As a rule the laws of physics tend to manifest as economic reality. Electric vehicles violate the laws of physics in a number of ways and for that reason EVs are unlikely to ever become economically viable.
The main physical law that EVs violate is that the batteries used to power cars can never deliver energy for transportation as efficiently as fuel tanks containing refined petroleum can. Engineers can develop workarounds, but the optimal engineering solution for transportation has already been worked out. That optimal solution is built around the use of fossil fuels.
Ford Motor Company’s engineers undoubtedly know all this. Consequently it is a wonder that the company is willing to lose billions of dollars in the fool’s errand of developing an EV product line. Don’t Ford’s executive managers know that every billion dollars they waste on EVs is a billion dollars worth of food that starving children in Africa (or on the streets of San Francisco) will never eat?
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“ Don’t Ford’s executive managers know that every billion dollars they waste on EVs is a billion dollars worth of food that starving children in Africa (or on the streets of San Francisco) will never eat?”
Then blame Musk for wasting $44 billion buying Twitter. How many starving folks could have been fed according to your statement about Ford wasting money on electric cars.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not interested in blaming anyone. It remains to be seen whether Twitter can produce any benefits that are worth the costs.
LikeLike
If you are not interested in blaming, why did you blame Ford for not feeding the kids instead of investing in EV?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t “blame Ford for not feeding the kids instead of investing in EV.” I accuse Ford of making an unwise investment, one that I imagine its own engineers can explain as unwise.
LikeLike
” is a billion dollars worth of food”
I’m not so sure about that. Think of all the child miners earning a paycheck getting the rare minerals EVs need
LikeLike
“Think of all the child miners . . .”
I thought unregulated markets always deliver the best solution? There are other sources of cobalt besides the Congo and their are other lithium battery technologies that do not use cobalt but they are not as “economic.” So the market has decided to reward the exploiters of child labor. So why are YOU whining? Isn’t this the “best” solution?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an artificial market,
If those miners had other options and chose dangerous mining jobs willingly then it would be the best of other bad choices, but most of Africa is controlled by regional strongmen who do not permit free markets.
Africa has so much potential but its politics a re toxic.
LikeLike
“It’s an artificial market . . .”
Yeah, they always are when the results of markets seem far from the “best.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The way to improve those miners conditions is for multiple mining companies to compete for the labor. But in most of Africa, the local warlord is only going to let the one paying him off operate.
LikeLike
“The way to improve those miners conditions is for multiple mining companies . . .”
The market for cobalt is global. That market has decided on cobalt produced by child labor because it is cheaper. To my mind, that is a sub-optimal outcome that has little to do with companies fighting over working conditions for virtual slaves. The regulations needed are at our border as much as in Congo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I thought unregulated markets always deliver the best solution?”
The best solution to what? Market processes allocate resources more efficiently than any known alternative, but time is a significant variable. Optimal solutions may take time to materialize; non-optimal solutions may take time to terminate.
LikeLike
“. . . non-optimal solutions may take time to terminate.”
Sure, all the child laborers could die of starvation and abuse. That would fix it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why be impatient? Other outcomes could occur.
LikeLike
Miners in the Third World have been dying for centuries. Gold, diamonds, emeralds have been rough on workers, so no need to suddenly find a need for justice on something that is actually useful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I’m not so sure about that.”
OK. Starving children may not be the actual, specific, observable opportunity cost of EVs. Some other opportunity cost may emerge — war in the colonies, perhaps.
Also, EVs don’t actually violate the laws of physics; they can’t, really. Rather, they conform to the law of entropy in a more undesirable manner than gas cars.
LikeLike
This is a good example of cherry-picking evidence to make a political point. There are several major companies building and selling electric vehicle. This “analysis” is based on the ONE that is making the lowest gross profit per vehicle. Other major players are selling EVs with positive Net Income per vehicle. They are Tesla, GM, BYD (Chinese company), Toyota, VW, and Hyundai.
https://tinyurl.com/4tx9cfyw
LikeLiked by 1 person
How many would be profitable absent the subsidies? Who would buy them unsubsidized.>
LikeLike
“How many would be profitable absent the subsidies . . .”
Reasonable questions. But still the point remains . . . Ford was cherry-picked to make a political point and its losses are more tied to its aggressive efforts to grab market share (something you have understood in the past) than to anything inherently violating the laws of physics.
Personally, my next car will be either a PHEC or an EV. With or without subsidies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At 74 I don’t know if I will be buying another car but I would have no problem with an electric for going to the grocery store and the like as long as I can keep my Tahoe for when its’ time to pull the boat or make a long trip.
In the long run, I think that if they are to be practical, there will need to be an external power source embedded in at least one lane of Interstates and such so you can charge on the go with technology like your cell phone charging pad.
LikeLike
“In the long run . . .”
Sure, a charging lane would be great. I think a far more likely development is improved battery technologies that can accept charge much faster, hold more energy, and weigh less. Developments in these directions are well under way.
https://tinyurl.com/3brvd343
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”as long as I can keep my Tahoe for when its’ time to pull the boat or make a long trip.
Charging station infrastructure is growing like weeds. And the power to pull your boat is available NOW.
And at 74, you would need to stop more to pee than to recharge. (I’m a bit younger than you and already have to stop more than I’d like.😉) And you cold do BOTH at the same time in about 18-20 minutes. Good time to stretch the legs too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope
LikeLike
Could ya be a little more specific about your NOPE.
LikeLike
You replied before I could edit to set the link, Reread
LikeLike
Sorry, but your NOPE popped and I answered.
So you found anecdotal evidence that Ford makes crappy EV’s. Congrats. I already said the Mustang was too low in range to be considered competitive with other models.
And while the article is 6 months old, that is a lifetime in the EV (and LED lighting) world. Things are improving regularly.
LikeLike
I’ll keep my Tahoe until the wheels fall off. But an EV to run to Walmart and back would be fine.
LikeLike
RE: “This is a good example of cherry-picking evidence to make a political point.”
What political point is made?
LikeLike
“What political point is made?”
The one you were trying to make by posting this article. It is you MAGATS that have turned electric vehicles into a political matter. I surprised you did not refer to Ford as “woke.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The one you were trying to make by posting this article.”
What point is that?
LikeLike
“What point is that?”
So, you really do not know what the political point was?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not only do I not know it, I don’t think you do, either.
LikeLike
“Not only do I not know it, I don’t think you do, either.”
Sad. Because the message is pretty clear – no mind reading required.
Environmental concerns as manifest in movement towards electric vehicles and in government policies to promote them are “woke.” MAGATS hate “woke.” By trashing Ford, you are trashing all that “wokeness” that you people hate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, since my post doesn’t mention “environmental concerns” or “wokeness” it is pretty clear that your commentary belongs to a fantasy world in which you are the starring drama queen.
A competent criticism would have addressed the actual statements in the post, particularly the first sentence: “As a rule the laws of physics tend to manifest as economic reality.” Unfortunately for you, you then would have to show that EVs are at least as energy efficient as gas cars, all factors considered. I doubt that that is possible.
LikeLike
“Drama queen”
“Incompetent criticism”
As a matter of fact, you jackass, my criticism was quite competent and it included evidence. Data from Ford was cherry-picked from a group of companies making money right now with EVs. Furthermore, as pointed out these losses are part of Ford’s attempt to aggressively take market share with pricing and investments and not from your ridiculous claims that they are on a “Fool’s errand” and starving children for a product that violates the laws of physics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Go it. You are unable to show that EVs are at least as energy efficient as gas cars. If you could, you wouldn’t waste time calling me names.
LikeLike
You posted an article based on cherry-picked data and half-assed analysis to conclude that Electric Vehicles are a “Fool’s errand”, starving children in Africa, and violate the laws of nature. When I responded with a competent criticism along with relevant evidence your answer is to call me names. And now you whine because I responded in kind. Grow up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You posted an article based on cherry-picked data and half-assed analysis to conclude that Electric Vehicles are a “Fool’s errand”, starving children in Africa, and violate the laws of nature.”
There’s that fantasy world again.
I posted an article that reported Ford is losing billions on its investment in EVs. I asserted that the losses can be accounted for by the fact that EVs are — for physical reasons — a non-optimal solution for transportation needs. Your incompetent response so far has been to change the subject.
LikeLike
“There’s that fantasy world again.”
Uh, nope. There is you trying to wriggle out of the words you wrote.
And what you take to be obvious – that fossil fueled transportation is inherently more efficient than electrically driven transporation is false. And, since you want to bring in the entropy of the universe, fossil fuels will add more to that entropy each year as fossil fuels become harder and harder to procure, while electric vehicles will add less and less as their technology – now in its infancy – improves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “And, since you want to bring in the entropy of the universe, fossil fuels will add more to that entropy each year as fossil fuels become harder and harder to procure, while electric vehicles will add less and less as their technology – now in its infancy – improves.”
I doubt it. You ignore the fact that internal combustion technology also continues to improve. You also ignore the fact that the vehicle-to-vehicle energy comparison is not the definitive one. Rather, the definitive comparison is EV industry to gas-car industry. It is in that comparison that EVs will always be more expensive.
LikeLike
“I doubt it. ”
Doubt all you want. It is virtually a tautaulogy if you understand entropy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It is in that comparison that EVs will always be more expensive.”
Uh, “always” is a long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tautology is fallacious, if you understand logic.
Just because fossil fuels are limited does not mean that their consumption increases entropy more than other forms of energy consumption.
LikeLike
“Tautology is fallacious, if you understand logic.”
And yet, if you understand the words, it is as certain as a tautaulogy – which was my point. Fossil fuels are finite. It is not their consumption that increases entropy. It is their extraction. We have already harvested the easiest portions. Each incremental bit will require a little more energy than the bit before it. This basic, inescapable fact is what you say you doubt. Think again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Don’t Ford’s executive managers know that every billion dollars they waste on EVs is a billion dollars worth of food that starving children in Africa (or on the streets of San Francisco) will never eat?”
Ford has no need to be socially conscious. No big company does. At least that is what Don keeps telling us. The only allegiance they have is to their shareholders.
Also, Ford’s first foray into EV’s, the Mustang, had crappy range and didn’t look even remotely like a classic Mustang. Maybe if their engineers and designers could produce something more aesthetically pleasing with better range, the wouldn’t be losing billions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Ford has no need to be socially conscious.”
Exactly right. On the other hand, the investment choice is Ford’s to make. It is not logical to invest in a technology that is never going to be viable for physical reasons.
Personifying the cost as starving children in Africa is one way to help make the logic explicit.
LikeLike
” It is not logical to invest in a technology that is never going to be viable for physical reasons.”
AN opinion based on falsehoods and lack of faith.
“Personifying the cost as starving children in Africa is one way to help make the logic explicit.”
It is a poor attempt to justify YOUR logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person