Ranger EV in 2029 according to product forecast map. Will share TE1 platform with Bronco EV

[Ranger#5?]

And don't bet me wrong - I'd prefer a PHEV option before a BEV option as well. I was just commenting that this research group seems to be implicating that Ford is going 100% BEV focused in 2030+

anytime I see a party (not you) making a prediction of Ford going full BEV- I ask myself how does that stand up against the FACT Ford split the company into 2 separate companies? IMO, they are hedging their bets on the whole EV adoption thing and gave themselves an option if the global transition away from ICE motorized vehicles is a big bust, leaving them the larger & more profitable division to sustain them. At this point, with no infrastructure of needed scale to make it work and pie in the sky arbitrary timelines for ending ICE vehicle sales like in CA, I predict certain disaster and hardship for us minions, and makes me glad Ford is hedging the way they are.

Sponsored

 

[eRock92]

anytime I see a party (not you) making a prediction of Ford going full BEV- I ask myself how does that stand up against the FACT Ford split the company into 2 separate companies? IMO, they are hedging their bets on the whole EV adoption thing and gave themselves an option if the global transition away from ICE motorized vehicles is a big bust, leaving them the larger & more profitable division to sustain them. At this point, with no infrastructure of needed scale to make it work and pie in the sky arbitrary timelines for ending ICE vehicle sales like in CA, I predict certain disaster and hardship for us minions, and makes me glad Ford is hedging the way they are.

I forgot about the division split. You're theory seems to make sense: push for the new thing but have the backup plan in motion if things get squirrely. And if I remember correctly, the HEV and PHEV vehicles are under the ICE division. Maybe Ford really is leading with their plan A but internally is quietly both plans A & B so they can shift if/when the market starts to swerve.

Another thing we must remember is that the US's infrastructure is mainly based on roads unlike in other countries where they have rail and/or bus systems to move people. US metropolitan regions are huge and population in general is just really spread out. I used to live in Northern VA; I was still considered to be in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan area despite being 30 miles away from the D.C. line. We have a lot more miles to adopt into EV and EV infrastructure than other countries in the world. It's a lot of people spread out across a lot of land. It's the reason why range anxiety and charge times are hot issues in the U.S. It's the difference between having to burn an additional vacation day or PTO just to visit loved one across the country or the difference between just driving there and having to fork over the money to fly. While many loved the isolation the pandemic brought in 2020, many others loathed it and longed to be physically with the people they loved. Hopefully people will understand why the US is slowly adapting EV's and dealing with issues other countries don't see as being issues.

 

[Ranger#5?]

I'm a lifelong skeptic with a decades long career (retired 8yrs ago) in everything from defense to commercial/consumer retail including mobile phones. What bothers me the most is when decision makers who set policy and spend our tax money never have to prove anything works the way they promise, on time, within budget, and just plow ahead no matter what. The "bullet train" in CA is an example. I was born and raised in CA before escaping in 2017 In the private sector projects like that get snuffed out long before they get to the point of throwing good money after bad when ideas/projects don't fulfill early promises and funding stops dead.

So I'm not going to tie politics into this and will move on, but is it really too much to ask of people running our country to PROVE a transition away from ICE propulsion seamlessly in a way that doesn't destroy our way of life and livelihoods is possible? Just honest technical and scientific testing and results with no spin or hidden failures showing the promises can't be met? Converting the Government fleet vehicles and USPS to electric is suggested occasionally, and IMHO that would be the perfect model to prove electrified viability nationwide and those fleets are already budgeted and funded. Just don't lie or cover up if it fails - just present data & results so public can make informed decisions on our own.

 

[JKinPA]

I'm a lifelong skeptic with a decades long career (retired 8yrs ago) in everything from defense to commercial including mobile phones. What bothers me the most is when decision makers who set policy and spend our tax money never have to prove anything works the way they promise, on time, within budget, and just plow ahead no matter what. The "bullet train" in CA is an example. I was born and raised in CA before escaping in 2017 In the private sector projects like that get snuffed out long before they get to the point of throwing good money after bad when ideas/projects don't fulfill early promises and funding stops dead.

So I'm not going to tie politics into this and will move on, but is it really too much to ask of people running our country to PROVE a transition away from ICE propulsion seamlessly in a way that doesn't destroy our way of life and livelihoods is possible? Just honest technical and scientific testing and results with no spin or hidden failures showing the promises can't be met? Converting the Government fleet vehicles and USPS to electric is suggested occasionally, and IMHO that would be the perfect model to prove electrified viability nationwide and those fleets are already budgeted and funded. Just don't lie or cover up if it fails - just present data & results so public can make informed decisions on our own.

Great post R5!!!!!!
Those of us in the private sector can relate to your message. Nearly infinite funding, just raise taxes and/or increase the debt as opposed to generating revenue and appeasing stockholders. Must be nice not being accountable...I wouldn't know.

 

[Apples]

Everyone, or so it seems, is on the electric vehicle (EV) band wagon. And why not, with billions of US taxpayer’s monies available to kick start the revolution!? In this case, however, it is like going to war without weaponry!

The requisite infrastructure to support EV is not in place, and probably never will be, at least in the foreseeable future. The reason here is, although the fed seemingly has no problem printing more and more dollars and adding to the national debt, it will still take over $3 trillion just to fund the first tier of EV-charging infrastructure! This assumes the US electrical grid can handle the load, which it cannot. In fact, due mainly to political pressures and the clout of the EPA, it will be 20 years before anyone can start construction on a new power source. That source will not be coal! It might be natural gas, but you would have to build pipelines to accomplish the feat. Oh! And nuclear? Forget that political suicide!

All of this points out several irrefutable truths. First, we will be using ICE-powered vehicles for the next 50 years at least! Part of the issue, is simply the limited chemical storage of convertible electrical energy contained in a storage cell, regardless of their nature.

Some pundits suggest we could use hydrogen. We need to remember that gasoline has about 120,000 BTUs per gallon, while hydrogen is about 51,000 BTUs per gallon. And where do we get hydrogen? From natural gas (although coal could be used) and electricity from the grid! Don’t forget, we have to transport hydrogen in liquid form under rather high pressures of around 5,000 PSI to 10,000 PSI (350 BAR to 700 BAR) depending on the ambient temperature. How safe is that?

So let’s use more E85. Okay, but a gallon of E85 only have 88,000. That “E” stands for ethanol. We can manufacture ethanol from distilling corn and other agricultural products, as well as coal and natural gas! Do you get the gist yet?

Oh yes, we can install a few thousand more windmills, a trillion or more solar panels, and perhaps unproven tidal wave generators. Where are the funds for those infrastructure projects, along with the requisite maintenance? While you’re thinking about that, how do we store the generated power when there is no wind or sun or surf?

Someone is bound to mention the need to stop the production of green house gasses. Wonderful, and good luck! You’ll need it, because the dozen or so active volcanos around the world, are spewing more CO2 and SO2 into the air each day, than human-caused sources each year!

Let’s get real people, by stepping back from the small picture, and start looking at the big picture! In the process, we need to stop thinking in oxymoronic terms like carbon neutral and zero emissions, or we’re doomed to mediocracy!

 

[CaptAngry]

The answer to our EV-obsessed society is "simple".... nuclear power. It is by far the safest and most reliable. And with "micro" nuke plants, we can put the power where we need it.

The grid being able to handle it (even on a localized basis)... that is a while different story.

 

[Ranger#5?]

Everyone, or so it seems, is on the electric vehicle (EV) band wagon. And why not, with billions of US taxpayer’s monies available to kick start the revolution!? In this case, however, it is like going to war without weaponry!

The requisite infrastructure to support EV is not in place, and probably never will be, at least in the foreseeable future. The reason here is, although the fed seemingly has no problem printing more and more dollars and adding to the national debt, it will still take over $3 trillion just to fund the first tier of EV-charging infrastructure! This assumes the US electrical grid can handle the load, which it cannot. In fact, due mainly to political pressures and the clout of the EPA, it will be 20 years before anyone can start construction on a new power source. That source will not be coal! It might be natural gas, but you would have to build pipelines to accomplish the feat. Oh! And nuclear? Forget that political suicide!

All of this points out several irrefutable truths. First, we will be using ICE-powered vehicles for the next 50 years at least! Part of the issue, is simply the limited chemical storage of convertible electrical energy contained in a storage cell, regardless of their nature.

Some pundits suggest we could use hydrogen. We need to remember that gasoline has about 120,000 BTUs per gallon, while hydrogen is about 51,000 BTUs per gallon. And where do we get hydrogen? From natural gas (although coal could be used) and electricity from the grid! Don’t forget, we have to transport hydrogen in liquid form under rather high pressures of around 5,000 PSI to 10,000 PSI (350 BAR to 700 BAR) depending on the ambient temperature. How safe is that?

So let’s use more E85. Okay, but a gallon of E85 only have 88,000. That “E” stands for ethanol. We can manufacture ethanol from distilling corn and other agricultural products, as well as coal and natural gas! Do you get the gist yet?

Oh yes, we can install a few thousand more windmills, a trillion or more solar panels, and perhaps unproven tidal wave generators. Where are the funds for those infrastructure projects, along with the requisite maintenance? While you’re thinking about that, how do we store the generated power when there is no wind or sun or surf?

Someone is bound to mention the need to stop the production of green house gasses. Wonderful, and good luck! You’ll need it, because the dozen or so active volcanos around the world, are spewing more CO2 and SO2 into the air each day, than human-caused sources each year!

Let’s get real people, by stepping back from the small picture, and start looking at the big picture! In the process, we need to stop thinking in oxymoronic terms like carbon neutral and zero emissions, or we’re doomed to mediocracy!

Great well-reasoned post Allow me to add 2 more truths that will completely invalidate the idea of going all electric for everything and grid shortcomings. Look at Ukraine: what is Russia bombing constantly? Energy grid! That's always the #1 target to cripple an enemy and relatively cheap to destroy those certain trillions of wasted "investment" to modernize our nationwide grid. Simple crude rockets and missiles and drones are the death of grids- and an EMP airborne explosion can do it even better and our enemies all know this. #2 hackers: shut down and/or irreparable destroy grid from inside with malware.

Sponsored