Largest EV bus maker Proterra files for bankruptcy

[jabberwocky]

I'm actually surprised that Toyota hasn't stepped up to the plate to build Electric or Hybrid Buses. After all, they had their first Toyota Prius roll off the assembly line back in 2001, so their technology may be miles ahead of GM.

Toyota has taken the approach of using hybrid technology as their primary base, recognizing that there will still be demand for ICE and supply constraints on batteries mean gas will be with us for a long time.

Their argument is overall emissions will be lowered if you can get more hybrids on the road quickly because fewer batteries are needed per vehicle. Even if a vehicle emits some carbon emissions, in aggregate they will be lower.

Now if Toyota can get their solid state battery technology to scale commercially that will be a game changer.

 

[Superchief]

Toyota has taken the approach of using hybrid technology as their primary base, recognizing that there will still be demand for ICE and supply constraints on batteries mean gas will be with us for a long time.

Their argument is overall emissions will be lowered if you can get more hybrids on the road quickly because fewer batteries are needed per vehicle. Even if a vehicle emits some carbon emissions, in aggregate they will be lower.

Now if Toyota can get their solid state battery technology to scale commercially that will be a game changer.

If the government hadn't 'forced' the transition to EV's, I think this is the approach that most car manufacturers would have taken and it would have been a much easier transition. Carbon emissions would be reduced significantly and people could use the existing infrastructure to 'fuel' their vehicles. New technology always take time to develop and work the bugs out. We are now learning the hard way with EV's, wind turbines, and solar.

 

[CRIDD]

If the government hadn't 'forced' the transition to EV's, I think this is the approach that most car manufacturers would have taken and it would have been a much easier transition. Carbon emissions would be reduced significantly and people could use the existing infrastructure to 'fuel' their vehicles. New technology always take time to develop and work the bugs out. We are now learning the hard way with EV's, wind turbines, and solar.

Toyota has taken the approach of using hybrid technology as their primary base, recognizing that there will still be demand for ICE and supply constraints on batteries mean gas will be with us for a long time.

Their argument is overall emissions will be lowered if you can get more hybrids on the road quickly because fewer batteries are needed per vehicle. Even if a vehicle emits some carbon emissions, in aggregate they will be lower.

Now if Toyota can get their solid state battery technology to scale commercially that will be a game changer.

Not 100% batteries are the best tech with the mining operations to produce them and the emissions and carbon it takes to produce. SS batteries and better infrastructure would be a huge step. Hybrids make the most sense for now. I wonder what is after batteries though. There has to be something better.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Back in the early days of the automobile many automobile companies spent fortunes on designing and perfecting safety glass with the exception of GM. William Durant took the position that it could be licensed for a fraction of the R&D cost.

Developing the expertise in-house is the sledge-hammer approach. Tesla found this out when it tried the brute force approach to robotic assembly.

Tesla MAY make them, but GM WILL service them.

GM doesn't service anything - not a single vehicle. The independent dealership networks service all GM vehicles - along with every other legacy manufacturer. There are manufacturer reps that determine whether the services performed by the dealership networks will be covered under warranty work or not. Tesla utilizes a completely different gigapress manufacturing approach when compared to the legacy mass/lean production methodologies. Most of the legacy auto manufacturers are rushing to move toward gigapress manufacturing methods pioneered by Tesla - because there's no other way for them to compete on cost otherwise. The sledge-hammer approach you're referring to was six years ago when Tesla first started ramping up M3 production - those issues were resolved long ago now.

 

[HitchHiker71]

T

If the government hadn't 'forced' the transition to EV's, I think this is the approach that most car manufacturers would have taken and it would have been a much easier transition. Carbon emissions would be reduced significantly and people could use the existing infrastructure to 'fuel' their vehicles. New technology always take time to develop and work the bugs out. We are now learning the hard way with EV's, wind turbines, and solar.

There is no federal legislation requiring any transition despite popular myth. There are a handful of states that have passed legislation - like California for example. Contrary to popular myth, the transition to EVs is by and large a market driven phenomenon led by Tesla. Sure the federal tax rebates help starting this year - but even without those rebates - Tesla was demand constrained and continues to be demand constrained.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Not 100% batteries are the best tech with the mining operations to produce them and the emissions and carbon it takes to produce. SS batteries and better infrastructure would be a huge step. Hybrids make the most sense for now. I wonder what is after batteries though. There has to be something better.

Second gen BEVs are already moving toward FRP/M3P batteries that don't use any rare earth elements. Lithium, Iron, etc. These are plentiful despite popular myth. The market will resolve constraints on these plentiful minerals as needed. The use of NMC (Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt) rare earth metals that are controversial and more difficult to mine will become a niche market for battery production over the next few years - likely only used in higher end limited production vehicles that require higher energy density for the battery packs. The new Project Highland Model 3 will likely only use FRP/M3P battery packs when announced later this year. The next gen Model Y due out in 2024 will do the same. This is as much an economic play as anything, as FRP/M3P batteries are a good bit less expensive to produce, use minerals that are much more plentiful, and therefore help drive BEV prices downward over time.

 

[Superchief]

T

There is no federal legislation requiring any transition despite popular myth. There are a handful of states that have passed legislation - like California for example. Contrary to popular myth, the transition to EVs is by and large a market driven phenomenon led by Tesla. Sure the federal tax rebates help starting this year - but even without those rebates - Tesla was demand constrained and continues to be demand constrained.

By 'forced' I meant that statements have been made by several federal and state government leaders to the effect that all gas vehicles will be banned by 2030 or 2035. The head of the Department of Energy stated that all military vehicles will be electric by 2035. Our political leaders don't really think things through when they make these types of statements and their lips are moving. Can you imagine our military equipment being run on lithium batteries from a foreign enemy in battle?

 

[jabberwocky]

T

There is no federal legislation requiring any transition despite popular myth. There are a handful of states that have passed legislation - like California for example. Contrary to popular myth, the transition to EVs is by and large a market driven phenomenon led by Tesla. Sure the federal tax rebates help starting this year - but even without those rebates - Tesla was demand constrained and continues to be demand constrained.

Contrary to popular myth there is no real market for regulatory carbon credits. It is purely an artificial “market” created by government fiat.

Tesla would not have survived to become profitable without selling these credits to other car manufacturers. And this is before you get into the rebates given to consumers. All industries get subsidies so I’ll ignore the additional direct subsidies given to Tesla.

Note that while some may see this post as political - I’m just stating economic reality.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Contrary to popular myth there is no real market for regulatory carbon credits. It is purely an artificial “market” created by government fiat.

Tesla would not have survived to become profitable without selling these credits to other car manufacturers. And this is before you get into the rebates given to consumers. All industries get subsidies so I’ll ignore the additional direct subsidies given to Tesla.

Note that while some may see this post as political - I’m just stating economic reality.

No one can say for certain what Tesla or any other pure BEV manufacturer's future would have been without carbon credit offsets. Undoubtedly the trajectory of BEV would have been pushed out a few years as Tesla would not have been able to spend as much capex on innovation as they actually have been due to carbon credit offsets. I think Tesla, and other pure BEV plays, would have survived, they simply would have run their business differently had carbon offsets not been in play. The consumer tax rebates obviously go to the consumers not to the manufacturers - but they do incentivize purchases by driving down the net cost - which is by design with monetarist economics - we give tax breaks for that which we decide to encourage (non-fossil fuel based energies), and we levy heavier taxes upon that which we decide to discourage (tobacco).

 

[emeryjre]

Well we know that the Oil and Gas Industry never received any Federal or State tax subsidies. (Sarcasm at the highest level)

 

[Carolinian]

You would expect to see all government agencies driving 100% electric vehicles by now. Transit and School buses are first step to zero emissions in the bus industry as they have set miles per day and don’t need luggage space. They also have the ability to charge overnight at the same location every night. Though batteries maybe a stepping stone to a better technology.

Some in our government are demanding that the military do this. Can you imagine in the middle of a breakthrough of enemy lines, the tanks have to all stop for several hours to be recharged?

Anyone who watched that video of the EV bus going up in flames in Paris should think what would have happened if it had been a school bus full of little children in the middle of traffic instead of a transit bus parked by the curb with nobody on board. EV school buses can easily become rolling coffins for children.

 

[Ken555]

Some in our government are demanding that the military do this. Can you imagine in the middle of a breakthrough of enemy lines, the tanks have to all stop for several hours to be recharged?

Anyone who watched that video of the EV bus going up in flames in Paris should think what would have happened if it had been a school bus full of little children in the middle of traffic instead of a transit bus parked by the curb with nobody on board. EV school buses can easily become rolling coffins for children.

Is fear your only method for convincing others to your position? It seems every post you have here is filled with fear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

Some in our government are demanding that the military do this. Can you imagine in the middle of a breakthrough of enemy lines, the tanks have to all stop for several hours to be recharged?

Anyone who watched that video of the EV bus going up in flames in Paris should think what would have happened if it had been a school bus full of little children in the middle of traffic instead of a transit bus parked by the curb with nobody on board. EV school buses can easily become rolling coffins for children.

Can someone please provide evidence of these claims with respect to military fleet electrification? What politicians say is largely irrelevant. They say things every day - most of which don’t come to pass. I have no issues with non-combat military vehicles converting to electric when and where it makes sense. Combat vehicles and military supply chains that provide energy to those vehicles in forward areas is quite a different matter. I highly doubt that is what is being proposed. Perhaps when solid state battery technologies mature, this might make sense, but even then it might not be feasible, and this is likely 5-10 years away at best.

Even Musk clearly and openly states that while we should be doing whatever we can to accelerate adoption of clean energy and transportation electrification where applicable, we should not be vilifying oil and gas in the process, as we are going to need oil and gas for legitimate reasons far into the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Superchief]

Biden energy secretary doubles down on electrifying US military's vehicle fleet by 2030: 'We can get there'

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said she supports efforts to require the U.S. military to implement an all-electric vehicle fleet by the year 2030, saying she believes “we can get there."

www.foxnews.com

Can someone please provide evidence of these claims with respect to military fleet electrification? What politicians say is largely irrelevant. They say things every day - most of which don’t come to pass. I have no issues with non-combat military vehicles converting to electric when and where it makes sense. Combat vehicles and military supply chains that provide energy to those vehicles in forward areas is quite a different matter. I highly doubt that is what is being proposed. Perhaps when solid state battery technologies mature, this might make sense, but even then it might not be feasible, and this is likely 5-10 years away at best.

Even Musk clearly and openly states that while we should be doing whatever we can to accelerate adoption of clean energy and transportation electrification where applicable, we should not be vilifying oil and gas in the process, as we are going to need oil and gas for legitimate reasons far into the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PigsDad]

Biden energy secretary doubles down on electrifying US military's vehicle fleet by 2030: 'We can get there'

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said she supports efforts to require the U.S. military to implement an all-electric vehicle fleet by the year 2030, saying she believes “we can get there."

www.foxnews.com

The last line of that article:

the strategy aims to establish an "all-electric light-duty non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2027" and an "all-electric non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2035."​

There is no mention of tanks or combat vehicles being included in the "all-electric" fleet.

Kurt

 

[CRIDD]

I see one of the big three automakers buying Tesla when their stock tumbles and market cap crumples. They did some great things and set prices without competition but next 10 years will be rough on them.

Read about some big carbon capture things happening in Texas and I think Louisiana. Next big thing, Biden Administration putting 1.2b into it with Public Private partnership. Our next savior.

 

[easyrider]

Yeah, you’re definitely the resident TUG anti-EV guy. Never any good news about EV from you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is there any good news on ev's ? If ev's were a decent product every one would be buying them, imo. Since they kind of suck, not to many buyer want to spend that much money for problematic transportation.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

Is there any good news on ev's ? If ev's were a decent product every one would be buying them, imo. Since they kind of suck, not to many buyer want to spend that much money for problematic transportation.

Bill

Have you performed any research into that opinion, or was it formed solely by certain TUG posts? Inquiring minds…

Just take two minutes and search the topic for yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

Have you performed any research into that opinion, or was it formed solely by certain TUG posts? Inquiring minds…

Just take two minutes and search the topic for yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No one is buying them. Ev's aren't reliable in cold or hot temperatures, very few shops work on them, charging takes too long, range is too short for long distance travel, insurance cost is higher, initial buy is higher, some ev's randomly start on fire, you can't clean ev's at most drive through car washes, you can't tow it any distance because of no neutral , if they ever flood out and dry there is a decent chance the will spontaneously combust, they weigh too much for the size and they really have about the same co2 impact as a decent ice type vehicle in the same size all things considered.

These aren't opinions Ken. My opinion is I won't buy one until I have to.

Bill

 

[Ken555]

No one is buying them.

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that EV sales have increased year over year since they were released? And, more and more auto makers are moving in that direction and announcing even more models?

“No one is buying them” - what a load of… you’ve got zero proof to support this false statement. If I’m wrong, prove it!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DrQ]

Why Proterra went bankrupt​

Why Proterra went bankrupt | Semafor

The Inflation Reduction Act was too little, too late to help the top U.S. electric bus maker compete with China’s BYD.

www.semafor.com

"Proterra’s nickel-based battery chemistry was also more expensive than the lithium batteries used by most of its competitors, said Nikolaos Soulopoulos, head of commercial transport research at BloombergNEF. "​

WHAT!? WHAT!? No "spontaneous combusting" Li ION batteries onboard, say it ain't so! Don't let facts get in the way of a good FUD rant.

"Buses make a good candidate for electrification because they run on predictable schedules, in fleets. The high fuel consumption of traditional buses makes the lifetime ownership cost of an e-bus competitive or, depending on state and local subsidies, even cheaper than an internal combustion engine bus, according to BloombergNEF.​

​

But they have drawbacks as a business. Unlike passenger vehicles, buses are typically customized for each customer, limiting automation and factory efficiency. They get ordered in batches (when a city gets a new budget, for example), leading to inconsistent production schedules and orders with suppliers. They take a long time to build — 12 to 18 months from when a contract is signed to when a bus is delivered and paid for, in Proterra’s case — which makes them vulnerable to having their margins eaten away by inflation."​

 

[Patri]

The last line of that article:

the strategy aims to establish an "all-electric light-duty non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2027" and an "all-electric non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2035."​

There is no mention of tanks or combat vehicles being included in the "all-electric" fleet.

Kurt

Why wait until the last line? That should be the lead.

 

[Superchief]

The last line of that article:

the strategy aims to establish an "all-electric light-duty non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2027" and an "all-electric non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2035."​

There is no mention of tanks or combat vehicles being included in the "all-electric" fleet.

Kurt

This is a direct quote from Biden mentioned in the article:
"While delivering Earth Day remarks from Seward Park in Seattle, Washington, Biden said last April his administration is working to make "every vehicle" in the United States military "climate-friendly."

"One of the things I found out as President of the United States, I get to spend a lot of that money," Biden said at the time. "We’re going to start the process where every vehicle in the United States military, every vehicle, is going to be climate-friendly — every vehicle — I mean it."

He added: "We’re spending billions of dollars to do it."

Neither Biden nor Granholm mention anything about this referring to only 'non-tactical' vehicles. That qualification was referring to a plan by the Army:

"Last February, the Army unveiled a plan to tackle issues surrounding climate change, including the establishment of an electric vehicle fleet, as well as the reduction of the branch's greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan, titled "Climate Strategy," calls for the service to cut its emissions by 50% by 2030 from 2005 levels and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Additionally, the strategy aims to establish an "all-electric light-duty non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2027" and an "all-electric non-tactical vehicle fleet by 2035."

Spending billions of dollars to replace current military vehicles with EV's just doesn't make sense. If we have to go to battle with someone, the pollution caused by bombs and artillery will negate any carbon reduction by using EV's instead of diesel or gas. The US is also currently better able to supply oil based fuels than batteries and electricity sources for charging on the battlefield.

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

Next topic - The carbon footprint option of returning to horses

 

[Carolinian]

Is there any good news on ev's ? If ev's were a decent product every one would be buying them, imo. Since they kind of suck, not to many buyer want to spend that much money for problematic transportation.

Bill

I posted polling data state-by-state in a prior thread on how most Americans have no interest in buying EV's.