Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

More stories

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Ford Splits Into Electric and Gas Divisions to Speed Up Transition

    by

    E.V. operations will focus on technology and growth while the traditional business continues to chase profits. “You can’t have people work on both at the same time,” the chief executive said.Ford Motor has decided the best way to make the transition to electric vehicles is to transform itself first.On Wednesday, the automaker said it had reorganized its auto operations into two distinct businesses — one that makes its gasoline-powered vehicles and focuses on maximizing profits and another that develops and ramps up production of electric models and aims for rapid growth.Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley, said in an interview that the two businesses required different skills and mind-sets that would clash and hinder each area if they remained parts of one organization. “You can’t be successful and beat Tesla that way,” he said.Sales of battery-powered cars are rising rapidly, a trend that Mr. Farley and other auto executives see as the industry’s biggest disruption since Henry Ford introduced mass production and the Model T in 1908. Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen and other traditional manufacturers are spending tens of billions of dollars to field new models, build battery plants and develop new technologies that Tesla has pioneered, such as advanced driver-assist systems and over-the-air software updates.Mr. Farley said Ford would spend $50 billion on electric vehicles between 2022 and 2026. It previously planned to spend $30 billion in the five years ending in 2025. It plans to spend $5 billion on E.V.s this year, double the 2021 total.A Critical Year for Electric VehiclesThe popularity of battery-powered cars is soaring worldwide, even as the overall auto market stagnates. Going Mainstream: In December, Europeans for the first time bought more electric cars than diesels, once the most popular option. Turning Point: Electric vehicles account for a small slice of the market, but in 2022, their march could become unstoppable. Here is why. Tesla’s Success: A superior command of technology and its own supply chain allowed the company to bypass an industrywide crisis. Rivian’s Troubles: Investors first embraced this electric vehicle maker. Now they worry it may not live up to its promise. Green Fleet: Amazon wants electric vans to make its deliveries. The problem? The auto industry barely produces any of the vehicles yet.This spring, Ford is supposed to start full production of an electric version of its F-150 pickup truck and has taken reservations for more than 150,000 of them. It is also building two battery plants in Kentucky, and a third battery plant and an electric truck factory in Tennessee.Separately on Wednesday, Stellantis outlined a long-term strategic plan that calls for rapid introductions of new electric vehicles. The company, which was formed a year ago from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and the French automaker Peugeot, said that it would introduce 25 E.V.s in the United States by 2030, and that all new models in Europe would be electric by that time. It plans to build two battery plants in the United States.G.M. has similar plans. It is building two battery plants, and aims to phase out internal-combustion models by 2035.Ford’s reorganization is one of the most sweeping taken by a traditional automaker in preparation for the transition to electric vehicles. Mr. Farley said the plan had come together after he and other top Ford executives noticed stark differences in the two business areas.In making gas-powered vehicles, Ford must focus on reducing costs and generating the profits it needs to fund its E.V. plans. Over the next four years, Ford aims to trim costs for its internal-combustion models by $3 billion, with some cuts coming through job reductions, Mr. Farley said.The electric business, in contrast, will have to spend heavily to develop software and technologies and to ramp up production quickly to achieve economies of scale. Ford aims to produce two million electric vehicles a year by 2026.“For Ford to win against the new players and the other manufacturers, we have to focus more than we do today,” Mr. Farley said. “You can’t have people work on both at the same time.”The E.V. group will be known as Ford Model e. Mr. Farley will serve as its president. Doug Field, a former Apple and Tesla executive hired by Ford in September, will lead its vehicle, software and digital systems development.The internal-combustion business, known as Ford Blue, will be led by Kumar Galhotra, who was president of Ford’s North American operations.Ford plans to begin breaking out the profits and losses of the two groups in 2023, and expects the electric business to become profitable within four years. Mr. Farley said the group would most likely have 2,000 to 5,000 employees. In addition to developing electric models, it will engineer new types of assembly lines to build them and manage Ford’s sourcing of key components like motors and inverters and raw materials such as lithium and rare earth metals.Mr. Farley said he envisioned the two groups working closely together. Ford Model e will use body engineering, stamping, and components like seats and steering systems that the internal-combustion group develops. The E.V. unit will produce software and digital components that will be incorporated into traditional gasoline vehicles made by Ford Blue.Mr. Farley said Ford had decided against spinning off the E.V. business because it would hinder the ability of the two groups to cooperate. “They would come to see each other as competitors, and the cooperation would stop,” he said. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Why Are Oil Prices So High and Will They Stay That Way?

    by

    HOUSTON — Oil prices are increasing, again, casting a shadow over the economy, driving up inflation and eroding consumer confidence.Crude prices rose more than 15 percent in January alone, with the global benchmark price crossing $90 a barrel for the first time in more than seven years, as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine grew.Though the summer driving season is still months away, the average price for regular gasoline is fast approaching $3.40 a gallon, roughly a dollar higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The Biden administration said in November that it would release 50 million barrels of oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to relieve the pressure on consumers, but the move hasn’t made much of a difference.Many energy analysts predict that oil could soon touch $100 a barrel, even as electric cars become more popular and the coronavirus pandemic persists. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies that only a year ago were considered endangered dinosaurs by some Wall Street analysts are thriving, raking in their biggest profits in years.Why are oil prices suddenly so high?The pandemic depressed energy prices in 2020, even sending the U.S. benchmark oil price below zero for the first time ever. But prices have snapped back faster and more than many analysts had expected in large part because supply has not kept up with demand.Oil prices are at their highest point since 2014.Price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. standard

    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWestern oil companies, partly under pressure from investors and environmental activists, are drilling fewer wells than they did before the pandemic to restrain the increase in supply. Industry executives say they are trying not to make the same mistake they made in the past when they pumped too much oil when prices were high, leading to a collapse in prices.Elsewhere, in countries like Ecuador, Kazakhstan and Libya, natural disasters and political turbulence have curbed output in recent months.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.“Unplanned outages have flipped what was thought to be a pivot towards surplus into a deep production gap,” said Louise Dickson, an oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm.On the demand side, much of the world is learning to cope with the pandemic and people are eager to shop and make other trips. Wary of coming in contact with an infectious virus, many are choosing to drive rather than taking public transportation.But the most immediate and critical factor is geopolitical.A potential Russian invasion of Ukraine has “the oil market on edge,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “In a tight market, any significant disruptions could send prices well above $100 per barrel,” Mr. Cahill wrote in a report this week.Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, or roughly one of every 10 barrels used around the world on any given day. Americans would not be directly hurt in a significant way if Russian exports stopped, because the country sends only about 700,000 barrels a day to the United States. That relatively modest amount could easily be replaced with oil from Canada and other countries.A Russian invasion of Ukraine could interrupt oil and gas shipments, which would increase prices further.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesBut any interruption of Russian shipments that transit through Ukraine, or the sabotage of other pipelines in northern Europe, would cripple much of the continent and distort the global energy supply chain. That’s because, traders say, the rest of the world does not have the spare capacity to replace Russian oil.Even if Russian oil shipments are not interrupted, the United States and its allies could impose sanctions or export controls on Russian companies, limiting their access to equipment, which could gradually reduce production in that country.In addition, interruptions of Russian natural gas exports to Europe could force some utilities to produce more electricity by burning oil rather than gas. That would raise demand and prices worldwide.What can the United States and its allies do if Russian production is disrupted?The United States, Japan, European countries and even China could release more crude from their strategic reserves. Such moves could help, especially if a crisis is short-lived. But the reserves would not be nearly enough if Russian oil supplies were interrupted for months or years.Western oil companies that have pledged not to produce too much oil would most likely change their approach if Russia was unable or unwilling to supply as much oil as it did. They would have big financial incentives — from a surging oil price — to drill more wells. That said, it would take those businesses months to ramp up production.What is OPEC doing?President Biden has been urging the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to pump more oil, but several members have been falling short of their monthly production quotas, and some may not have the capacity to quickly increase output. OPEC members and their allies, Russia among them, are meeting on Wednesday, and will probably agree to continue gradually increasing production.In addition, if Russian supplies are suddenly reduced, Washington will most likely put pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise production independently of the cartel. Analysts think that the kingdom has several million barrels of spare capacity that it could tap in a crisis.What impact would higher oil prices have on the U.S. economy?A big jump in oil prices would push gasoline prices even higher, and that would hurt consumers. Working-class and rural Americans would be hurt the most because they tend to drive more. They also drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. And energy costs tend to represent a larger percentage of their incomes, so price increases hit them harder than more affluent people or city dwellers who have access to trains and buses.Rising oil and gas prices would pinch consumers, especially the less affluent and rural residents.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockBut the direct economic impact on the nation would be more modest than in previous decades because the United States produces more and imports less oil since drilling in shale fields exploded around 2010 because of hydraulic fracturing. The United States is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and the economies of several states, particularly Texas and Louisiana, could benefit from higher prices.What would it take for oil prices to fall?Oil prices go up and down in cycles, and there are several reasons prices could fall in the next few months. The pandemic is far from over, and China has shut down several cities to stop the spread of the virus, slowing its economy and demand for energy. Russia and the West could reach an agreement — formal or tacit — that forestalls a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.And the United States and its allies could restore a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran that former President Donald J. Trump abandoned. Such a deal would allow Iran to sell oil much more easily than now. Analysts think the country could export a million or more barrels daily if the nuclear deal is revived.Ultimately, high prices could depress demand for oil enough that prices begin to come down. One of the main financial incentives for buying electric cars, for example, is that electricity tends to be cheaper per mile than gasoline. Sales of electric cars are growing fast in Europe and China and increasingly also in the United States. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Toyota Topped G.M. in U.S. Car Sales in 2021

    by

    After struggling to produce cars because of a global computer chip shortage, automakers are trying to move quickly to making electric vehicles.Toyota Motor unseated General Motors as the top-selling automaker in the United States last year, becoming the first manufacturer based outside the country to achieve that feat in the industry’s nearly 120-year history.That milestone underlines the changes shaking automakers, which face strong competition and external forces as they move into electric vehicles. And it came in a tumultuous and strange year in which automakers contended with an accelerating shift to electric vehicles and struggled with profound manufacturing challenges. New car sales have been damped by a severe shortage of computer chips that forced automakers to idle plants even though demand for cars has been incredibly robust.G.M., Ford Motor and Stellantis, the automaker created by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot, produced and sold fewer cars than they had hoped to in 2021 because they were hit hard by the chip shortage. Toyota was not hurt as much.In addition to that shortage, the coronavirus pandemic and related supply-chain problems depressed sales while driving up the prices of new and used cars, sometimes to dizzying heights. Auto manufacturers sold just under 15 million new vehicles in 2021, according to estimates by Cox Automotive, which tracks the industry. That is 2.5 percent more than in 2020 but well short of the 17 million vehicles the industry usually sold in a year before the pandemic took hold.G.M. said on Tuesday that its U.S. sales slumped 13 percent in 2021, to 2.2 million trucks and cars. Toyota had access to more chips because it set aside larger stockpiles of parts after an earthquake and tsunami in Japan knocked out production of several key components in 2011. Its 2021 sales rose more than 10 percent, to 2.3 million.“The dominance of the U.S. automakers of the U.S. market is just over,” said Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan who follows the auto industry. “Toyota might not beat G.M. again this year, but the fact that they did it is symbolic of how the industry changed. No U.S. automaker can think of themselves as entitled to market share just because they’re American.”Ford is expected to finish third when the company releases sales data on Wednesday.The shortage of chips stems from the beginning of the pandemic, when auto plants around the world closed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. At the same time, sales of computers and other consumer electronics took off. When automakers resumed production, they found fewer chips available to them.Despite weak new-vehicle sales, automakers and dealers alike have been ringing up hefty profits because they have been able to raise prices.“Sales volumes are down but our margins are up and expenses are down,” said Rick Ricart, whose family owns Ford, Hyundai, Kia and other dealerships around Columbus, Ohio. “We barely had any inventory cost now. Cars arrive on the truck and they’re already sold. They’re gone within 24 to 48 hours.”Automakers are also contending with the transition to electric cars and trucks. Many companies are spending tens of billions of dollars designing battery-powered models and building plants to produce them. They are racing to catch up to Tesla, which sells a large majority of electric vehicles now.But most established automakers are unlikely to gain ground in U.S. electric vehicle sales this year because they are not in a position to produce many tens of thousands of such cars for at least another year or two.And Tesla, which was founded in 2003, is not standing still. After reporting a nearly 90 percent jump in global sales last year, to just shy of one million, the company plans to start mass production at two new factories this year, near Austin, Texas, and Berlin. It has been less affected by the chip shortage because it was able to switch to types of chips that are more readily available.The electric-car maker does not break out sales by country, but Cox Automotive estimated that it sold more than 330,000 in the United States, or roughly as many vehicles as Mercedes-Benz and BMW each sold here.Ford is perhaps the only major automaker that could pose a serious competitive threat to Tesla this year. This spring, Ford plans to start selling an electric version of its F-150 pickup truck, the top-selling vehicle in the United States. The company has taken more than 200,000 reservations for that truck, the F-150 Lightning, and hopes to produce more than 50,000 this year. It is increasing production at a plant near Detroit to build 80,000 in 2023 and up to 150,000 in 2024.“The F-150 is the most important franchise in our company,” Kumar Galhotra, president of Ford’s Americas and international markets group, said in an interview. “The F-150 Lightning shows how serious our commitment is to the E.V. market.”Ford has been selling a popular electric sport-utility vehicle, the Mustang Mach E, for nearly a year. It said Tuesday that it aimed to increase production of the Mach E to 200,000 vehicles a year by 2023.Other automakers are planning to produce relatively modest numbers of electric cars this year because they and their suppliers are still gearing up to build factories and produce batteries and other components. G.M. has set a goal of producing only electric vehicles by 2035, and on Wednesday it will unveil a battery-powered Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck at the Consumer Electronics Show. But the electric Silverado isn’t expected to go into production until 2023.The Coronavirus Pandemic: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 3The global surge. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Supply Chain Problems Mean Buying a Car Sometimes Takes a Plane Ride

    by

    The limited supply of new and used vehicles is forcing some Americans to go to great lengths to find and buy them, including traveling to dealers hundreds of miles away.When Rachael Kasper started shopping for a new car in August, she had her heart set on a Ford Escape plug-in hybrid. The problem was that Ford hasn’t made many of them this year because of a computer chip shortage that has slowed auto production around the world.Ms. Kasper first came up empty in her home state of Michigan and, later, in neighboring states. When she expanded to the East Coast, she found one — at a dealership 537 miles away, in Hanover, Pa.“I flew to Baltimore, took a Lyft to the dealer, and then drove all the way home,” said Ms. Kasper, who owns a water-sports equipment retailer. “It was quite an adventure.”The shortage of computer chips, in large part caused by decisions made in the early days of the pandemic, has rippled through the auto industry this year. Manufacturers have had to close plants for lack of parts, leaving car dealers with millions fewer vehicles to sell.As a result, car buyers have had to travel hundreds of miles to find the vehicles they want, give up on haggling and accept higher prices, and even snap up used cars that have been repaired after serious accidents.The supply squeeze coincides with an apparent increase in demand. Some people are trying to avoid mass transit or taxis. Others simply want a vehicle. Many families have saved thousands of dollars thanks in part to government benefits and stimulus payments and because they have been spending less on travel, restaurant meals and other luxuries that have fallen by the wayside because of health concerns.The end of the year is normally a peak selling season, with some automakers running ads in which cars are presented as gifts complete with giant bows. But this year consumers are finding that locating the car of their desires is not quick, easy or cheap.As Ed Matovcik, a wine industry executive in Napa, Calif., neared the end of his lease on a Tesla Model S, he decided to switch to a Porsche Taycan, a German electric car. He ordered one, but it won’t arrive until May, three months after he has to give up the Tesla.He is planning on renting cars until the Taycan arrives and is looking on the bright side. “It’s a different world now, so I don’t really mind the wait,” he said. “I’m thinking of renting a pickup for a week so I can finally clear out my garage.”The disruption to car production has rippled through the automotive world. For a time in the spring and summer of 2020, rental car companies stopped buying new cars and sold many of their vehicles to survive while travel was restricted. Now those companies are seeking to take advantage of a hot rental market and are scrambling to buy cars, often competing with consumers and dealers.The big discounts and incentives that were once standard features of car-buying in the United States have all but disappeared. Instead, some dealers now add an extra $2,000 or $3,000 on top of the list price for new cars. That has left car buyers fuming, but the dealers who are jacking up prices know that if one customer balks, another is usually waiting and willing.In November, the average price of a new car was a record $45,872, up from $39,984 a year ago, according to Edmunds, an auto-data provider. The average price paid for a used car is now more than $29,000, up from $22,679 in 2020, and Edmunds expects it to exceed $30,000 next year for the first time ever.Because of the rising prices of used cars, some consumers are spending to fix up older vehicles and keep them going for longer. More cars that have been damaged in accidents are getting fixed instead of being declared a total loss by insurers and sent to the scrap yard.“The math has changed on whether a car is totaled,” said Peter DeLongchamps, a senior vice president at Group 1 Automotive, a Houston-based auto retailer that operates its own chain of auto-body shops. “Our parts and service business is very good. We’re seeing more cars getting fixed based on the high used values.”Workers assembled a Jeep Grand Cherokee L at a Stellantis plant in Detroit in June. A computer chip shortage has slowed auto production around the world.Bill Pugliano/Getty ImagesThe auto industry’s chip shortage stems from the start of the pandemic, in the spring of 2020, when automakers closed factories for weeks and cut orders for computer chips and other parts. At the same time, homebound consumers were snapping up laptops, game consoles and other electronics, spurring makers of those devices to increase orders for semiconductors. When automakers resumed production, they found chip suppliers had less production capacity for them.As a result, automakers have produced significantly fewer trucks and cars this year than they had planned. In addition to closing plants, they’ve built vehicles without certain features, such as heated seats and electronics that maximize fuel economy. Tesla dropped power lower-back support in the passenger seat of certain models.The Coronavirus Pandemic: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 4The Omicron variant. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Battling for Bolivia’s Lithium That's Vital to Electric Cars

    by

    SALAR DE UYUNI, Bolivia — The mission was quixotic for a small Texas energy start-up: Beat out Chinese and Russian industrial giants in unlocking mineral riches that could one day power tens of millions of electric vehicles.A team traveled from Austin to Bolivia in late August to meet with local and national leaders at a government lithium complex and convince them that the company, EnergyX, had a technology that would fulfill Bolivia’s potential to be a global green-energy power. On arriving, they found that the conference they had planned to attend was canceled and that security guards blocked the location.Still, the real attraction was in plain sight: a giant chalky sea of brine high in the Andes called the Salar de Uyuni, which is rich in lithium, among several minerals with growing value worldwide because they are needed in batteries used in electric cars and on the power grid.Surrounded by rusty equipment, empty production ponds and pumps uncoupled from pipes, it seemed a forlorn spot. But to Teague Egan, EnergyX’s chief executive, it had nothing but promise.“This is the new Saudi Arabia,” he promised.The Indigenous Quechua people revere the Salar de Uyuni, 4,000 square miles of salt flats that their forebears believed were the mixture of a goddess’s breast milk and the salty tears of her baby. For Mr. Egan, the site is “pure white beauty as far as the eye can see.”With a quarter of the world’s known lithium, this nation of 12 million people potentially finds itself among the newly anointed winners in the global hunt for the raw materials needed to move the world away from oil, natural gas and coal in the fight against climate change.Eight foreign companies have been competing in recent months to establish pilot lithium projects here, including four from China and one from Russia, countries that have had friendlier relations with Bolivia’s government than the United States has.Just as wildcatters have long sought riches prospecting for oil, the clean energy revolution is spawning a wave of gritty entrepreneurs who hope to ride a new boom, vaulting themselves into the intersection of geopolitics and climate change. Some are familiar names like Elon Musk at Tesla, while Mr. Egan and others are strivers looking for their first break in mineral-rich places like Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the South Pacific.Mr. Egan is among the determined underdogs. His company, with 30 employees, is one of two from the United States among the eight contenders to develop Bolivia’s lithium reserves.Lithium is a basic component of lithium-ion batteries, enabling the flow of electrical currents. Because of the metal’s light weight, long life, large storage capacity and easy recharging, demand is expected to grow exponentially over the next decade to power an expanding fleet of vehicles produced by Tesla, Ford Motor, General Motors and other carmakers and spread power grid battery storage for renewable energy. This year alone, prices for lithium compounds are up over 200 percent on several global markets.Mr. Egan, 33, had never worked in the energy industry before starting EnergyX in 2018 to pursue lithium projects. With his hair slicked back, frequently unshaven and wearing his baseball cap backward, he projects youthful exuberance and self-confidence.He established a book club at his company and assigned a biography of Thomas Edison as the first offering to send a message to his colleagues: “You can try 100 times and give up. Edison tried 17,000 plants to produce domestic rubber.”Despite the bravado, he would appear to be an unlikely character to drive Bolivia’s energy future. He has never worked in Latin America and speaks virtually no Spanish.But for Mr. Egan, the only thing that is really important is his belief that his technology to coax the lithium out of the Andean brine is the best to finally make Bolivia an energy power.“In Bolivia they are so sensitive about the politics,” he said. “I just don’t understand why they should not do what is in the best interest of the country. I can only control what I can control.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}‘The Lithium Is for Bolivians’There is much that Mr. Egan cannot control in this country long riddled with coups and racial, ideological and regional divisions.Bolivia’s governing party, the Movement for Socialism, is led by former President Evo Morales, who tried to draw the country closer to China before protests and the military forced him from power two years ago.The current president, Luis Arce, who was Mr. Morales’s economy minister, heads a coalition of social democrats and more doctrinaire leftists. He faces challenges from local movements that object to the socialist government and are wary of foreign interests, seeing them as exploiters of Bolivia’s mineral wealth going back to the 17th century.Only two years ago, a lithium deal between Mr. Morales and a German company led to protests that eventually spread around the country. Mr. Morales was forced to scrap a contract only a week before he fled the country.Marco Pumari, a local politician who led the protests, demanded a tripling of royalties for Potosí Province and local involvement in ownership of lithium enterprises. He said that his demands had not changed, and that his opposition to the ruling socialists remained steadfast.“As soon as they publicly choose the foreign companies, the province will mobilize,” he said in an interview. “The government is playing with fire.”In August, about 80 protesters took over two roads, blocking Mr. Arce from visiting government lithium facilities and demanding that he fire the new head of the state-owned lithium company and give local residents greater say in decisions about lithium production. The protest forced the cancellation of the conference that Mr. Egan and his EnergyX team were scheduled to attend.“We need asphalt roads and textile factories,” said Rosa Belen Julaca, a Potosí quinoa farmer who joined the protest even though she generally supports the government. “If they don’t listen to us, we’ll keep blocking the roads.”Government officials soon visited to calm tensions.Women poured colorful confetti on the heads of officials and draped their necks in wreaths of flowers. The visitors included Franklin Molina, the energy minister, and the head of the state lithium company, whom the protesters had wanted ousted.At a festive community meeting punctuated by Indigenous music, dance and poetry, they promised jobs and social programs from a lithium industry that would someday include manufacturing batteries and even electric cars.“The lithium is for Bolivians,” Mr. Molina declared to cheers.Energy experts say a major increase in Bolivian lithium production would keep battery prices down, helping President Biden achieve his goal of electrifying half of new cars sold in the United States in 2030, up from 4 percent today.“The amount of lithium we need in any of our climate goals is incredible,” said Anna Shpitsberg, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for energy transformation. “Everyone is trying to build up their supply chains and think about how to be strategic.”But Washington has little sway in Bolivia, whose leaders have long disagreed with the American approach to drug policy and Venezuela. That may explain why some energy executives do not think Bolivia is worth the risk.“You’ve had 30 years’ worth of projects in Bolivia with almost nothing to show,” said Robert Mintak, chief executive of Standard Lithium, a publicly traded mining company based in Vancouver, British Columbia, referring to lithium development efforts dating back to 1990. “You have a landlocked country with no infrastructure, no work force, political risk, no intellectual property protection. So as a developer, I would choose someplace else that is safer.”Mr. Egan sees the odds differently.‘I Need to Be Involved’That Mr. Egan has gotten this far is a marvel. He learned about Bolivian lithium only by chance when he and a friend crisscrossed South America as tourists in 2018.When they got to the salt flats, a guide explained that they were standing on the world’s largest lithium reserve. “I thought, ‘I don’t know how I’m going to do this, but I need to be involved,’” Mr. Egan said.He had tried his hand as a sports and music agent and ran a small investment fund at the time. He had invested in Tesla in 2013 at $9 a share; it now trades around $975. (He would not reveal how many shares he had bought and how many he still had.)But he felt that he wasn’t achieving much. Before Mr. Egan traveled to South America, his father, Michael, the founder of Alamo Rent A Car, advised him to make two lists — of his five biggest passions and of the five industries he thought would grow fastest in the coming decades. Renewable energy was on both lists.Mr. Egan read up on lithium. He settled on filtering membranes as the vital missing link to make lithium evaporation ponds more productive and profitable. Then he came across a 2018 paper written by Benny Freeman, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and some scientists working in Australia about a new type of membrane with atom-size pores that could be used to separate and purify lithium salts from rocks and brines.He traveled to Austin and Australia, and Mr. Egan and Dr. Freeman hit it off.Teague Egan at the Salar de Uyuni, which he called “the new Saudi Arabia.”The two made an unlikely pair. Dr. Freeman, 60, was born into poverty in rural North Carolina and was the first person in his family to graduate from high school. Mr. Egan grew up wealthy in southern Florida. Dr. Freeman became passionate about chemistry handling pesticides on his family’s apple farm. Mr. Egan said he had learned business skills from his father at the dinner table.Mr. Egan returned again and again to Bolivia, but he made little progress selling officials on his technology. “All these people, their hands are just tied behind their backs,” he said, since they are scared to offend leaders at the top.A big break came in April 2020 when Diego von Vacano, a Bolivian political science professor at Texas A&M University — and an informal adviser to Mr. Arce, then a leading presidential candidate — contacted Dr. Freeman for advice on lithium extraction. Dr. Freeman connected Dr. von Vacano and Mr. Egan, and the Texas A&M professor became Mr. Egan’s vital bridge to Bolivia.After Mr. Arce won, Mr. Egan attended the inauguration. With Dr. von Vacano’s help, Mr. Egan made critical connections in the new administration.He was not able, though, to secure a meeting with the new president. During one trip, he tracked down Mr. Arce when they were both in Santa Cruz. Accompanied by Dr. von Vacano, Mr. Egan finally got a glimpse of the president eating in the canvas-covered wooden stalls of a fish market.But as he approached the leader, Dr. von Vacano stopped him. Mr. Arce was eating with a congressman antagonistic toward the United States. Avoiding a scene, Mr. Egan walked away. He returned home, but he was not done trying.A Visit and a BlessingMr. Egan discussing strategy with his team after learning that the conference they flew to Bolivia to attend had been canceled.In August, after the conference was canceled, Mr. Egan and his team flew to La Paz, the seat of government, and kept knocking on doors, hoping to capitalize on the contacts that Mr. Egan had made among top Energy Ministry officials.As always, there were hurdles.When they met with Carlos Humberto Ramos, the newly appointed head of the state lithium company, to persuade him of the advantages of their approach, they found that he had little understanding of EnergyX’s membrane technology.Mr. Egan’s team returned to Mr. Ramos the next day, and after explaining its technology to his top technicians, the team was told that it could visit the lithium complex and that an initial agreement approving EnergyX’s project was virtually a done deal.That night, EnergyX’s strongest ally in the government — Álvaro Arnez, a deputy energy minister overseeing lithium development — gave the arrangement his blessing. He joined Mr. Egan’s team for a celebration at an elegant La Paz restaurant over plates of dried Amazonian catfish and roast pork with pear kimchi.The next morning, Mr. Egan and his team flew back to the salt flats.They inspected several shimmering man-made ponds, which hold brine for evaporation — a method of lithium extraction that has been hampered by heavy seasonal rains.Even when dry, the lithium must be separated chemically from other minerals, a process that wastes much of the desired lithium.Mr. Egan told technicians that his technology could greatly increase and speed up production.There were disagreements over where to put the proposed pilot project, and when Mr. Egan suggested ways to move forward toward commercialization, the technicians told him to wait until initial test results were in. But he was content that he toured the facilities before other companies.In an interview, Mr. Molina, the energy minister, said Chinese and Russian diplomats were lobbying on behalf of their own companies, but he insisted that “there is room for Americans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, whoever wants to invest as long as they respect our sovereignty.”China has advantages. It already controls substantial lithium assets in South America, and its businesses have made roughly $4.5 billion in lithium investments over the last three years in South America and Mexico. Chinese banks give low-interest loans to Chinese mining and construction companies operating abroad to advance President Xi Jinping’s plans to dominate industries of the future.As for Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin has spoken by phone with Mr. Arce at least twice about lithium and other matters, Russian officials said.Mr. Egan said he was getting virtually no help from the U.S. government. And American officials say their best hope is to gently press for a level playing field.The long game has paid off for Mr. Egan, at least so far. He signed an agreement to start the pilot, and in October he shipped a container to Bolivia outfitted with pumps, valves, tanks and membranes to separate lithium from brine. If the pilot shows promising results, he may be able to proceed with a commercial project.Of the 20 companies in competition at the start of the year, the government has named eight to carry out pilots, including one other small American company, Lilac Solutions of California.All the contenders — the eighth is from Argentina — will be competing for Bolivian government attention and resources like power hookups and skilled local technicians in the months ahead before any can be approved to move toward commercial operations.“We still need to do a demonstration and scale it up,” Mr. Egan acknowledged. “We still need to go commercial. I mean, this is just Day 1.” More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    GM’s EV Efforts Reportedly Include a Bigger Michigan Presence

    by

    General Motors intends to spend several billion dollars to set up production of batteries and electric pickup trucks at two locations in Michigan, giving the company’s home state an economic boost, a person with knowledge of the plans said Friday.The automaker has started sketching out proposals to convert an electric car plant in Orion Township to produce electric pickups and to build a new battery plant with a partner, LG Electronics, near the existing Lansing Delta Township plant, this person said.The company, which has laid out ambitious goals for a shift to electric vehicles, was more circumspect about its plans in a statement issued Friday. “G.M. is developing business cases for potential future investments in Michigan,” it said. “As part of developing a competitive business case, we are having discussions with the appropriate local officials on available incentives.”G.M.’s prospective development of the Michigan sites was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.The total investment is likely to be more than $4 billion. G.M. previously spent $2 billion to convert a Detroit plant to electric vehicle production. Incentive applications filed to the City of Lansing on Friday showed that G.M. and LG envision investing $2.5 billion in the battery plant and creating 1,700 jobs there.Production of a high-volume pickup truck could significantly increase employment at the Orion Township plant, which has been used to make the Chevrolet Bolt, an electric compact car. Bolt output has been limited and is currently suspended because of a recall of the battery packs used in the car. When in operation, the factory has 1,100 workers on a single shift, and E.V. production would probably increase production to two or even three shifts.The investment would be a victory for Michigan as automakers race to begin making battery packs and electric vehicles in high volumes. Several factories are planned for Southern states. Toyota said this week that it would build a battery plant in North Carolina that is supposed to employ 1,750 people.Ford Motor is spending $11.4 billion to build two battery plants in Kentucky and a third battery plant and a new electric truck plant in Tennessee. G.M. has battery plants under construction in Ohio and Tennessee, and it plans to add others in Ontario and Mexico.The spate of investments and job commitments has caused concern among some economic development officials in Michigan that the state was not winning a significant portion of the jobs being created by the auto industry’s conversion to electric vehicles.G.M., Ford, Toyota and other traditional automakers are trying to catch up to Tesla, which leads in global sales of electric vehicles by a wide margin and has captured the imagination of investors. Tesla has a market value of about $1 trillion — more than G.M., Ford, Toyota and several other automakers combined.G.M. plans to introduce 20 electric vehicles in the United States by 2025. The first few include the GMC Hummer electric pickup and sport-utility models, and the Cadillac Lyriq, a luxury S.U.V. Those will be built at a plant in Detroit that G.M. now calls “Factory Zero.” A variety of other E.V.s are supposed to follow, including an electric version of the Chevrolet Silverado pickup that is supposed to go into production in early 2023.These models will use modular battery packs — produced in a joint venture with LG — that G.M. is counting on to help reduce the cost of electric vehicles.Ford is slightly ahead of G.M. in electric vehicles. It began selling the electric Mustang Mach-E S.U.V. nearly a year ago, and it plans to start making an electric pickup, the F-150 Lightning, in early 2022.Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley, told CNBC on Thursday that his company had 200,000 reservations from customers for the truck and that it was scrambling to increase production capacity to meet demand. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Are Tesla and Texas a Perfect Match? It’s Questionable.

    by

    While its C.E.O., Elon Musk, and the state’s conservative lawmakers share libertarian sensibilities, they differ greatly on climate change and renewable energy.Tesla’s move from Silicon Valley to Texas makes sense in many ways: The company’s chief executive, Elon Musk, and the conservative lawmakers who run the state share a libertarian philosophy, favoring few regulations and low taxes. Texas also has room for a company with grand ambitions to grow.“There’s a limit to how big you can scale in the Bay Area,” Mr. Musk said Thursday at Tesla’s annual meeting hosted at its new factory near the Texas capital. “Here in Austin, our factory’s like five minutes from the airport, 15 minutes from downtown.”But Texas may not be the natural choice that Mr. Musk makes it out to be.Tesla’s stated mission is to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” and its customers include many people who want sporty cars that don’t spew greenhouse gases from their tailpipes. Texas, however, is run by conservatives who are skeptical of or oppose efforts to address climate change. They are also fiercely protective of the state’s large oil and gas industry.And, despite the state’s business-friendly reputation, Tesla can’t sell vehicles directly to customers there because of a law that protects car dealerships, which Tesla does not use.Tesla’s move is not surprising: Mr. Musk threatened to leave California in May 2020 after local officials, citing the coronavirus, forced Tesla to shut down its car factory in the San Francisco Bay Area. But his decision to move to Texas highlights some gaping ideological contradictions. His company stands at the vanguard of the electric car and renewable energy movement, while Texas’ lawmakers, who have welcomed him enthusiastically, are among the biggest resisters to moving the economy away from oil and natural gas.“It’s always a feather in Texas’ hat when it takes a business away from California, but Tesla is as much unwelcome as it is welcome,” said Jim Krane, an energy expert at Rice University in Houston. “It’s an awkward juxtaposition. This is a state that gets a sizable chunk of its G.D.P. from oil and gas and here comes a virulent competitor to that industry.”In February, a rare winter storm caused the Texas electric grid to collapse, leaving millions of people without electricity and heat for days. Soon after, the state’s leaders sought — falsely, according to many energy experts — to blame the blackout on renewable energy.“This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America,” Gov. Greg Abbott said of the blackout on Fox News. “It just shows that fossil fuel is necessary for the state of Texas as well as other states to make sure we will be able to heat our homes in the wintertimes and cool our homes in the summertimes.”Mr. Musk, a Texas resident since last year, seemed to offer a very different take on Thursday, suggesting that renewable energy could in fact protect people from power outages.“I was actually in Austin for that snowstorm in a house with no electricity, no lights, no power, no heating, no internet,” he said. “This went on for several days. However, if we had the solar plus Powerwall, we would have had lights and electricity.”Tesla is a leading maker of solar panels and batteries — the company calls one of its products Powerwall — for homeowners and businesses to store renewable energy for use when the sun has gone down, when electricity rates are higher or during blackouts. The company reported $1.3 billion in revenue from the sale of solar panels and batteries in the first six months of the year.Mr. Musk’s announcement that Tesla would be moving its headquarters from Palo Alto, Calif., came with few details. It is not clear, for example, how many workers would move to Austin. It’s also unknown whether the company would maintain a research and development operation in California in addition to its factory in Fremont, which is a short drive from headquarters and which it said it would expand. The company has around 750 employees in Palo Alto and about 12,500 in total in the Bay Area, according to the Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies.It is also not clear how much money Tesla will save on taxes by moving. Texas has long used its relatively low taxes, which are less than California’s, to attract companies. County officials have already approved tax breaks for the company’s new factory, and the state might offer more.Over the years, California granted Tesla hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, something that Gov. Gavin Newsom noted on Friday. But because Tesla will continue to have operations in California, it may still have to pay income tax on its sales in the state, said Kayla Kitson, a policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center.Whatever incentives they offer Tesla, Texas officials are not likely to change their support for the fossil fuel industries with which the company competes.In a letter to state regulators in July, Mr. Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission to incentivize the state’s energy market “to foster development and maintenance of adequate and reliable sources of power, like natural gas, coal and nuclear power.”A Tesla factory under construction in Austin in September.Joe White/ReutersThe governor also ordered regulators to charge suppliers of wind and solar energy “reliability” fees because, given the natural variability of the wind and the sun, suppliers could not guarantee that they would be able to provide power when it was needed.Mr. Abbott’s letter made no mention of battery storage, suggesting that he saw no role for a technology that many energy experts believe will become increasingly important in smoothing out wind and solar energy production. Tesla is a big player in such batteries. Its systems have helped electric grids in California, Australia and elsewhere, and the company is building a big battery in Texas, too, Bloomberg reported in March.Texas has no clean energy mandates, though it has become a national leader in the use of solar and wind power — driven largely by the low cost of renewable energy. The state produces more wind energy than any other.Another issue that divides Tesla and Texas is the state’s law about how cars can be sold there.As in some other states, Texas has long had laws to protect car dealers by barring automakers, including Tesla, from selling directly to consumers. California, the company’s biggest market by far, has long allowed the company to sell cars directly to buyers, which lets it earn more money than if it had to sell through dealers.Tesla has showrooms around Texas, but employees are not even allowed to discuss prices with prospective buyers and the showrooms cannot accept orders. Texans can buy Teslas online and pick the vehicles up at its service centers.Once the Austin factory starts producing vehicles, including a new pickup truck Tesla calls Cybertruck, those vehicles will have to leave the state before they can be delivered to customers in Texas.Efforts to change the law by Tesla and some state lawmakers have gone nowhere, including during the legislative session that concluded this year. That’s partly because car dealers have tremendous political influence in the state.Perhaps once Tesla has moved to Austin and started producing cars, Mr. Musk might have enough political clout to get the Legislature to act. Texas lawmakers typically meet only every two years, however, so it would most likely take at least until 2023 for the company’s customers to receive a car directly from its factory there.Michael Webber, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, said Mr. Musk’s decision to move to Texas might have been influenced in part by the ability to pressure the state to change its law.“The Texas car market is the second-largest car market in America after California, so if you are selling cars it kind of makes sense to get closer to your customers,” Mr. Webber said. “The Texas car market is particularly difficult outside of cities because of the legislative barriers.”There were already signs on Friday that some in Texas, including those involved in oil and gas and related industries, were happy to have Tesla because it could eventually employ thousands of people.“It can only be positive for Texas, because it brings more business to Texas,” said Linda Salinas, vice president for operations at Texmark Chemicals, which is near Houston. “Even though it’s not fossil business, it’s still business.”She said Texmark might even benefit from Tesla’s manufacturing operations in the state. “Texmark produces and sells mining chemicals to people who mine copper, and guess what batteries are made out of?”Peter Eavis More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    What Will It Take for Electric Vehicles to Create Jobs, Not Cut Them?

    by

    A report by a liberal think tank tries to quantify the potential employment gains and losses, concluding that subsidies will be crucial.When President Biden announced his multitrillion-dollar jobs plan in March, it included nearly $175 billion in spending to encourage Americans to buy electric vehicles.The money would help ensure “that these vehicles are affordable for all families and manufactured by workers with good jobs,” the White House wrote at the time.Now, as Mr. Biden’s plan wends its way through Congress, a liberal think tank has tried to flesh out the number of jobs to be gained or lost in the transition away from internal-combustion vehicles.The report, released Wednesday by the Economic Policy Institute, concluded that it would take government subsidies focused on developing a domestic supply chain and increasing demand for U.S.-made vehicles to avoid job losses.It found that without additional government investment, the industry could lose about 75,000 jobs by 2030, the year by which Mr. Biden wants half the new vehicles sold in the country to be electric.By contrast, the report said, if government subsidies were targeted to increase the portion of electric vehicle components that are manufactured domestically, and to increase the market share of U.S.-made vehicles, the industry could add about 150,000 jobs by the end of the decade.“That’s the payoff — making the sector a center of good jobs again,” said Josh Bivens, an economist who is one of the report’s authors. “If we don’t try to react proactively with good policy we’ll see continued downward pressure on the number of good jobs.”Looming over the transition to electric vehicles is the fact that they have substantially fewer moving parts than gasoline-powered ones and require less labor to manufacture — about 30 percent less, according to figures from Ford Motor. The vehicle-manufacturing industry employs a little under one million people domestically, including suppliers.The cab of an all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning truck prototype. Ford and General Motors have said they are taking on a greater role in battery production.Rebecca Cook/ReutersThere are essentially two ways to offset the projected job losses: to increase the proportion of each vehicle’s parts that are made domestically — specifically in the powertrain, the key parts and systems that power a car — and to sell more vehicles assembled in the United States.Mr. Bivens and his co-author, James Barrett, an economic consultant, examine the effects of doing both. They note that roughly three-quarters of the parts in the powertrain for a U.S.-made gasoline vehicle are produced domestically, versus less than half of the parts in the powertrain of a U.S.-made electric vehicle.Raising the proportion of domestic content in electric vehicles so that it mirrors gas-powered ones could save tens of thousands of jobs a year, they estimate — potentially more than half the likely job losses that would arise without additional government action.But to transform likely job deficits into job gains, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Bivens find, it is necessary to increase the market share of vehicles made in the United States. According to the study, the percentage of vehicles sold in the United States that are made domestically has hovered around 50 percent over the past decade. If it were to rise to 60 percent, the authors conclude, the industry could gain over 100,000 jobs in 2030.If market share were instead to drop to 40 percent by the end of the decade and there were no increase in the domestic content of electric vehicle powertrains, the industry could lose more than 200,000 jobs, the report finds.Under the Democratic plan circulating in Congress, a current $7,500 tax credit for the purchase of a new electric vehicle would rise as high as $12,500. An extra $4,500 would apply to vehicles assembled at unionized factories in the United States. Consumers would receive the final $500 if their vehicle had a U.S.-made battery. The details could change in the face of opposition from automakers with nonunion U.S. plants.Democrats are also discussing subsidies to encourage manufacturers to set up new factories or upgrade old ones.Sam Abuelsamid, an auto industry analyst at Guidehouse Insights, said that domestic automakers had an opportunity to increase market share as the industry electrifies and that an expanded consumer tax credit would help.“They are targeting a lot of the market segments that are particularly strong-selling — crossovers, pickups,” Mr. Abuelsamid said. “There is definitely potential for them to claw back some market share from Asian brands.”Still, he warned, the window for seizing the opportunity could be relatively narrow as Asian automakers like Toyota and Honda, which have lagged somewhat in their electric vehicle planning, introduce more electric offerings.The question of whether manufacturers will locate production of electric vehicles and their components in the United States as demand grows, and the extent to which government subsidies can help ensure that this happens, has been a subject of debate in recent years.Dale Hall, a researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a research organization, said in an interview that electric vehicles tend to be manufactured in the region where they are sold, both to save on transportation costs and to be more responsive to consumers’ needs. More