Carlos Tavares, CEO of Stellantis, stated that automakers are facing increasing pressure to switch to electric vehicle production, which is unsustainable and may allow the public to obtain lower prices at significantly higher prices. Based on standard products. Although we have seen auto industry executives lashing out against new energy vehicles before, as governments around the world continue to encourage the existence of new energy vehicles, investors have been pouring money into startups that only provide more electrification. According to the recommendations, this situation is becoming less and less.
Tavares' words came from the next meeting of Reuters and run counter to the popular narrative of the event that encourages technological progress and social change. Participants are often political officials, financial leaders, NGO leaders, and corporate executives who sympathize with the cause. However, the Stellaantis CEO must have digressed when listing some of the shortcomings of electrification, adding that he believes that the cost "exceeds the practical limit." He believes that the pursuit of electrification at the current rate does not take into account the larger financial situation.
In an interview with Reuters, he said: “It has been decided to implement electrification in the automotive industry, which will increase the cost of 50% [%] compared to traditional cars.” “We cannot transfer 50 [%] of the extra cost to end consumers because Most middle class will not be able to pay."
Tavares said automakers can charge higher prices and reduce car sales, or accept lower profit margins. These paths will lead to layoffs. Union leaders in Europe and North America warned that tens of thousands of jobs could be lost.
Tavares said that automakers need time to test and ensure that the new technology will work. Pushing to speed up this process "will only backfire. It will lead to quality problems. This will lead to all kinds of problems," he said.
Tavares said that Stellatis’ goal is to avoid layoffs by increasing productivity far faster than industry standards.
"For the next five years, we have to digest 10 [%] of productivity every year...in an industry that is used to providing 2 to 3 [%] of productivity," he said.
Tavares said: "The future will tell us who will be able to digest this and who will fail." "We are pushing this industry to its limits."
Although we have definitely seen the price of electric vehicles fall in the past few years, they have not fallen at the rate that industry leaders and analysts initially assumed. A few years ago, the media agreed that electric vehicles would reach financial parity with internal combustion engine vehicles in 2025. It now appears that this date is getting closer and closer to 2030, surrounded by new promises and new procurement methods for solid-state batteries. The necessary raw materials. The range of modern electric vehicles has also improved, reducing consumer anxiety and achieving meaningful sales growth in the summer. But their popularity is still limited to urban centers where driving distances are shorter and charging stations are easier to find.
For Tavares, this shows that you need to brake for a while in the pursuit of electrification to carefully check whether the current plan is really sustainable. Although it must be said that his company owns Jeep, Dodge, Ram and many other brands, its profit margins rely heavily on large vehicles that burn liquid fuels.
Like other traditional car manufacturers, Stellatis (the merger of FCA and PSA Group) has been perfecting a car that ordinary customers still like for more than a hundred years. Electric car startups are the new hotspot, and investors are ready to bend back and take out funds long before anyone can review their technology. This, coupled with increasing pressure from the government to ban internal combustion, has put a lot of pressure on the industry. Reuters pointed out that the European Union and California have set a goal to stop selling internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035. But other governments have set shorter timetables for their demise, and even actively banned which types of power systems are allowed to choose the urban environment.
This has been supported by lofty incentive programs and social pressure, and most developed countries have provided large tax rebates to electric car shoppers. At the same time, industry participants with a lineup of vehicles that do not cause pollution at the exhaust pipe are eligible to profit from carbon credits while avoiding huge regulatory fines related to emissions testing.
Interested in building some of their social prestige-and desperately not being left behind-the big boys are dumping billions of dollars into development plans so that they can provide competitive electrified products. The next step is to switch to a fully electrified lineup before the vehicle ban takes effect or the government's penalties become more severe. As a by-product, they can also cut staff budgets because electric cars require less manpower to manufacture.
Stellantis itself has pledged to spend 30 billion euros (33.9 billion U.S. dollars) by 2025 to develop electric-focused car architecture, build battery production facilities, and ensure the necessary raw materials that need to be mined from the earth. It is also streamlining operations (work and products) to reduce $5.7 billion. This week, it announced that it has invested in a solid-state battery start-up company in cooperation with German Daimler AG. Although its CEO still doubts whether the current path is correct, it does invest in the future of electrification.
Tavares suggested that the government slow down, stop encouraging manufacturers to make electric cars, and focus on making them more popular with the public by developing charging infrastructure that is essential for their survival. He also said that if the transition to electric vehicles actually has a positive impact on the environment, the energy sector will need to undergo some rectification. But he insisted that the most serious problem will be the financial aspect, and pointed out that ultimately the public must support the current tax structure that supports electric car sales and maintain sufficient wealth to continue buying them in the next few years.
This is a reasonable argument, especially from manufacturers that are considered to be slightly behind in the proliferation of electric vehicles. But we even heard Tesla CEO Elon Musk discuss the need for a stronger power grid and more robust subsidies. Although we don't want any leading electric car brands to be surprised in the process of global electrification, because they benefit the most from it.
Become an insider of TTAC. By subscribing to our newsletter, first get the latest news, features, content shot by TTAC, and everything else about the truth about cars.
The CEO of a company that made $30,000 in profits from 10 mile/gallon Grand Wagoneers complained that alternative products would not be so profitable, News 11.
TESLA only profits from the sale of environmental carbon credits.
No longer important for people in big clubs. The printer goes to brrrrrrr.
This is a valid point of view in 2019, but it is no longer correct. Tesla Motors is very profitable. The reason for the difference is that the cost per unit battery has fallen like a rock.
Is there any information on this? No ranting. Hope to see this transparency.
"Falling down like a rock." Depends on the rock. The pumice floats.
Our analysis shows that from 2007 to 2020, the cost of battery packs will decrease by 16% each year. In 2020, the industry-wide average cost of battery packs will be US$144 per kilowatt-hour. September 13, 2021
Analysis shows that the industry's electricity continues to decline... https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu. I think Wharton School is a good enough school for some people.
"Is there any information on this? No rant. Hope to see this kind of transparency."
There are many articles on this topic. This is common sense. many factors. The new battery formula removes expensive materials such as cobalt, and in the case of LiFePO4, it also removes nickel. CATL is increasing the manufacturing of sodium-ion batteries and can even eliminate the need for lithium and complex battery management logic.
Here are a few charts:
https://www.statista.com/chart/23807/lithium-ion-battery-prices/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/battery-prices-have-fallen-88-percent-over-the-last-decade/
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/catls-new-sodium-ion-battery-help-ease-lithium-shortages-2021-08-03/
Brandon is already working hard to make ICE vehicles unprofitable for everyone.
"Brandon is already working hard to make ICE vehicles unprofitable for everyone.".
Are you an adult? control
Yes! No one here makes a naive insult to the last person!
"Without steam, there is no profit" Samuel M. Vauclain of Baldwin Locomotive
"Without film, there is no profit," said Kodak CEO George MC Fisher when the first digital camera came out.
"Without VHS, there is no profit", David Cook, CEO of Blockbuster Video
"Without photo processing, there is no profit" Fotomat founder Preston Fleet
"Tesla only benefits from the sale of environmental carbon credits.
Very real. Tesla's cheap, poor-quality, and poorly designed appliances have never been profitable. Most electric cars do not (add it to the list of reasons why they are bad for the market, not a viable alternative to appropriate ICE cars).
No wonder Tesla has recently increased the price of cars significantly. The carbon credits sold do not mean that they are losing money.
The CEO is light years ahead. Electric cars are terrible, there is no other saying. From Tesla to Ford, all these automakers hyped electric cars just to show nobility. They know that electric cars are a joke. They know that electric cars are extremely harmful to the planet. They know that the business case for electric cars is the house of cards. They know that electric cars don't really work. But for some reason, they feel that they need to attract statistically insignificant mouth breathers, they are already convinced (or someone as convincing as President Xi Deng) that they want an electric car, and they are catering to that crowd. And the misguided crowd.
So how much car manufacturing and R&D experience does your drugstore cowboy have? Please send your resume. I will wait.
I would be happy to add the thoughts of people like Tavares on any day of the week. He only bought GM's European business from Barra and turned it around in a few months after they lost decades.
Tavares is right. Idiots like AOC, Brandon, Newsome, Gore, etc. are all ready to achieve their goals from behind them-but they all have zero years of meaningful real-world experience in everything. Coatings companies continue to push stocks like Tesla higher because they have been rising. Wow. There are great business models there. Why traditional manufacturers do not create tracking inventory so that their power business can bid for the moon is beyond my understanding.
From a quality point of view, Tavares also needs to change gradually, which is also correct. When Detroit changed from a large car to a small car in the 1970s, they did not have enough time to resolve all the errors in the new engine, gearbox, and platform. So the quality has plummeted-many of you still complain about the X car your dad bought in 1979, which makes you never buy another GM.
By the way, Barra went all out. Tavares is not. Carlos makes money. Mary just retreated from the market where she could not participate. Guess whose judgment I value more?
100%. If left unchecked, this stupid push for electric vehicles will lead to the death of the rest of the US auto industry. We all drive Chinese cars, the reason for slave labor. Similar to how CAFE and CAA weakened Detroit.
“This is in line with the government’s increasing pressure to ban internal combustion engines, which has put a lot of pressure on the industry. Reuters pointed out that the European Union and California have set a goal to stop selling internal-combustion vehicles by 2035. But other governments have been against them. The demise set a shorter timetable,"
I found that in order to "save the earth" and push garbage to electric cars, and completely ignore who caused the main reason for this chaos, this can explain the problem. No one, I mean no one in the mainstream is investigating or even talking about a large number of government and private companies involved in geoengineering and cloud seeding! I only found one major car sight, which talked about military technology and mentioned the drone swarms that Saudi Arabia has recently developed to disrupt the weather. The government's promotion of electric vehicles IMO has nothing to do with saving the planet, but with people's control of movement. If the blockade continues to speak out and rushing to use electric vehicles becomes commonplace, be prepared to have your electric vehicles shut down remotely so that you can stay in place in any emergency that the government deems necessary. Does this seem destined? Yes, but please consider all people with short-term memory. Just a few years ago, a major hurricane in Florida caused the state to declare an evacuation. The only problem is that all those in southern Florida who got rid of ICE vehicles for EVs cannot leave the state or stay away from the state because there are many reasons that people can research on their own. This push for electric vehicles is purely for control and has nothing to do with "saving the planet"
Yes, I believe Brandon has nothing to do with his time, more important than caring about whether you travel from Florida to Texas.
"They don't have enough time to catch all the errors in the new engine, gearbox and platform"
In other words, they rely on tariffs on imported cars and pickup trucks, CAFE rules that favor large SUVs, and poor engineering to maintain profits.
Therefore, the company that basically left itself behind in the "electric car race" and relied on selling a large number of V-8-powered Ram pickups said: "Hey, maybe we should put the brakes on the entire electrification thing."
This is ridiculous because Stellatis has no say in public policy.
Yes, the public does have a say. If you don’t like the government’s support for electric cars, please vote for the representatives you don’t want. There are many such people out there, and in less than a year, you have the opportunity to vote for them.
Seriously, this is the thinking of the 20th century. On the main agenda item, it will be Uniparty, and the concept of *real* parties and values is a relic of the past. That was *before* I would even be involved in election integrity issues.
What, you didn't see how different the two major parties are?
I know you are cynical, but buddy...
Fried Mike, he was right. There are elites around the city, and everyone else. The elite has not been affected by lockdowns, masks and vaccinations. It destroys small businesses (providing most of the jobs) and the middle class.
Even Republicans were angry at the invasion of the Capitol by unarmed people, not just Democrats. Although 20 other states joined, even Trump's three Supreme Court choices refused to listen to Texas's challenge to the election.
Our intellectuals and political elites are selfish scammers, and Nancy Pelosi invests in industries that have a significant interest in the legislation under consideration, and even Fed members trade bank stocks before the Fed’s decision that affects the banks.
We can no longer rely on elections, and when the crisis ensues, allow millions of additional votes to be obtained through absentee voting-this is what the Texas lawsuit is all about.
136.6 million votes were cast in 2016, but 158.4 million votes were cast in 2020. Where did this additional 21.8 million votes come from? The population has not increased that much. Did the 21.8 million people who did not vote in 2016 decide to vote by absentee voting because it was easier?
Our votes are now meaningless in most parts of the country.
Mr. @Lorenzo, I live in the suburbs of DC and I often go to the city. All federal buildings need masks, most federal jobs need vaccines, and yes, shops and restaurants are locked down. You fabulous "elites" still have to deal with their daily affairs.
No, the Republicans were not angry about what happened on January 6, 2021. They have the opportunity to participate in the bipartisan investigation team on January 6. Courageous leader Kevin McCarthy; when Trump's condom opposes it, his mouth will double. This is not anger, this is burying your head in the sand.
One of the most critical elections in the history of our country. Not to be confused with the crime of the century, which occurs every 8 to 10 years. Have you stopped to see if the number of registered voters has increased by 20 million? Don't punish you personally; whenever the winner tries to surpass the loser's registration and voting, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists will show up in droves.
Think I'm a bit harsh? Brilliant, but the hair dye was challenged, and Rudy Guiliani scored zero (0) with a score of 60 (60) in the attractive election results. Two (2) or three (3) election reversals will cause people on the losing side to complain. When your God-King-il-Duce goes with his designated mouthpiece! Sixty years old; maybe it's time to admit that he lost. Or just open Fox News and look at the beautiful blonde.
@Lorenzo-Welcome to the party or back to the Soviet Union.
@Lorenzo: "136.6 million votes were cast in 2016, but 158.4 million votes were cast in 2020. Where did this extra 21.8 million votes come from?"
Well, about 11 million of these additional votes went to Trump. Therefore, the increase is fraudulent. correct?
As for the rest... Yes, if people want to pass or change the law, they can do it in the ballot box, even if you are cynical about it.
FreedMike, no one voted for open borders and hyperinflation, mask injunction and vaccine injunction. But here is the courtesy of an elderly liar. fjb
You nailed that nail directly to your head!
“Even Trump’s three Supreme Court choices refused to hear Texas’s challenge to the election, even though 20 other states joined in.”
There are more than 60 cases with nowhere to go in court, not because of a big conspiracy. The orange baboon lost. There is no conspiracy.
He may just be the voice of reason, if he is not a contrarian, but any wise person will analyze the contrarian if he puts forward an effective point of view. Although in this case I again doubt that the Bell curve will prove to be correct.
Well, they still have 5,729,694 different challenger special editions they want to release.
This cannot be blamed on them. I will ride that horse until it dies.
I'm sure that some people have the same opinion about this new checkered horseless carriage.
But in about 30 years, they were right, and I was dead on a long enough time scale.
He is not wrong. Consumers are already struggling to pay for new cars, and 84-month loans have become too common. Electric cars will be more expensive. Then consider our crappy charging network, which shows no signs of improvement. While home charging is not an option for renters and those who have to park on the street, the substandard charging network also restricts who can even buy electric cars. There are many issues to be resolved, and 2030 is an extremely urgent deadline for planning mass adoption.
In fact, 84-month loans-by the way, I call them "F150 mortgages"-mean they will also be used for electric vehicles.
I agree that more people are now trying to pay for cars, but Stellattis, Ford and General Motors have stopped selling products to this market segment.
I also think that once more expensive electric cars become more common among wealthy customers, they usually have a built-in charging place—their garage. These customers will buy electric pickup trucks and SUVs instead of Bolt. This will happen soon, and I think the non-home charging infrastructure will grow as the electric vehicle market grows.
To some extent, electric vehicles are repeating the expansion of the car market in the 20th century. Even after the Model T debuted in 1908, the car was still a luxury for many people, and it remained below 50% of households until 1950.
Electric vehicles are becoming cheaper and more abundant, providing better value every year.
I think electric vehicles will follow a series of "new technology" consumer goods models, first selling to people with money, and then filtering to "others." Examples: PCs, laptops, mobile phones, smart phones, large-screen TVs, etc.
SCE2AUX-You can say the same to any new technology, computer, mobile phone. Once automakers take electric cars seriously, it will quickly become cheaper. EV is just a computer with wheels, Musk understood it very early. So it is SW stupid. Motors and brakes are very cheap.
I want to know whether in the future, the long-term reliability of EV power system and ICE power system will reach 84 months or more. Vehicle loans will not be as terrible financial proposition as it sounds now.
The battery cost has reached the point where electric vehicles in the development pipeline do not require a premium. The construction cost of charging infrastructure will not be so high, most of which will be paid by the private sector-providing shoppers with free or cheap L3 charging will not only provide retailers with a competitive advantage, but also help solve the problem of street parking. .
So what is Tavares' motive here?
He pointed out how difficult the work is, thus lowering the expectations of the work.
As Stellatis is slowly surpassed by others in terms of new technology, he can remind his board that instead of worrying about winning the war, it is better to enjoy a small victory.
"As Stellatis is slowly being surpassed by other companies in terms of new technologies,"
Everyone keeps making comments like this, but I'm not sure what it is based on. What did I miss?
He is behind and needs time to catch up. In the race to secure raw materials and build manufacturing infrastructure, almost all other big companies are ahead of him. Before he can catch up, he will buy components and even the entire power system from others at high prices, which is far less interesting than selling Grand Wagoneers equipped with a 6.4 engine at a huge profit. So of course he wanted to postpone it.
"Then what was Tavares' motive for coming here?"
Basically, he is putting on the brakes for the entire electric car business, which makes sense, because his company did not have much electric car product portfolio at the beginning, and zero electric car products will be sold to American consumers.
"Then what was Tavares' motive for coming here?"
It's like Toyota lobbying against electric cars. They were caught off guard and realized that they were not competitive.
If you can't compete... the lobby.
Why have electric cars become so expensive? In addition to batteries, they are simpler and cheaper to manufacture. No ICE engine, no transmission, which is thousands of dollars in an electric car. You said that the battery is too expensive, but the cost of the battery has fallen sharply in recent years, and now the rate of decline has not decreased. The price of electric vehicles is falling, and will fall further over time. I will never own electric cars, but it's not because I think they are meaningless. It's just that I have reached the age where I will never buy a new car. I hope I am young enough to enjoy the cars of the future. My current car will last longer than I have used it.
This statement comes from the CEO of STELLANTIS, not the CEO of FCA, so you think that his opposition to rapid electric vehicle development is based on a product portfolio mainly based on cheap V8 cars is wrong.
The real argument is that the technology, infrastructure, and economy of electric vehicles are not yet ready. Forcing the government to set an arbitrary schedule will only impose inferior products on unwilling consumers, thus undermining the adoption of the technology. He even provided the best remedies to address the adoption of electric vehicles:
Tavares suggested that the government slow down, stop encouraging manufacturers to make electric cars, and focus on making them more popular with the public by developing charging infrastructure that is essential for their survival. "
You are right, "a product portfolio based mainly on cheap V8 cars" is wrong. In fact, the V8 product portfolio consists of non-cheap trucks and SUVs they inherited from FCA. The car lineup (Challenger, Charger, 300) is not that important in terms of sales. They can live easily without them, but if Ram disappears tomorrow, they will be miserable in two days.
Unlike General Motors and Ford, FCA has never moved its fingers to figure out how to power a Ram truck or anything related to this. They are busy trying to be acquired. Now they are behind. If I were Tavares, I would look for an electrification partner stat.
peugeot.co.uk/models/categories/electric.html
citroen.ie/electric-for-all/electric-vehicles.html
I really don't think Stellatis is completely behind Ford and General Motors in terms of plug-in development. However, these three people are hopelessly supporting their lofty 2030 announcement.
That's right, but if Americans don't line up to buy Leafs or Bolts, they won't line up to buy an electric Peugeot compact car with a similar range.
However, they will buy electric Ram pickups or jeeps. Before the merger, I didn't see the FCA put too much work on similar things. Maybe they are waiting to see the performance of the F150 EV, but it is very popular — I think it will be — are they really competitive to market?
Leafs and Bolts are typical representatives of dorky EV (I have a Leaf).
In addition to the obvious technical and performance advantages of the 2012 Model S, Tesla has also developed a car that does not look like a scientific project.
So yes, electric RAM or Jeep can sell well, but they have an additional burden to maintain.
"The real argument is that the technology, infrastructure, and economy of electric vehicles are not ready yet."
This is not true. It must be here. Technologies such as more durable low-cost batteries have been invented, and manufacturers are in the process of building factories. This will take several years. However, they did use these batteries in trial production and road tests. The infrastructure in many places is good, but needs improvement, and this is happening. The new generation of products is absolutely economical.
The problem for manufacturers like Stella is that it takes years to bring products to market, and years to build factories. You will never design a product based on the environment in which you started. You must design for the technology when the product is actually shipped in 5 or 6 years.
In the past, I had to design a product that took a year and a half. When I started, the Intel 286 processor was dominant. 386 No. I designed products for the 386 architecture for performance and memory capacity. Many people feel uneasy and complain about this, because no one has a 386. When the product was completed, the situation was different, when 286 machines were thrown into the trash. If we design for the 286, we will have a lower performance product so that it can be sold on machines that are quickly eliminated from the market.
So, as a product designer, you must see the future. The economics of producing products today are different from the economics of the day it entered mass production. The battery cost will not be the same. The charging infrastructure will be different. In some areas, gasoline supply may even deteriorate further.
When such a major technological change occurs, the product differences between manufacturers may be very large. If their product performance is only half of the competition, some manufacturers can be eliminated almost overnight. That might happen.
This is a good comment.
This happened to the Big Three from the 1970s to the 1980s.
If you like gasoline-powered cars, you will always believe that electric cars will be "below the standard."
The era of reducing the burning of fossil fuels has long passed. It must happen immediately. Those who can afford current electric cars will get them. The poor can continue to use ICE, and soon price and infrastructure benefits will also benefit them.
This is not new to Mopar, as they introduced very efficient hybrid mules decades ago. I believe that the Jeep drove 400-450 at 8 gallons and 87 octane. They also have some pure electric vehicle test mules, but the battery technology at the time was not what it is now.
They just produce cars that they make money from and that people want.
Use manta rays as click bait. How cool.
Yes, who cares about EV or V8 Ram pickups-I want that Manta!
"Risk the public to buy inferior products at significantly higher prices"
Considering the product portfolio he manages, this sentence is ironic.
That's right-we are talking about Chrysler products.
If I worked for Stellattis, I would worry about how out of touch my CEO is.
Those critics who say that “electric cars will not be popular” have overlooked two key points: – It is the politician who is hosting the show, not the public or the company. Whether you like it or not, that's how it is. -Tesla has sold nearly 2 million electric vehicles, and it is still growing, and it is now profitable. They have shown a way to achieve this goal. Companies like Stellattis don't want to take risks at all.
In the end, the tone of this article — and that of Mr. Tavares — ignores the fact (as usual) that electric cars are very popular for those who don’t like trees. As long as mfrs adheres to the climate change manual, it will be difficult for electric vehicles to be sold to the wider public.
The last point +10,000. The places where Tesla is on the ground are very thick, and these places are definitely not meant to embrace the trees.
I would also add that manufacturers need to skip the push of "we will surpass Tesla" and build electric cars with traditional styling and no quirky driver interface.
I have always felt this way about the early half-breeds...I hate that they look like weird people.
As far as the Prius is concerned, it is to reduce resistance.
horseradish! Tell the designer of Bugatti Chiron Super Sport 300+ and get ready for extreme side eyes!
If you want to praise Toyota's Priustoric cave painting on its interpretation of resistance, it must be. Toyota has no place when it comes to combining pleasing aesthetics with solid aerodynamic resistance
"To make an electric car with a traditional styling and no quirky driver interface"
This was an important factor when I got Ioniq. It has real pull-out door handles, driver-facing gauges, and actual buttons and knobs for HVAC, radio, windows, heated seats, and mirrors.
The shocking thing is that you have to activate the metal rod to reposition the seat, just like in the 1960s. More importantly, the glove box has a plastic lever that works every time-no graphical user interface is required.
I like the hatchback style, of course YMMV. At least it doesn't carry the huge "EV" logo like some cars in 2011.
The metal rod is indeed more like a lever on the side of the seat in the 1980s-60s. If the door is closed, it is not always easy to reach.
The dumbest design I have ever seen-the first-generation Chevrolet Cruze (one of my kids has one). The front of the seat is close to the release lever of the console, not a lever that goes all the way through. Therefore, if the seat is adjusted too far forward, you must step over the steering wheel and under the steering wheel to release it. Lame, like many things in that car.
I might have to look at one of them! I don't want to click three times to adjust my air conditioner vents.
Good point, but at this point: "They have shown a way to achieve this goal. Companies like Stellattis don't want to take risks at all."
The scale of the pure electric vehicle market is not enough to support every existing brand and manufacturer. If they are all forced to take such a plunge, many of them will not survive. The late Sergio Marchionne hinted at this in 2014, and I believe he is still correct. People argue that previous technological advancements will lead to cost deflation over time. I said maybe it was, but I doubt it very much because I know I’m not the only one who draws these conclusions.
The bigger problem is that the responsibility of technocrats is zero and it is difficult to be expelled, and most of the current crops show their mental disorder and social disease almost every day, which complicates the problem. There was a period of time when some media tried to emphasize such issues, but now they are all running the same script, I believe that since the integration of 20 years, they have all been included in the new company. Five or six company owners (uh) Coming from FB and TWTR-the first to emphasize this is Carlin, *not any mainstream source*.
So did Mr. Tavares miss anything? Is he really right? Yes, no, yes, because this is a commercial suicide, and it is currently implemented quite crazy. No, because he may ignore new markets and new business opportunities due to prejudice, but we must remember that electric vehicles are a largely artificial market, and if there is no unnatural support, it is likely to be flat. If Robespierre reappears tomorrow and finally restores our sanity, will Tesla fail? Highly skeptical. But will CCIV, er Lucid, Fisker and some other brands continue to exist? I very much doubt that only EV business entities that specialize in commercial products can survive the IMO. Therefore, the whole issue is a slippery slope and cannot be ignored in any case, although I commend Tavares for daring to express his opinion on this.
Maybe someone can get Ghosn's view on all this? At this point, he has nothing to lose.
People are tired of the high oil prices due to Sleepy Joe's promotion of green energy.
After the arrival of the red wave in 2022 and 2024, adults will regain power, and the deadline for these electric vehicles can be rolled back to a more realistic place.
Questions for people who seem to think that the president controls gasoline prices:
1) When oil prices rise, do you blame Trump or Bush? 2) When gasoline prices fall-they will fall-will you attribute Biden for this?
"The adults will regain power"
I want to believe, but the coming "adult" generation is not actually adults. So if we just returned the reins to more than 70 people, you might be right, but I don’t think this situation will last long.
The government is doing everything it can to reduce domestic production, while working with OPEC to implore them to increase production. We are back in the 70s, when others controlled our destiny. I remember having a long queue (my plate ends with 1) to buy gasoline on odd days after the fall of the Iranian king. It usually takes 30 to 45 minutes.
Now that you mentioned the 70s, I want to add one more point. The events that have occurred since January 1, 20 have obviously been carefully planned to a certain extent, I am not going to speculate who/what/when, but "why": this may be caused by peak oil and upcoming The world finance is far away from Kissinger's petrodollars.
Some people believe that the 1973 embargo was at least partly due to the replacement of the Bretton Woods system that Nixon withdrew in 1971. From start to finish, petrodollars were first adopted in 1973, and other OPEC members did not join until 1975. Nixon's resignation may slow or complicate this implementation, but it is strange that during the implementation of the new Western system based on...oil sold by OPEC member states, the liquidity and velocity of the world dollar slowed down.
Therefore, today we see that the government intends to reduce oil production before ISO 20020, namely: "ISO 20022 is an emerging global open payment messaging standard. It creates a common language and model for global payment data." To me In general, this sounds like a new financial system. I don't believe that the similarity to 1973-75 is a coincidence.
"The adults will regain power"
I want to believe, but the coming "adult" generation is not actually adults. So if we just returned the reins to more than 70 people, you might be right, but I don’t think this situation will last long.
But you will also say out loud that Joe Biden is too old.
U.S. regulators are not responsible for this change. China and Europe. All that the push to burn natural gas to own libs will accomplish is to make U.S. automakers less competitive in foreign markets.
I think the question now is whether American automakers are fully competitive in foreign markets? General Motors sells Opel and exits Europe. Because of their long-term investment in SAIC, I think they are competitive in China, but I don't know how complete it is. Daewoo allowed them to further contact Asia, and these products are also sold here, but on the grand stage, GM is not complete in any market outside of North America and where its SAIC products are sold.
Ford is still active in Europe, but the last time I checked did not make a profit there and downsized. I'm not sure what Ford did in Asia, or whether it has an important presence there.
Before Fiat, Chrysler sold some products intermittently in Europe, not sure whether it would continue under the FCA. I don't think that Fiat's products are American products or its American products are serious European or international market products, so the "American" part has never tried to compete anywhere outside of North America. You can argue that under Stellatis, it is competitive in Europe/South America, but "Chrysler" is not just an island of PSA/Fiat products. Not sure if the Chryco/Fiat/PSA merger is serious in Asia.
Another reason is that the Chinese and Japanese are very nationalistic in product selection, a bit like the US in the past. If Tesla is the only game in town, they may be buyers, but if competitors in the domestic market emerge, most of these buyers will leave these competitors. Now, Tesla can still do better in the niche market, it may still be the preferred brand, but it *will* lose market share in these two countries, and may also lose market share in other parts of Asia. I don’t know enough about the European market to make accurate predictions, but I think if the major players have products that compete with foreign leaders such as Tesla, they will have the most share.
So IMHO, it would be foolish to let D3 hurt itself in their core (actually the only) major North American market, trying to compete in places they haven't been to or did not do well in the past. Now, if we look at this from the point of view of peak oil, I agree that this is a serious disaster for American/partial American brands. But beyond that, what is the point if there is nothing outstanding or unique? This is why, with the exception of Peak Oil, the entire direction of electric vehicle technocracy will only hurt American industry-this may be the key, depending on how you want to read tea.
"Automakers can charge higher prices and reduce car sales, or accept lower profit margins," Tavares said. These paths will lead to layoffs. Union leaders in Europe and North America warned that tens of thousands of jobs could be lost. "
This is a feature, not a bug. That is the plan.
As mentioned above, Stellatis made a lot of coins based on the old technology. Therefore, it is not surprising that they would rather slow down. In other words, any major damage to the status quo usually brings a lot of uncertainty, reliability issues and cost pressures. Witness the introduction of emission control-the early design was a disaster. However, regulatory pressure forces engineers to come up with reliable and cost-effective solutions, and we benefit from it. I see no difference here. I just hope to make the same amount of effort in producing clean electricity...otherwise I am not sure if we really get a lot.
Even with the dirtiest electricity in the United States, the operating carbon emissions of electric vehicles are only about half of comparable gasoline vehicles. Currently, part of the difference is made up for by the carbon intensity of making electric cars, but this will change over time. Even in the worst-case scenario where we cannot change the grid at all, switching our cars to electricity will significantly reduce our carbon emissions.
@Dal I have seen countless conflicting studies. The environmental impact of electric vehicles largely depends on the source of energy. However, once they go offline, their environment is often worse than comparable ICEs. Most research seems to support them to bridge the difference between 8-year and 12-year ownership. Again, there are also some countries (such as Germany and China) where air pollution worsens with the increase in the number of electric vehicles and the increase in energy demand.
Most importantly, it is not the vehicle you are deploying that has to do with how the entire system works. Use nearby nuclear power for localized electric vehicle production? It sounds very green. All imported electric cars come from coal? It will be a nightmare. The same is true for internal combustion engine cars. If we use giant tankers to transport cars/parts and oil, we will not be as environmentally friendly as possible.
OK. I decided not to replace my old Jeep with 4xe because I don't want to buy another troublesome Chrysler machine. The idea of having another ICE engine with oil changes, fuel pump failure, bad environmental sensors, etc. is a huge shutdown. I will save my pennies until Ford puts down the Mustang body on the f-150 Lightning platform.
"Stellantis used old technology to make a lot of coins"
Stupidly, this new method is to make billions of dollars by not selling anything (ie carbon credits). Or fill your treasury by asking taxpayers to pay for the neighbor’s car.
But I believe they did the right thing this time and will no longer give us your money, otherwise the world will freeze. Or give us your money, otherwise the world will be warm. No, they finally understand, now they say to give us your money, otherwise the climate will change like the earth has been formed.
If you want to know what technology will fail, look at what the government supports. Windmills and solar energy are also the holy grail promises of the government, and they work very well... California has no power outages. This is expensive for everyone except the government
U.S. Electricity Sources in 2020: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
Natural gas = 20% Renewable energy = 20% (Wind energy and solar energy together account for 10.7%) Nuclear energy = 20% Coal = 19% Petroleum = 1%
I want to say that renewable energy is definitely playing its role. The problem in California is not a technical problem, but a political and regulatory boom.
It suddenly occurred to me that Tim Kuniskis has a difficult job trying to get his steroid Hellcat customers to accept electric replacements for their roaring muscle cars. He may not appreciate these comments from his boss at all.
I understand their point of view. Let others pave the way, grit their teeth and so on, then jump in at the last second.
It's not like the current cheap cell phone/smart phone manufacturers have to emerge in the age of bricks, or they have to start with pagers and then briefcase phones.
Computers, laptops, etc. are all the same.
The problem is that the development of any vehicle, electric car or other, is technology-intensive, time-intensive and capital-intensive. When you find that your competitor has a winner, you won't just "flip the switch"-voila! -You brought a competitive model.
If the F150 EV is very popular — I think it will be very popular — then assuming that Stellatis has made no progress in these areas, it will take them a few years to launch a competitive model unless they want half of it. The last time they gave up on the electric car halfway, we got that ridiculous electric Fiat 500.
Politicians are generally not very smart, they are puppets of bankers. Combustible energy cannot be replaced for a long time. The number one polluter and fuel user is the US military, and they will never be required to power up anything. Where are all these electric trains, buses and commercial vehicles. The world uses 100 million barrels of oil every day. Good luck, this unrealistic goal will change drastically, just snap your fingers.
Burning oil in power plants is more efficient than burning in cars. If this is not the case, you will have a personal generator to power your house, which is why electric cars are rated at 80-150 MPGe. Under the same energy input, their efficiency is much higher.
As for the actual issue of powering the army-there is no argument. This is both a technical issue and a political issue.
The U.S. Navy submarine commander wants to talk about electrification.
Stratos, I believe you are asking about electric trains. I respectfully submit the New York subway system as exhibition #1 of electric trains.
Second, I believe that almost all locomotives are diesel locomotives. The train is powered by an electric engine, and the battery is charged by a diesel generator. As mentioned above, using gasoline to power cars/trains is more energy efficient than using gas engines. My Volt usually reaches 63 mpg when running on a gas engine.
Well, they have these things called "apps" for your dashboards and touch screens on non-consumer phones. It would be foolish for automakers not to install "PlugShare" or "ChargePoint" or other words put together to show nearby chargers.
The local organic food store where I live in the far western suburbs of DC has car chargers. The degree of irony depends on your point of view; ordinary grocery stores have chargers, and you can’t breathe! Wal-Mart has a charger.
Hear the car company CEO's chatter about how they will use their new electric cars to lead the way and point the way for the future! Or some other clap traps that the propeller head in marketing came up with. It's like listening to a drunkard brag about how he threw at his bitter high school opponent and caught the winner's touchdown pass, and then sexually harassed the returning queen in the "vette" he drove throughout high school.
Car companies need to take a good look at Audi. Somewhere in the dark and evil of el Scotto, I wanted an S6 for long-term high-speed driving, but the practical el Scotto said to drive Lexus until it died. Audi still produces some gorgeous and extremely fast ICE-powered cars.
Then there is eTron. A very attractive and reasonably priced (in the luxury car market) EV SUV. The first one I saw in the wild, the female boss plugged in at my local Wal-Mart, um, bought all the Klapola you bought at Wal-Mart. Stellantis is either too bankrupt or too ignorant to make an EV Cherokee/Grand Waggoneer. They are giving up the upper-middle class suburban women who want the electric SUV market to other automakers.
Both my 12 Leaf and 19 Ioniq EV have/have a charger search function, but I would say they are nonsense. Tesla's is very good, and I think others may be doing very well.
But yes, the combination of PlugShare and Android Auto can find the charger well. But since I hardly use public charging and my car has a short range, this is not a problem for me.
Electric cars are ideal for city dwellers who have a short commute, people who have a home and a charger in the garage, and people who own a second or third car. That's it.
Scott, you have to know that someone in Washington, Los Angeles, or San Francisco has an interesting account of people who are not near the Whole Foods charger. A good way to continue comics that are easy to be caricatured.
Is the price of eTron reasonable? Ha ha. "Starting at 65,900, plus destination."
Maybe you didn't read your post before clicking "Post Comment", but that's why electric car proponents are being teased.
Mr. @jkross22, this is not Whole Foods, they have chargers anyway. Have you missed the section where the local grocery chain (Giant) also has chargers and Wal-Mart?
Among the people running with me, the ride cost of 60-70k is not excessive. There are a lot of full-size trucks where I work, 60-70k is not surprising at all. FairOaksMotors.com owns three jeeps. The cheapest is 75K, and the highest is 94K. They will sell everyone they get. So yes, eTron is competitive in this market. Stellantis ignores the high-end EV SUV market.
@JK: "Electric cars are great for city dwellers with short commutes, people who have a home and charger in the garage, and people who own a second or third car. That's it."
I think you underestimate that this group is a large part of current buyers of any type of car. So... if these are early adopters, then manufacturers that sell electric cars will have a lot of people to sell.
Tovarisch has just warned the French government that he will fire a large number of French, Italian and German workers (the Americans always leave first). Because electric cars are so simple, they can be built without workers. that's all.
In fact, if they do less outsourcing in Asia, it may not be less. I think the number of employees at Tesla's Austin factory is expected to be in the 5 digits, but that's because it is a bit like the reincarnation of Rouge Comple. Batteries made from raw materials brought to the site, as well as seats and other components made there. Cybertruck's steel comes from the newly built Steel Dynamics plant in Sinton, Texas. I think the same factory will also supply SpaceX. Therefore, the cancellation of outsourcing in Asia may increase employment.
Let us wait until the electric car is perfected before making it available to the public.
Just like they did with ICE vehicles...
There are many good comments here. In my opinion, Tavares admits that his company is not competitive in the electric car market, so please slow down. If the only competitor is other traditional car manufacturers, this may make sense. As others have pointed out, there are other players besides traditional car manufacturers. The CEOs of most other automakers have realized that if they cannot succeed in the field of electric vehicles, the future will belong to Tesla and various Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers. Traditional companies may not go bankrupt immediately, but if they do not quickly become leaders in new technologies, they will end up like Kodak — occupy a dominant position in a dying dead end. Time is a luxury that Ford, GM, Volkswagen, Toyota and Stellattis don't have.
Why haven’t more people commented on the government’s putting their fingers on the balance?
Because their fingers should be placed on the balance. That's their damn job.
If a company is causing obvious harm to society, but does not pay for it, then they will only continue to do so now, won't they? This is the so-called externality. If a company can externalize costs, they will definitely do it.
Air pollution and climate change are an external cost. If not forced, would oil producers and automakers remove lead from gasoline? Is this an obvious price to society? Yes. If they decide for themselves, they might take out a book from a large tobacco company and sell these concerns for as long as possible.
It's all the same thing, start over.
Laissez-faire economics does not deal with such issues. This is what the laws, regulations and the government do best.
There is a lot of discussion about how much the battery has improved. But in fact, the last major breakthrough was in 1991 when Sony commercialized lithium-ion batteries. Over the past two decades, production capacity has increased by about 8% per year, but this rate has slowed to 5%. There may be promising new technologies, but none of them are close to commercialization.
But even with all these capacity improvements, the energy density of lithium-ion batteries is still very low. A pound for a pound, gasoline can store 80 times the energy of a lithium-ion battery. This is why a Tesla battery pack weighs more than 1,000 pounds, while 15 gallons of gasoline weighs less than 100 pounds. In most cars, these 15 gallons will take you farther. Gasoline is an incredible fuel, it will not be replaced as easily as many people think.
But in fact, the last major breakthrough was in 1991 when Sony commercialized lithium-ion batteries. "
It's totally untrue. How does CATL commercialize sodium ions?
"There may be promising new technologies out there, but none are close to commercialization."
Again, it's not true. LFP has been put into production. CATL is building a sodium ion plant and will achieve mass production within a few years. The technology of Teslas 4680 is currently in the trial production stage and will enter the mass production stage next year. Silicon anode batteries are being mass-produced, and wearable device manufacturer Whoop is using them in their products, which are now shipping.
For the density/weight of gasoline, you ignore the low efficiency of gasoline engines and the weight of the engine and gearbox.
But let's take a look at the real comparison. BMW M235i xDrive and Model 3 performance comparison. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, BMW has a range of 343 miles. The Tesla Model 3 has a performance of 315 miles. Gasser's LMFAO range has only increased by 28 miles. The curb weight of the air dispenser is 3,605 pounds. The M3P weighs 4,205 pounds and 600 pounds. It is not trivial, but when the 4680 battery/structure pack version of 3 is put into production, this weight gap will be reduced.
I would not call sodium ions a major breakthrough. From what I've read, they work almost the same as lithium-ion batteries, but have a shorter life (fewer charging cycles) and lower energy density. The main advantage is reduced costs due to easier materials to purchase.
The difference in energy density is significant, even for the heat loss of ICE vehicles. Since EVs need 1,000 pounds of battery packs to be comparable to 50 pounds of fuel ICE vehicles, EVs must bear a huge weight. This can cause damage to tires and other components and roads. Colin Chapman would be terrified by such a heavy car!
But few people ask the most important question: Where do we get enough electricity to charge hundreds of millions of new electric cars? Our power grid is already at a tipping point. Since 2015, the frequency of blackouts has tripled. Last year Americans drove 3.22 trillion miles in their private cars alone, so the transition to electric vehicles will require an astonishing amount of new power generation.
Wind and solar energy will not provide additional electricity. Despite hundreds of billions of subsidies, these sources have not even covered the growth in global energy demand. Increasing opposition makes these huge structures more difficult to build.
The best solution is more nuclear energy, but the environmental movement has actually criminalized this industry. There are signs that support for nuclear energy is increasing, but this may take years to achieve.
Therefore, fossil fuels are the most likely source, which means we will burn more coal and more natural gas. Coal use in Europe is already booming because they are paying the price for some very stupid policies. Fossil fuels are likely to continue to provide more than 80% of the world's energy, as they have done for generations. Electric vehicles will continue to be fueled mainly by coal and natural gas.
But there is another possible solution: electricity rationing. The UK will start implementation in May next year, when new buildings (including residences) will need to be equipped with electric vehicle charging ports that are closed for 9 hours a day. This is an effective rationing because they do not have enough electricity. All those German hotrod electric cars cannot go from zero to anything without charging!
You must be logged in to leave a comment.