Ford building 4 new plants to meet demand for electric vehicles

Ford and SK Innovation to spend $11 billion, create 11,000 jobs on new U.S. EV and battery plants
Michael Wayland 3 hrs ago

• The investment includes two lithium-ion battery plants in central Kentucky and a 3,600-acre campus in west Tennessee called Blue Oval City.
• The plans bolster President Joe Biden's call for companies to onshore supply chains amid a global shortage of semiconductor chips that has disrupted several industries, including automotive.

DETROIT – Ford Motor and battery supplier SK Innovation plan to invest more than $11.4 billion in new U.S. facilities that will create nearly 11,000 jobs to produce electric vehicles and batteries.

Ford is building twin lithium-ion battery plants in central Kentucky through a joint venture with South Korea-based SK called BlueOvalSK as well as a massive 3,600-acre campus in west Tennessee, the automaker said Monday night. The campus will include another a battery plant built with SK along with a supplier park, recycling center and a new assembly plant for electric F-Series trucks, Ford CEO Jim Farley told CNBC.

The plans are the latest of Ford's to increase development and production of electric vehicles — including batteries — under Farley, who began leading the automaker a year ago this week. They also bolster President Joe Biden's call for companies to onshore supply chains amid a global shortage of semiconductor chips that has disrupted several industries, including automotive.

The investment is part of Farley's "Ford+" turnaround plan to make the automaker's traditional operations more profitable and better position it for emerging sectors such as autonomous, electric and connected vehicles.

"This is the new Ford," Farley told CNBC during a phone interview. "It's time. We are putting shovels in the ground, 11,000 new workers. … It's an enormous commitment to build these digital products."

Ford does not expect to take on any additional debt to fund the plans, according to Farley. He said moves will be funded through the company's profits.

The new investment comes on top of the $30 billion the company previously said would go to electric vehicles through 2025, about $7 billion of which had already been invested before February.

Production at the plants, aside from one of the battery plants in Kentucky, is expected to begin in 2025, the company said. The second battery plant in Kentucky is expected to come online in 2026, according to Ford.

'Pivotal moment'
The "new Ford" is a drastic pivot from Farley's predecessor, Jim Hackett, who previously said the automaker saw "no advantage" in producing its own battery cells. It comes as Ford's crosstown rival General Motors spends $4.6 billion through a joint venture with LG Chem for battery production, starting in 2023.

Farley said the investment should be further proof that Ford, which many on Wall Street believed was behind on EVs, is positioned to be a leader in the segment. "I don't know of any other company making this announcement. Why would you ever think we're behind? We're ahead," Farley said.

Shares of Ford have more than doubled since Farley became CEO of the automaker almost a year ago.

Ford and SK Innovation to spend $11 billion, create 11,000 jobs on new U.S. EV and battery plants (msn.com)

 

I was going to replace my six year old F150 this year with a new model. Then I saw the reviews on the new electric F150 that should be at my dealership in 2022 so I am holding off for that.

 

I saw this story along with a question.

Will America be up to recharging stations for such vehicles?

 

I think this nation has a knack for gearing up to meet innovation. I am seriously considering an electric F150 in 2022. I still need to do my research and see if it is practical for the times I need to travel. And I haven't invested the time yet to see what recharging entails. Do I plug it into the wall when I get home? I just don't know. I do have a secret weapon though. One of my best buddies heads up the service department at the local Ford dealership. He will give me the skinny when time comes to figure this all out.

 

Pass on the info.
Financially I couldn't afford an electric vehicle but I'd definitely be interested. The only recharging "stations" I've seen here are at the local hospital.
As a nation we are capable of gearing up for innovation. I can see larger gas station chains gearing up in a hurry.

I've worked in enough gas stations and truck stops including opening new ones. Gearing up for electricity versus fossil fuels would seem much easier.
No digging holes for massive tanks to begin with and all the problems that come with it. Plus as these things age you're not looking at digging them up to solve a problem and potentially damaging the nearby environment.
The permits to do these alone is a royal pain.

 

Would anyone buy one of these things if it weren't for all the government (taxpayer) subsidies? Btw, where are all these burned out batteries gonna go?

 

Ford has 150,000 people in line waiting to buy one of these electric F150's when they come out. So yes, people do want electric vehicles.

BTW the batteries get recycled.

 

I'll tell you, Yakpoo.... I been turning my own wrenches for fifty years and fully understand the workings of an internal combustion engine..... I am seriously considering one of these if I can make sense of the charging and driving range figures. I can see the writing on the wall and gasoline is a target. The cost of fuel will not be manageable in the near future.

 

Hey, you'd never have to change oil again.

 

I could live with that!

 

No rusty tailpipes either.

 

I'm all for electric if the free market economy can support it. Electricity transmission is very inefficient and the Left completely ignores the collateral environmental damage of electricity generation and use. Fossil fuel produced "Climate Change" is a political hoax. Solar activity exceeds the effects of man-made carbon by many orders of magnitude.

 

Here comes $90 oil

New York (CNN Business)The V-shaped recovery in the oil patch continues to take even the biggest bulls on Wall Street by surprise.

Goldman Sachs ramped up its already optimistic forecast on Sunday, calling for Brent crude to hit $90 a barrel by the end of the year. That's up from its previous call for $80.
The Wall Street bank expects US crude to hit $87 a barrel, up from $77 previously.
"While we have long held a bullish oil view," Goldman Sachs strategists wrote in a note to clients, "the current global oil supply-demand deficit is larger than we expected."

The firm said the recovery in worldwide demand from the Delta variant has been "even faster than our above consensus forecast" and global supply is "short of our below-consensus forecasts."

In other words, high oil prices could get even higher. That suggests gasoline prices may remain elevated.
The national average stands at $3.19 a gallon, according to AAA. That's up from $3.15 a month ago and $2.19 this time last year.
Brent crude, the world benchmark, jumped another 1.5% to $79.25 a barrel on Monday. That leaves Brent on track for its highest close since October 2018.

US crude rallied 2% Monday, settling at $75.45 a barrel. That's the highest close since October 3, 2018. It's the first time oil has finished above $75 a barrel since mid-July.
The latest gains add to the remarkable recovery from the onset of Covid, when US crude crashed below zero for the first time ever. Oil bottomed at negative $40 a barrel in April 2020, or roughly $115 below current levels.
The pandemic forced US oil companies and OPEC to dramatically cut production -- and much of that supply remains offline.

Goldman Sachs said the current supply-demand deficit "will not be reversed in coming months, in our view, as its scale will overwhelm both the willingness and ability for OPEC+ to ramp up."
The White House has called for OPEC+ to accelerate its increase in production, a call that has so far gone unheeded by the Saudi Arabia and Russia-led alliance of producers.

Meanwhile, the return of US shale oil is "just getting started," Goldman Sachs noted.
US oil supply was snarled by Hurricane Ida, which knocked offline Gulf of Mexico production for a prolonged period. Goldman Sachs said the storm "should prove to be the most bullish hurricane in US history."
Goldman Sachs said this will set the stage for oil inventories to reach their lowest levels since 2013.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with that. If I do go the electric route, it will be a self serving choice I freely admit.

 

Most of your opinions here are highly uninformed. Electricity transmission is the only opinion you have that is even remotely a consideration. Let's try and stick to the facts.

Although to be fair, "Climage" change is a hoax.

 

what about all the govt subsidies for fossil fuels?

 

for trips under 200 miles you can just charge at home

 

As it ought to be...

• The central thesis of Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" is that our individual need to fulfill self-interest results in societal benefit, in what is known as his "invisible hand".
• This, combined with the division of labor in an economy, results in a web of mutual interdepencies that promotes stability and prosperity through the market mechanism.
• Smith rejects government interference in market activities, and instead states governments should serve just 3 functions: protect national borders; enforce civil law; and engage in public works (e.g. education).

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/

Note: the "(e.g. education)" part is the author's editorial comment. I would argue that there is no role for government in education outside of the military.

 

Although I have very little confidence in assuaging your propensity to exaggerate without fact, and your distasteful choice of exercising an Ideology of Division on every subject and to do so joyfully and with the sole purpose of eliciting negative commentary, now that I know who you are, I will try:

150,000 potential/possible/undecided customers is 17% of average F-150 sales per year, and the last 2 years are down years for F-150 sales.

17% would not be considered a dismal turn-out (think Edsel), considering the minor cost to Ford. However, without major subsidies by the U.S. Government and the Government of South Korea, this would be a major albatross on the level of selling only 1 Edsel.

Ford is being "reimbursed" via a 1/3 percentage deferred interest loan and Grants in Aid courtesy of the pending Infrastructure Bill.

Additionally, the Government of South Korea is funding all construction costs and Plant operations. Ford has an approximately $750 Million potential investment over 3years, because Gross profits from any sales will be applied to the JV Debit side of the Balance Sheet and generates a predicted 92% tax write off.

Purchasers for the new F Series will potentially receive up to a $7,500.00 EV tax credit, but that depends on a couple of factors: the tax status of the purchaser, AND A MINIMUM OF 400,000 VEHICLES BEING SOLD IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH DOE REGULATIONS FOR THE CREDIT. Less than 400, 000 sold? NO TAX CREDIT, AND FORD IS COMPENSATED FOR LOSSES.

The new EV F Series will be geared specifically toward the commercial market, for couple of reasons: businesses will receive a plethora of tax credits, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE 400,000 VEHICLE MINIMUM.

The Target pricing:

Entry level: $40,000.
Lightening XLT: $53,000.
Priciest (read Bells and Whistles: $91,000. If a buyer is looking for all the cute creature comforts in the Base Model, it will not be happening. Think GMC 1500 Sierra Work Truck Model...that would be a comparative.


The Filing of a Unfair Trade Practices Dispute with the U.S. International Trade Commission by LG against SK, and the subsequent Ruling against SK...triggering a 10 year ban for importing the raw materials for the batteries, and limiting the availability of same to Ford and VW....and further limiting Ford to a purchase of the batteries from existing materials for only 4 years, could only be overruled by POTUS within a 60 day window. It would have been a death bell ringing to Ford. At the last hour in April, with concentrated pressure being brought on POTUS to overrule the Commission, a $1.8 Billion settlement was arranged, with LG being compensated and the potential disaster to Ford averted. It should be noted that the conglomerates needed to produce the end product were and are the property of both entities and both entities are South Korea based, and both received extraordinary assistance form the Government of South Korea and promises of future protection by the U.S. Government, AND FORD FUTURE PURCHASES COMMITMENTS, all to offset the exchange of money needed for the settlement, which is in actuality a zero sum payment.
The available amount of raw materials was and is enough for 400,000 vehicles...which is the exact amount of model sales required to trigger the EV Tax Credit.

The winners: Kentucky and GA. Not the American People.
The potential EV battery replacement cost: $ 1386.00, with recycling for existing platform.

The 150,000 people: all that was required to be added to the waiting list was a FULLY REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT OF $100.00.
That is all. This set up a speculation flip market: if the autos were produced, the waiting list recipient would be in a position to immediately flip the purchase, without regard to the EV Tax Credit, and benefit from a high probability that 400,000 will not be produced in 2022. Don't forget...VW has their rightful share of the battery production due and signed off by LG.

As for charging at home, there will be a Subsidy to the power Transmitter, BUT NOT THE END USER. THE END USER WILL BE CHARGED FOR USE THAT EXCEEDS THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTH AVERAGE.

Everything changes, nothing changes.

I fully expect your mental dismissal of the Post, Little Joe. I decided to continue because it may be of use to other members.

 

They seem incredibly powerful. The electric vehicle industry is finally matured and ready for the mainstream.

At least where I live, they are few and far between. However there certainly is an incentive for it to grow. In places with more rurality like my region it just may take some time, that's all.

even just 5 years ago the electric vehicles weren't nearly as useful as they are today. it's incredible how quick it turned.

That being said - I will likely never be able to afford one, and will have to stick with gasoline.