[HN Gopher] Ford Will Keep Battery Factory Even If Republicans A...
___________________________________________________________________
Ford Will Keep Battery Factory Even If Republicans Ax Tax Break
Author : doener
Score : 29 points
Date : 2025-06-23 18:37 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| duxup wrote:
| Cutting these tax breaks seems counter productive.
|
| What is supposed to happen? The US and vehicle makers doubles
| down on ICE cars while the rest of the world moves in the other
| direction?
|
| Sounds like a good way to trash any competitiveness US car makers
| have....
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| These efforts are struggles to maintain the status quo for
| entrenched interests against unsurmountable momentum as it
| relates to the clean energy transition [1] and the
| electrification of transportation. If you're looking for a
| rational explanation, the human will disappoint. Simply
| maintain pace and pressure in the appropriate direction. That
| effort, combined with time, will hopefully equal success. In my
| personal opinion, the "why" is important to understand from a
| threat model perspective (ie how do you hack around humans and
| entities attempting to slow or stop the transition), but not
| important as a contributor to input to speed the transition
| (because mental models and identity are rigid, and you're not
| taking the selfish out of the human, broadly speaking).
|
| [1] _Texas Legislature Beats Back Assault on Clean Energy_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277367 - June 2025
|
| (China installed 93GW of solar in May 2025, more than every
| other country combined in 2024:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44359105)
| Arnt wrote:
| Not sure what's supposed to happen, but I can guess what will
| happen instead: US states will have to pay upfront for new
| factories to be built instead of promising tax breaks later,
| because the companies that decide whether to build will trust
| the promises less than until now.
| dalyons wrote:
| So short sighted and self destructive. The US is actively
| sabotaging its future in innovation, manufacturing and energy.
| For what? To make its car industry even less competitive? The
| world is moving on with or without the US, as you say.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| For profits today. There is no will or care to invest for the
| future in the US.
| foobarian wrote:
| Wonder if it's just that, or whether there is a more
| sinister mindset in place that would gladly see the country
| slide in reverse towards a backward theocracy that would be
| easier to control.
| dalyons wrote:
| Honestly I think it's neither, it's just stupidity,
| incompetence and spite.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Do you mean there is no will to make public investments in
| the future? Because in the private space the US leads the
| world in investing in the future. Think about how much we
| invest in AI and self driving! I think a US private company
| pioneered electric cars.
| dylan604 wrote:
| no, they mean there's no interest in tomorrow's profits
| when you can have them today. besides "they" won't be
| here tomorrow, so get it now. Don't be a simp and leave
| things for someone else.
| RankingMember wrote:
| > I think a US private company pioneered electric cars.
|
| Electric cars have been around since the late 1800s. If
| you mean modern ones, in the US the California Air
| Resources Board basically willed them back into existence
| in the 90s, and a California automaker (Tesla pre-Musk)
| made great strides in their public esteem by putting a
| battery pack and electric motor into a Lotus chassis and
| selling it as the "Roadster" (leaning on the prior art of
| companies like Ford and especially GM's EV1).
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I argue you are overvaluing AI and self driving and
| undervaluing the capability to build high-tech products,
| systems, and infrastructure.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| That US private company was significantly enabled by a
| (apparently temporary) government policy of direct and
| indirect financial support. That company does not exist
| without the direct and intentional support by the US
| government.
| mindslight wrote:
| It's not really "for" anything besides letting increasingly-
| marginalized people feel like they have some agency. Of
| course, choosing to politically express themselves with spite
| instead of constructive solutions based on what they want is
| exactly why they continue to be increasingly marginalized.
| OneLeggedCat wrote:
| Counter productive to whom? Certainly not oil companies, nor
| the politicians that represent their interests?
| bluGill wrote:
| Not really productive for oil companies either. They can
| fight, but they can't bring down oil prices enough to compete
| and consumers are catching on.
| ryoshoe wrote:
| Unfortunately they can lobby to prevent cheaper
| alternatives from being made available
| ajross wrote:
| > What is supposed to happen?
|
| That's an argument from a rationality perspective. This is a
| decision from ideology. It's not about making the best choice,
| it's about making sure the right people lose.
| dylan604 wrote:
| That sounds exactly like the MAGA plan. bigOil is too ingrained
| into the party to allow the demand for their product to reduce
| by eliminating ICE powered anything. To expect MAGA to dump
| bigOil would be more productive to bang your head on the
| keyboard and expect to write the code for anything.
| geoffeg wrote:
| > would be more productive to bang your head on the keyboard
| and expect to write the code for anything.
|
| There's gotta be a joke about AI vibe coding there...
| dylan604 wrote:
| I thought AI vibe coding was the joke
| megaman821 wrote:
| I am huge believer in the eventual dominance of battery-
| electric vehicles, but these tax incentives are very
| inefficient. The money would be better spent on R&D into
| batteries and motors. The time would be better spent making it
| easier to build.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| It would be better spent on UBI and walkable cities but you
| know, sometimes the only progress we get is what voters will
| support
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > makers doubles down on ICE cars while the rest of the world
| moves in the other direction?
|
| Automotive EE here...
|
| As respectfully as I can; you have no idea what you are talking
| about and neither do the people cheering you on.
|
| These vehicles are not ready for the markets they are (were)
| being pushed to.
|
| Current electrics do not make sense in specifically hot or cold
| climates. They do not make sense for hard use. They do not make
| sense for long trips. They do not make sense for repair.
|
| They make sense in California for people that will keep them
| only a couple of years until the next status symbol is
| available.
|
| I own an electric, I work on some. I like the pluses, and am
| keenly aware of the negatives. I see people storing them
| outside in snow and it makes me sad for their owners that think
| they bought an alternative to an ICE vehicle.
|
| EVs today are not alternatives to ICE vehicles, the are
| compliments.
|
| Fun fact... right now with the systems today, most EVs that
| will need a new battery, will be totaled by that cost. I have
| the tools, I've been inside the 600V packs that can easily kill
| you. Mechanics aren't trained, prepared for, or will accept the
| risk. These are not 20 year vehicles. They're basically 8 year
| vehicles currently.
|
| Disagree with your feelings all you like, I live it.
| LargeWu wrote:
| The country with the highest adoption of EV's in the world is
| Norway. If they can deal with the cold, so can the US.
|
| I have an EV in Minnesota and it's great. Battery life does
| take a pretty big hit in winter but that's fine based on how
| I use it. The real problem is lack of charging
| infrastructure, not the range.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Hybrids once again totally undervalued. I don't know why the
| industry and the consumers are going so hard on pure EVs
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Hmm, I drive a PHEV, but full EVs are extremely simple
| vehicles, as long as you work out charging, they'll need
| tires eventually, and brake pads (slowly, since they mostly
| have regen), and that's about it. No fluids (and leaks), no
| belts, no going to gas stations - pretty compelling for the
| motorist (and scary for dealerships and repair shops).
| kingstnap wrote:
| EVs are better suited to most commute patterns. The ICE would
| be the compliment, and the EV, the daily driver.
|
| With better charging infrastructure, that most turns into
| virtually all.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > They're basically 8 year vehicles currently.
|
| The major EV makers provide an 8 year warranty on their
| batteries. If EV batteries only lasted 8 years on average, it
| means they'd be replacing half of them under warranty, which
| would cost them a fortune and show up on their balance sheet.
| Tesla & Hyundai aren't bankrupt; batteries last significantly
| longer than 8 years.
| rstuart4133 wrote:
| Assuming the announcements from CATL and BYD pan out and
| battery prices continue on their current trajectory:
|
| By 2030 EV's will cost less than an ICE powered vehicle up
| front, travel further on a single charge than an ICE with a
| full tank, cost less to maintain, take about the same amount
| of time to "refuel" (if you need to do that at all because
| you can recharge for free at a solar powered home) ... and
| won't be built in the USA if Ford doesn't do something like
| this. It probably won't be in the USA even with Ford's
| efforts.
|
| If you are an automotive EE and live and work in the USA,
| you've got very little time left to get your finger out. Even
| if you do and are insanely clever, you've got 3.5 more years
| of Trump and the GOP playing to the denial crowd, putting up
| barriers like this to any attempt to change from the status
| quo. You're also up against a highly industrialised country
| with four times the number of EE's the USA, some of which are
| also insanely clever, all being forced to innovate in a
| highly competitive market fueled by government subsidies.
|
| Personally, if I were you, I'd be assuming the car
| manufacturing industry in the USA is fucked, and looking for
| another industry to transition my EE skills into.
| garyfirestorm wrote:
| isn't it well known that the avg commute is only 35 miles for
| a consumer? and how many road trips does an avg consumer take
| in a month? in a year? they can always rent an ICE for
| specific long journeys. not being able to take your car on a
| road trip speaks more about infrastructure issues and not the
| car itself.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Hybrids will be viable for a long time for regions of the world
| that don't have ready access to a charging station and for
| users that need to make long trips without delays from 30+
| minute charge times.
| bluGill wrote:
| Hybrids only are viable so long as they exist in large
| numbers thus ensuring that there is enough money to be made
| in having infrastructure. Since getting a PHEV I've massively
| cut down my gas purchases. Car buyers who care about money
| are catching on to just how much cheaper it is to fuel and
| EV, and the PHEV looks like the best of both worlds (lets not
| get into that debate). I'm predicting that in about 5 years
| EVs will be common enough that gas stations stop going up as
| fast - not that they will go out of business, but they
| companies building them will be more careful about there they
| put them in because demand just isn't there in many
| locations. Starting in 10 years there will be an increase in
| the number of going out of business because the demand just
| isn't there to support several of them on less busy corners.
| (both of these will be hard to see at first - there are other
| business cycles in play that make the trends hard to be sure
| of so it will be another decade before you can be sure) In 20
| years gas will be hard to find - not impossible (collectors
| will still buy it, and long distance travel will be the last
| place is goes away so freeways will keep it much longer)
| LorenDB wrote:
| https://archive.ph/rHrr8
| GenerWork wrote:
| Good, that's the way it should be. If EVs are the future of
| personal vehicles (and I think they will be), then there's all
| the reasons to trade short term pain for long term gain.
| contagiousflow wrote:
| What is the short term pain exactly?
| enticeing wrote:
| Presumably short term pain for Ford from missing out on
| federal incentives they would've gotten otherwise
| bastawhiz wrote:
| That's assuming the market is homogeneous and resources are
| fungible. If interest in EVs in the US is low, nobody builds
| battery factories in the US. But we know China and others are.
| If it takes EVs another two decades to really catch on in the
| US, all the parts and materials will be foreign. Costs will be
| higher for domestic consumers, even if interest does pick up
| eventually. Catching up at that point may not even be possible.
|
| Consider that if Asia and Europe manage to replace a majority
| of ICE vehicles in a decade or two with EVs, oil production
| will necessarily decrease in the end. We'll have a glut of
| cheap oil for a while as other countries buy less, which will
| artificially prop up ICE vehicles until production slows and
| costs go up. When gasoline inevitably becomes prohibitively
| expensive (assuming EVs are indeed the future), the US could be
| left with pricey fuel and no real ability to dig itself out of
| the hole it's created. It's not just the battery factories,
| it's the knowledge, talent, supply chains, trade deals,
| infrastructure, sales pipelines, patents, etc.
|
| The "long term gain" turns out to just be us killing off our
| entire auto industry slowly. The "free market" in this case is
| actually "the free market here in our bubble". Globalization
| isn't going to sell cheap Chinese EVs in Montana, and people
| buying an $8000 BYD aren't going to look at a Chevy Malibu.
| If/when that market eventually collapses because we got left
| behind by the rest of the world, we'll be regretful that we
| didn't put subsidies into batteries and the grid. After all, we
| _did_ subsidize oil and the auto industry for decades and
| decades for this reason. How many politicians stumped on the
| promise of keeping Detroit going?
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| This also hurts innovation into more efficient gas engines for
| hybrids. Without needing the engine to power the wheels new
| engine types become viable.
| laidoffamazon wrote:
| It's unclear if they will or won't - but given the current
| presidents tendency to attack any entity that crosses him with
| "lawfare" it doesn't seem safe to accurately project their
| intentions
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-23 23:01 UTC)