福特每辆车损失 12 万美元表明加州的电动汽车目标是不可能实现的
Ford's $120,000 Loss Per Vehicle Shows California EV Goals Are Impossible

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fords-120000-loss-vehicle-shows-california-ev-goals-are-impossible

加州的目标是到 2035 年要求该州销售的所有新乘用车、卡车和 SUV 均为零排放汽车 (ZEV),但福特的财务报告显示,销售电动汽车 (EV) 造成了巨大损失。 福特 2024 年第一季度每售出一辆汽车,损失约 132,000 美元,销售额较上年下降 20%。 这些损失包括对未来几代电动汽车技术的投资。 鉴于加州居民在 2023 年购买了 178 万辆新车,总成本达到 2,350 亿美元,这一数字超过了任何汽车制造商仅在加州生产和销售汽车而不破产的能力。 这种情况可能会导致汽车生产归政府所有,让人想起前南斯拉夫时代的南联盟崩溃。 与此同时,人们担心电池问题会影响多种车型,包括福特的SUV和卡车,这些车型由于潜在的电力损失和碰撞风险增加而在加拿大被召回。 低温会对电动汽车的性能产生不利影响,特别是在冬季气温骤降的国家,这使得这些车辆几乎无法使用,在加利福尼亚州部分地区常见的极端条件下,它们几乎完全无法使用。 相比之下,特斯拉尽管计划推出价格实惠的车型,但仍面临着来自中国制造商的竞争挑战,这些制造商据称使用了“不公平做法”,甚至存在潜在的安全威胁。 政府正在通过进口限制和调查进行干预,而参议员谢罗德·布朗则呼吁禁止中国电动汽车进口,以保护美国汽车工业。 与此同时,科学研究质疑车辆排放二氧化碳对气候变化的影响,揭示了人们广泛接受的二氧化碳作为全球气温上升唯一驱动因素的观点只是猜测。 总体而言,考虑到大规模采用电动汽车带来的经济压力和技术障碍,加州严格的 ZEV 指令可能被证明是不现实的。

相关文章

原文

Authored by John Seiler via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

So much for California’s mandate that “all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035,” according to the California Air Resources Board. It imposed the mandate at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The all-electric F-150 Lightning from Ford is displayed at the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2021. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

On April 24, Ford reported it lost $132,000 for each of its 10,000 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2024, according to CNN. The sales were down 20 percent from the first quarter of 2023 and would “drag down earnings for the company overall.”

The losses include “hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.” Ford is the only major carmaker breaking out EV numbers by themselves. But other marques likely suffer similar losses.

Californians bought 1.78 million new vehicles in 2023, reported the California New Car Dealers Association. Multiply that number by $132,000 and you get $235 billion. That would bankrupt every car manufacturer, meaning they just would pull out of selling anything in the state.

The California government would have to set up socialist, government-owned companies to make the cars, like the infamous Yugo. Dubbed “the worst car in history,” it was sold in America in the 1980s and was made by the communist Yugoslav government just before the country itself broke up in 1991.

A man works on one of the last Yugos at Serbia's Zastava car plant on the production line in Kragujevac on Nov. 9, 2008. The car became popular in the local market due to its low price and fuel consumption. (Aleksandar Stankovic/AFP via Getty Images)

Battery Problems

The Epoch Times also reported that same day, April 24, “Ford Recalling More Than 55,000 SUVs and Trucks in Canada Over Battery Issues.” The Transport Canada notice read, “A sudden loss of power to the wheels or a vehicle that doesn’t restart after a start-stop event could increase the risk of a crash. Additionally, hazard lamps that don’t work could make the vehicle less visible and increase the risk of a crash.”

Also, most of Canada gets really cold in the winter. “The effects of cold weather on car batteries start to become pronounced when the temperature drops below freezing for an extended period,” explained United Tire & Service. “At a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, your battery will lose about 30 percent of its power. Your battery will continue to get weaker as the temperatures get colder. In fact, your battery will lose about 60 percent of its power at 0 degrees Fahrenheit.”

In Montreal, the average low temperature in January is 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In Edmonton it’s 8 degrees.

Most of California enjoys the balmiest weather on earth. But in January 2023, the temperature around Bridgeport, near Yosemite National Park, dropped to minus 27 degrees. In such areas, EVs are almost completely useless except for rich people in the summer.

Cheap Electric Cars?

But isn’t Tesla working on cheaper models, not just the expensive ones? Aren’t they figuring out what Ford couldn’t? “Exclusive: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans amid fierce Chinese EV competition,” headlined Reuters on April 5.

However, on April 24 Yahoo Finance headlined, “Tesla stock surges as EV maker will ‘accelerate’ the launch of cheaper cars. Tesla had previously said it would focus on its robotaxi product after paring back plans for a lower-cost car.”

Who knows what’s going on with mercurial Tesla CEO Elon Musk? But I would never count him out.

So what about those cheap cars financed by communist China? In February, the Biden administration announced it would investigate Chinese “smart” cars, which like your cell phone—probably also made in China—scoop up increasing amounts of data about your life.

China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices,’' President Joe Biden said. “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.’’

On April 11, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) called for banning Chinese EVs as “an existential threat to the American auto industry. Ohio knows all too well how China illegally subsidizes its companies, putting our workers out of jobs and undermining entire industries, from steel to solar manufacturing. We cannot allow China to bring its government-backed cheating to the American auto industry.”

So far no action has been taken. But presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in March promised he would impose a 100 percent tariff on Chinese cars, EV or otherwise, built in Mexico.

No CO2 Threat

Meanwhile, the carbon monoxide emitted by gas and diesel engines is being shown not to cause global warming. Reported No Tricks Zone, “Three Polish physicists have focused their attention on this saturation principle as it applies to CO2 in three recently published papers (Kubicki et al., 2024, 2022, and 2020). Their latest (Kubicki et al., 2024), published in Applications in Engineering Science, summarizes the experimental evidence from their 2020 and 2022 publications substantiating the conclusion that ‘as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature.’

The authors are concerned about the recent push to rely on modeling and assumptions about CO2’s capacity to drive changes in global temperature rather than observational evidence. They point out the current CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob zeitgeist is no more than a hypothesis.”

The scientists themselves wrote: “This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact.”

As I have written several times in The Epoch Times, the CO2 from California vehicles is minuscule compared to the massive spewing from coal plants still being built in massive numbers in communist China. See from March 25, “‘Green Innovation’ Study Shows California CO2 Policies Mainly Help China.”

Conclusion: EV Mandates Are a Delusion

California’s 100 percent zero-emission vehicle mandate by 2035 is a tailpipe dream. It’s pushed by ambitious politicians like Mr. Newsom and financed by billionaire environmentalists like Bill Gates. It has no basis in reality.

At some point in a couple of years, a coalition will form to get rid of these mandates, as well as President Biden’s national goal of more than half of all vehicles sold being EVs by 2030. Auto dealers, especially in California, will work with automakers and the Democratic-aligned United Auto Workers union to push the mandates further into the future, say 2045. Later, the date will be pushed to 2055, and so on.

Mr. Newsom’s term as governor ends in January 2027. President Biden, if reelected, must leave in January 2029. California’s term limits also mandate a maximum of 12 years in the Legislature.

Today’s politicians will be gone soon enough, their green battery dreams wafted away like the thick exhaust from a classic 1957 Chevy.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com