't quote actual ROI as this is confidential information, but for the manufacturers I mentioned, those targets are achieved.

... and as mentioned before, 2% of revenue but with zero cost to generate that revenue ... therefore a high percentage of net operating profit.

So you're working for an automotive company (clearly that isn't Tesla), but a competitor?

 

[reserves]

I can't quote actual ROI as this is confidential information, but for the manufacturers I mentioned, those targets are achieved.

... and as mentioned before, 2% of revenue but with zero cost to generate that revenue ... therefore a high percentage of net operating profit.

Sorry.

Your argument is based on 'target ROI' (!)

which is 'confidential' (!!)

but yet those 'confidential targets' are achieved (!!!)


Anyways, I have to crack on, I hope you have a great day

 

[California_Ocean]

So you're working for an automotive company (clearly that isn't Tesla), but a competitor?

Correct. Was headhunted by Tesla but chose not to go because of the culture.

 

[California_Ocean]

Sorry.

Your argument is based on 'target ROI' (!)

which is 'confidential' (!!)

but yet those 'confidential targets' are achieved (!!!)


Anyways, I have to crack on, I hope you have a great day

Surely you must understand that an employee cannot post specific information about their employers profit margins online. I posted ballpark figures - they are valid - you of course have the right to dismiss them if you want to.

Edit: Found some public data comparing operating margin.

Top automakers by operating margin

Top public companies are: Ferrari, BMW, Tesla, Tofaş Türk Otomobil Fabrikası, Mercedes-Benz

companiesmarketcap.com

Have a nice day too

 

[California_Ocean]

Just as an aside, apart from the first mover advantage for Tesla, all other major manufacturers suffer from having to use a common parts bin from ICE electrical architectures ... that is, there are a large number of discreet 12V components that could be integrated and/or disposed of in a pure EV electrical architecture which would lead to not insignificant cost savings.

The race is on, and the good news for consumers is that the Tesla jelly mould is not the only game in town going forward.

 

[Borris]

Electric vehicles were slightly different 100 years ago and electric vehicles from last century didn't all fail - there were niche products - milk floats, golf carts, and warehouse fork-lifts were a success because of their specific use-cases.

Today, like it or not, electric vehicles are here to stay.

History is littered with failed products and ideas which were introduced before their time - before the materials, the technology, the applications or even the political landscape were there to result in a useful product. We get this kind of argument at work all the time, "we've already tried that and it failed", usually from the employees near retirement .... the key questions to ask are "Why did it fail last time?" and "What has changed to make it different this time round?"

Most ideas are thought of, and tried, long before they become commercially viable. We had personal digital assistants PDAs long before the internet - they were supposed to replace the filofax ... and they failed miserably - a niche product for nerds. Only when the content for devices became available did they take off, and now everyone has one. Nobody realised that it was content consumption that was the key to their success - but the industry kept trying and they eventually took off exponentially.

Where would we be if the aviation industry had said, "The Wright brothers tried this flying lark back in 1903 and it was pretty s**t - planes are not the answer to international travel - let's give up and go home"

Not so. Whilst some EVs were clearly produced with specific "niche" markets in mind, there was, as now, much interest in electric cars back then. Further more, I didn't say that they were a failure. What I did say was that "They weren't the answer then either".

Don't be too quick to dismiss the views that come, "usually from the employees near retirement". Some will have amassed a wealth of experience, so are often best placed to provide a valuable critique of any new idea. They might be old but that doesn't mean they are out of touch, locked in the past and not open to new ideas or concepts. Anyway you'll be one of those "employees near retirement" one day and may still want to offer your opinion!

The point I was making is, that whilst EVs are suited to some applications, they do not provide the panacea to cure all. For any government to deliberately "place all it's eggs in one basket" by going all out EV, would be an act of sheer folly, leaving their country's economy and for that matter, national security, at risk. The ill thought out UK ban on the sale of new ICE vehicles from 2030 and Hybrids from 2035, will effectively do just that, albeit over time. Continued development of cleaner ICE technowlogy has probably already been killed stone dead by this myopic decision. Further more, due to the restricted time available for the car industry to re-tool for such a huge change, any chance of reversing that decision is rapidly diminishing.

Since we already have a fully established world wide fuel supply network that works, then finding a solution that uses that existing infrastructure network should be a priority instead of focusing all efforts towards replacing it with an electrical charging network of questionable merit. If this policy is aimed at saving the planet then how exactly will it do that? How much environmental pollution and green house gases will this change over to EVs generate?

Continued RnD on making ICE cleaner along with the development and conversion to environmentally friendly synthetic fuels, makes more sense. This could be done along side the continued roll out of EVs for use in towns and cities etc. Also why ban hybrids when they are not as dependant on an über expensive charging infrastructure? Utter madness!

Finally, those planes you mentioned have never provided the sole answer to international travel. They are quick and convenient but continue to criss-cross the world on a daily basis with very little taxation on either the fuel or pollution they are responsible for creating. Many are now beginnining to question their continued use on such a mass scale.

 

[California_Ocean]

Not so. Whilst some EVs were clearly produced with specific "niche" markets in mind, there was, as now, much interest in electric cars back then. Further more, I didn't say that they were a failure. What I did say was that "They weren't the answer then either".

Don't be too quick to dismiss the views that come, "usually from the employees near retirement". Some will have amassed a wealth of experience, so are often best placed to provide a valuable critique of any new idea. They might be old but that doesn't mean they are out of touch, locked in the past and not open to new ideas or concepts. Anyway you'll be one of those "employees near retirement" one day and may still want to offer your opinion!

The point I was making is, that whilst EVs are suited to some applications, they do not provide the panacea to cure all. For any government to deliberately "place all it's eggs in one basket" by going all out EV, would be an act of sheer folly, leaving their country's economy and for that matter, national security, at risk. The ill thought out UK ban on the sale of new ICE vehicles from 2030 and Hybrids from 2035, will effectively do just that, albeit over time. Continued development of cleaner ICE technowlogy has probably already been killed stone dead by this myopic decision. Further more, due to the time and effort needed for the car industry to re-tool for such a huge change, any chance of reversing that decision is rapidly diminishing.

Since we already have a fully established world wide fuel supply network that works, then finding a solution that uses that existing infrastructure network should be a priority instead of focusing all efforts towards replacing it with an electrical charging network of questionable merit. If this policy is aimed at saving the planet then how exactly will it do that? How much environmental pollution and green house gases will this change over to EVs generate?

Continued RnR on making ICE cleaner along with the development and conversion to environmentally friendly synthetic fuels, makes more sense. This could be done along side the continued roll out of EVs for use in towns and cities etc. Also why ban hybrids when they are not dependant on an über expensive charging infrastructure? Utter madness!

Finally, those planes you mentioned have never provided the sole answer to international travel. They are quick and convenient but continue to criss-cross the world on a daily basis with very little taxation on either the fuel or pollution they are responsible for creating. Many are now beginnining to question their continued use on such a mass scale.

We will have to disagree on this one ... and I am already one of those old employess who looks critically at "new" ideas that have been tried multiple times before - I stand by my assessment. Always look at what is different now when compared to the last attempt.

You have mentioned the political climate - which is basically what has driven emissions control systems and vehicle safety for the last 30 years - auto manufacturers wouldn't have chosen to develop those systems if they hadn't been pushed by legislation.

The internal combustion engine and it's necessary transmission system is a massively complex piece of machinery when compared to an electric drivetrain - we've spent a century fettling it but sometimes it just makes sense to retire a technology when a better or more efficient one becomes viable.

With fossil fuels we are heading down a dead end street ... sure we can refine and modify and attempt to make it all cleaner but fossil fuels are not a long-term sustainable solution.
Maybe we could go down the synthetic fuel route, but we've been chasing the hydrogen panacea for a couple of decades at least without success and it makes the vehicle side tech even more complex.

IMO there is an inherent simplicity in wind, hydro, tidal or solar, coupled with battery storage. In the same way as a combination of server and peer-to-peer architectures make sense for delivery of digital services, so centralised and localised generation and storage, with peer-to-peer load balancing has a definite appeal - electric cars can play a vital role in this system, acting as sinks and sources for power as necessary. This seems to be the way governments are pushing the market with grants for solar installations and battery walls at home as well as for ZEVs. During peak load periods it costs a fortune and takes ages to spin up and shut down a power station, even a small scale gas turbine version, if enough localised power was produced and stored (from wind, solar, hydro etc.) these loads could be avoided by peer-to-peer systems that can sync with the grid and deliver power in minutes, going back to consuming in minutes too. The grid would also be more robust as a result. It has to be the way forward - electric vehicles with their large batteries will form an integral part of this system.

 

[Wildcamper]

We will have to disagree on this one ... and I am already one of those old employess who looks critically at "new" ideas that have been tried multiple times before - I stand by my assessment. Always look at what is different now when compared to the last attempt.

You have mentioned the political climate - which is basically what has driven emissions control systems and vehicle safety for the last 30 years - auto manufacturers wouldn't have chosen to develop those systems if they hadn't been pushed by legislation.

The internal combustion engine and it's necessary transmission system is a massively complex piece of machinery when compared to an electric drivetrain - we've spent a century fettling it but sometimes it just makes sense to retire a technology when a better or more efficient one becomes viable.

With fossil fuels we are heading down a dead end street ... sure we can refine and modify and attempt to make it all cleaner but fossil fuels are not a long-term sustainable solution.
Maybe we could go down the synthetic fuel route, but we've been chasing the hydrogen panacea for a couple of decades at least without success and it makes the vehicle side tech even more complex.

IMO there is an inherent simplicity in wind, hydro, tidal or solar, coupled with battery storage. In the same way as a combination of server and peer-to-peer architectures make sense for delivery of digital services, so centralised and localised generation and storage, with peer-to-peer load balancing has a definite appeal - electric cars can play a vital role in this system, acting as sinks and sources for power as necessary. This seems to be the way governments are pushing the market with grants for solar installations and battery walls at home as well as for ZEVs. During peak load periods it costs a fortune and takes ages to spin up and shut down a power station, even a small scale gas turbine version, if enough localised power was produced and stored (from wind, solar, hydro etc.) these loads could be avoided by peer-to-peer systems that can sync with the grid and deliver power in minutes, going back to consuming in minutes too. The grid would also be more robust as a result. It has to be the way forward - electric vehicles with their large batteries will form an integral part of this system.

Off topic. I was interested in having battery storage, with out PV panels, installed. I calculated that I could run the house off 100% off peak power and there were electricity tariffs that made sense. However, my utility supplier said I could not have the tariff that made sense as I do not have an EV. Bonkers! What is the difference between charging an EV battery and one in my garage. This just showed how the environmental thinking is not joined up.

 

[Digger]

When the solid state batteries are perfected and range, weather taken care off I am in little doubt the BEV argument will have strongest case. Still think that renewable will require nuclear back up.

 

[Wildcamper]

Just use the 'free' energy that you generate from your panels, surplus goes to the battery and can used when the sun goes down. No special tariff required...same principle as fitting solar panels to your Cali.

There is always a compromise with special tariffs.

I said I don't have PV panels

 

[Wildcamper]

When the solid state batteries are perfected and range, weather taken care off I am in little doubt the BEV argument will have strongest case. Still think that renewable will require nuclear back up.

Agree re nuclear back up. The base load will have to come from somewhere reliable.

 

[Ch1pbutty]

When the solid state batteries are perfected and range, weather taken care off I am in little doubt the BEV argument will have strongest case. Still think that renewable will require nuclear back up.

1st phase of Nuclear backup is due for completion June 2026:

Hinkley Point C

We are building two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, the first in a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK.

www.edfenergy.com

With more to come (Sizewell C, Suffolk):

Nuclear energy: What you need to know

A summary of the benefits of nuclear power and what the government is doing to support its development in the UK.

www.gov.uk

 

[California_Ocean]

Off topic. I was interested in having battery storage, with out PV panels, installed. I calculated that I could run the house off 100% off peak power and there were electricity tariffs that made sense. However, my utility supplier said I could not have the tariff that made sense as I do not have an EV. Bonkers! What is the difference between charging an EV battery and one in my garage. This just showed how the environmental thinking is not joined up.

The electricity companies want it to be a 2-way street .... they want to be able to influence your charging dependent on demand, and with a modern wall-charger supplied with an EV they can do that up to a point - they will give you a preferential tariff to allow this.

If you just charge your home batteries with a cheap tariff and use the charge yourself then you aren't really giving them the flexibility they want to justify offering the preferential tariff.

It's the same with solar, and feeding back into the grid from your battery banks will get you the best tariffs.

What is coming for EVs is something a little more interesting .....

A quick guide to bidirectional charging

What is bidirectional charging? What does it have to do with V2G? Here’s everything you should know about this unique EV charging technology.

www.virta.global

 

[Wildcamper]

The electricity companies want it to be a 2-way street .... they want to be able to influence your charging dependent on demand, and with a modern wall-charger supplied with an EV they can do that up to a point - they will give you a preferential tariff to allow this.

If you just charge your home batteries with a cheap tariff and use the charge yourself then you aren't really giving them the flexibility they want to justify offering the preferential tariff.

It's the same with solar, and feeding back into the grid from your battery banks will get you the best tariffs.

What is coming for EVs is something a little more interesting .....

A quick guide to bidirectional charging

What is bidirectional charging? What does it have to do with V2G? Here’s everything you should know about this unique EV charging technology.

www.virta.global

With a Smart Meter they have complete control.

 

[California_Ocean]

With a Smart Meter they have complete control.

As far as I'm aware, smart meters provide suppliers with real time data on electricity supply. They don't currently enable connecting your solar-charged battery wall, or your EV, to the grid when there is a localised spike in demand. A next-gen EV WallBox (or the electrickery supplied with a solar installation) will enable this and the electricity providers will use the data from their smart meters to control the wall boxes and bridge short term loads with energy from EV batteries or battery walls.

 

[Wildcamper]

Is transport electrification really sustainable? Panorama tonight highlighted the strain that Cloud data centres are placing on the electrical infrastructure in the UK and Ireland. How data centre power demand is preventing the building of housing etc. As the EV revolution picks up the power demand will only increase. As someone in the press asked recently: Is the EV requirement one of, or the biggest, con on record?

 

[soulstyledevon]

Guy Martin’s new series The Power Trip, on channel 4 . Might be a good watch.

Guy Martin’s Great British Power Trip: Interview | Channel 4

Press Pack Interview with Guy Martin Tell me how the show came about? I originally wanted to do something about how renewable energy worked because I was sceptical about it – installing wind turbines off-shore and importing solar panels from China felt energy-intensive to me. Then we had this...

www.channel4.com

 

[Calimili]

here's another issue that may put a spanner in the works of the religiously EV infatuated: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/07/the...the-world-shortage-could-last-until-2030.html

 

[flying banana]

Is transport electrification really sustainable? Panorama tonight highlighted the strain that Cloud data centres are placing on the electrical infrastructure in the UK and Ireland. How data centre power demand is preventing the building of housing etc. As the EV revolution picks up the power demand will only increase. As someone in the press asked recently: Is the EV requirement one of, or the biggest, con on record?

Same with bitcoin and digital currencies. They use vast amounts of power. Not watched the panorama program yet

 

[Corradobrit]

Continued RnD on making ICE cleaner along with the development and conversion to environmentally friendly synthetic fuels, makes more sense. This could be done along side the continued roll out of EVs for use in towns and cities etc.

Interesting point and reminds me of an early stage company I interviewed with about 13 or 14 years ago in Albuquerque New Mexico. They were interested in the mass production of synthetic fuels using enzymes. It was a cool idea and if it wasn't for the lackluster company share option being offered, might have accepted. In hindsight probably a smart move as Incitor Inc never took off in the anticipated direction, but seems to have morphed into a much less ambitious concern.

LinkedIn Login, Sign in | LinkedIn

Login to LinkedIn to keep in touch with people you know, share ideas, and build your career.

www.linkedin.com

https://xftechnologies.com/

 

[California_Ocean]

here's another issue that may put a spanner in the works of the religiously EV infatuated: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/07/the...the-world-shortage-could-last-until-2030.html

A modern car main wiring harness weighs around 60kg and is the first item to go in the car on the production line - it is craned in through the windscreen, unfolded, and connected to the various bulkhead connectors which lead to engine harnesses, door harnesses, boot harnesses, seat harnesses etc. etc. ... an EV built on a 12V architecture from an ICE vehicle results in an even heavier wiring harness than the ICE original due to the low voltage of ICE architectures and the high-power cabling for EVs. A new EV only architecture could be lighter (and use less copper) than a traditional ICE car as it operates at higher voltages and lower currents - without the 12V legacy there is no reason why an EV only architecture shouldn't be lighter and use less copper than an ICE architecture.

The copper required for energy distribution before it gets to the car is another matter - but our energy consumption is rising anyway - we have an energy supply problem even without EVs. Encouraging local solutions like wind-farms, solar, home solar, energy storage etc. and having widely distributed generation instead of centralised can better use the existing infrastructure without massive investment in centralised generation and distribution.

 

[Amarillo]

but our energy consumption is rising anyway

No it's not.

The United Kingdom's electricity use has been in decline since peaking at 357 terawatt-hours in 2005. In 2021, the UK's electricity consumption fell to its second-lowest level this century, at 294.4 terawatt-hours.

That is not to say it won't rise again, and we might face local shortages requiring power line upgrades, but there is plenty of wind power coming online over the next few years, perhaps with surplus to export on windy days or to use to make hydrogen from the seawater around the windfarms.

 

[flying banana]

Do

A modern car main wiring harness weighs around 60kg and is the first item to go in the car on the production line - it is craned in through the windscreen, unfolded, and connected to the various bulkhead connectors which lead to engine harnesses, door harnesses, boot harnesses, seat harnesses etc. etc. ... an EV built on a 12V architecture from an ICE vehicle results in an even heavier wiring harness than the ICE original due to the low voltage of ICE architectures and the high-power cabling for EVs. A new EV only architecture could be lighter (and use less copper) than a traditional ICE car as it operates at higher voltages and lower currents - without the 12V legacy there is no reason why an EV only architecture shouldn't be lighter and use less copper than an ICE architecture.

The copper required for energy distribution before it gets to the car is another matter - but our energy consumption is rising anyway - we have an energy supply problem even without EVs. Encouraging local solutions like wind-farms, solar, home solar, energy storage etc. and having widely distributed generation instead of centralised can better use the existing infrastructure without massive investment in centralised generation and distribution.

Dont EVs have four electric copper filled motors driving the wheels?