MemberAugust 22, 2022 at 12:26 pm
The law as passed obviously disqualifies most production EVs because of the sourcing of battery materials. The provisions were most certainly essentially concessions to the fossil fuel industry which I can suppose, since these folks are ‘into’ extraction, opens the door for their further diversification.
It is obvious they have the political muscle in the current congress to make that happen.
I would posit, however, that the story of jobs and the economy and how addressing climate change through innovation is an essential element of the message that will determine the level of success of Aptera (and us stockholders).
So how do we craft a story – a vision of the future – that will resonate with the public?
Efficiency in accomplishing the task is the key but we all know that specifying and awarding vehicles in the market place by establishing efficiency standards, is essentially a fools errand. The EPA fuel economy standards are pretty much proof of the silliness of the effort, at least on the micro scale.
And EVs are different, as well.
I propose a simple idea that might work.
Folks are concerned about the political corruption likely in establishing the waivers to the battery composition provision of the law. The belief is that GM and Ford will get waivers on vehicles like pickup EVs and SUVs, many of which are priced at the top limit established for retail price. As we know from Tesla, the margins on at least their products are in the +25% range giving them the ability to lower the prices to hype sales – if they could get a waiver.
Further, the public is going to be quite irate if in 2023 no EV, foreign or domestic, qualifies for a the federal credit targeted for EVs. That simply tells me that, depending on the outcome of the fall elections, some kind of waiver to the chemical content of EV batteries will happen.
What I propose is that since any ‘standard’ needs to be pretty arbitrary, it seems feasible – as a regulatory option – to allow battery content waivers for vehicles with batteries no larger than 50kw.
The justification for this is during the transition to domestic/ally sourcing of the building blocks of batteries (including new chemistries) it is better to build three or four commuter-vehicles instead of one Hummer. Of course the Hummer doesn’t qualify for the rebate but neither would any Tesla and many other upscale vehicles.
Given the impact battery size has on range, this alteration would better distribute the collective resource of batteries including production to generally smaller, more efficient, vehicles.
With a limited maximum battery size we’d see legacy vehicles like the Leaf and other vehicles that average better than 3 miles per KWH with ranges from 150 miles to 400 in the case of Aptera. These are the vehicles we need to transition from ICE to EVs.
Further, by arbitrarily setting a maximum battery size to federal credits plus marketing is already oriented toward range, legacy manufacturers will seriously begin looking to improve their product’s operational efficiency.
But there is more to the story in regard to Aptera.
Unlike other manufacturers, Aptera has the possibility through its micro-assembly plants, to spread Aptera assembly into every state of the Union, bringing with that kind of expansion, a spreading of the knowledge, the benefits of right to repair and explosive innovation.
The other good news is that once the sourcing for battery chemistry conforms with the law, then vehicles with larger ‘complying’ batteries (within price points) would earn the federal EV credit.
It is all about how the essential waiver is defined and I can’t think of a better way to hype efficiency across the board except by an arbitrary battery limit.
- This discussion was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by bbelcamino.
MemberAugust 27, 2022 at 9:20 am
This is an American based company. Their battery technology is game changing for electric vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRIrfUmPnaI&t=245sttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRIrfUmPnaI&t=245s
MemberAugust 27, 2022 at 10:22 am
New technologies are claimed almost daily. Towards the end of the video the presenter claims that he is considering investing in. Strange comment to make…Put your money where your mouth is, otherwise why be so high on something you haven’t invested in?
MemberAugust 27, 2022 at 11:22 am
That gentleman is an Australian who does the podcast “Electric Viking”. I doubt he would give it a good review if he didn’t think the company deserved it. He has does many assessments of the quickly evolving battery technology field. The difference here, they are going into production. I am Canadian, so the “Buy American” mantra doesn’t have the same ring to it with me, or him.
MemberAugust 27, 2022 at 1:59 pm
I have seen him before and have enjoyed his programming. Maybe his approach should have been different? I understand being upfront and letting watchers know that his son is vested in the company. But then he gives an extremely positive review followed up by I may invest. This guy is in the know…why not pull the trigger?
MemberAugust 28, 2022 at 6:35 am
Have to agree with John Voles. New “Game changing” EV battery tech announcements are a dime a dozen. It is best to take the “I am from Missouri” approach. The claims are always great and all they need is a little more money to finish development and start production. It is useful only when it can be produced in quantity cheaply and proven in a real vehicle installation in actual driving conditions.
MemberAugust 28, 2022 at 11:02 am
If you watched the video you would know they are in production. Battery technology is evolving. Nothing wrong with pointing out some of it. I doubt Aptera plans to use the same battery technology forever. They strike me as a forward thinking company founded on innovation, not head in sand think.
MemberAugust 28, 2022 at 12:10 pm
While some of you suggest that “right to repair” is a meme; it actually will impact the future of Aptera sooner than most vehicles.
First, all the specs for Aptera’s battery would be more or less in the public domain under right to repair. To illustrate, consider the guy with a 3-D printing machine capable of printing a replacement “louvered” rear window 🙂 with the personal option to sell his handiwork.
The same will occur with batteries. How and Why?
Because how better to demonstrate your improved battery tech than to install it in the most efficient vehicle – I mean, what battery company would frown at a headline like, XYZbattco announced a replacement battery for the Aptera that has the weight of the 250 mile battery version but because of a ten-time increase in energy density, the Aptera now will travel 2,500 miles. The CEO of the company says that the leap in tech would make it possible for the 1000 mile Aptera to be so light, you would have to add ballast to the current model to maintain its handling.
Aptera is destined to be a test-bed for bringing new tech to the market because ‘right to repair’ opens the Aptera aftermarket to futuristic innovations.
What you and I can do to foster this future is to follow Aptera’s first principle of efficiency.
Only a selfish idiot would fail to grasp that given the climate, the world would be enormously better off if public policy really promoted efficiency in the manufacture and deployment of EVs in response to the crisis.
The understanding of the metrics, suggests the key point policy can manipulate through subsidies is battery size. Simply the world is better off with three 250 mile Aptera than one Model 3. The main understanding is that while range is a key component for EVs, it is a great comparison fact for consumers when judging which EV to buy.
Nothing in the law would limit the battery size in a vehicle but increasing subsidies for vehicles with batteries smaller than 30kw (more than adequate for most commutes with ranges in the low 100 miles) … You might have a second battery size tier that gets a smaller subsidy but somewhere over 50kw, you lose the subsidy. Pickup trucks and heavier-duty vehicles would have more generous battery size allowances for subsidy.
Manufacturers may respond by removing KWs from current batteries to gain the subsidy and they may offer ‘larger’ batteries in a replacement market. This would allow GM to sell a Cadillac SUV EV with a 30kw battery that will give the owner 70 miles of range that can be refitted to a 100 kw battery in the approved aftermarket. Still, if the Caddy SUV was a status symbol and the daily commute/errands require a range of only 30 miles, this EV fulfills the need.
Additionally, I suspect that another alternative would be the proliferation of stand-alone home battery storage that might just be designed for DC-DC charging meaning that extra 60 watt battery you would have put in your EV now is in your home providing off-grid utility with likely solar generation.
This is just a more elegant regulatory regime that does a pretty good job of putting the incentives in the right place.
For one, providing the greatest subsidies for EVs with <30 KW batteries will increase the number of vehicles being sold which is a better allocation of battery resources in general. The belief, in fact, is that it would ease tight battery supplies in the short term making production of vehicle types that need more massive storage to accomplish tasks, much easier to source.
Second, if range is the silver bullet, then setting a target size for batteries that earn the subsidy vs. those that don’t, means that engineering talent will quickly focus on efficiency. That is not a good thing; that is great thing!
The final thing is that while regulatory regimes are always arbitrary, the idea of a single focus on battery size and vehicle type is a clear rule that has pretty predictable implications. This compares with the ‘cut-off’ of the subsidy based on the MSRP of the vehicle… in a time of disrupted pricing markets (supply-restrained inflation) is a certainty.
These markets are in upheaval as folks are scrambling to meet essentially hyper-demand. Tight supplies means higher costs and given the world’s security situation, especially in regard to markets, we need to go all-in on efficiency, not only in operation of the vehicles but in devising a more elegant and societally beneficent allocation of this restricted resource within our free-market system.
MemberAugust 28, 2022 at 1:33 am
While I’m pleased to have started a topic that generated some comments, the commentary in today’s NYTimes on the societal (Climate) need to subside smaller batteries as suitable for immediate public investment was the point this article, as was my post.
This is a serious issue and opportunity because if national policy were to limit or expand the subsidies for vehicles with 30kw or smaller because its roughly 125 miles range is more than adequate for 95 percent of one’s personal transportation needs.
What I had hoped would resonate here is the understanding that if policy can be focused on batteries – which Congress has already done with their legislating chemistry – it becomes a lot easier task to reframe the issue on battery size, as Edward Niedermeyer, author of “Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors” and is a co-host of a podcast about the future of transportation demonstrates in his guest essay.
MemberAugust 28, 2022 at 12:20 pm
Canada would exclude the Aptera because it isn’t a 4 wheeler. Standards would have to change for EV grants.
To be eligible under the iZEV Program, a vehicle must:
- meet all of Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
- be meant for use on public streets, roads, and highways; and
- have at least four functioning wheels and be able to drive on a highway (in other words, not a low-speed vehicle)o be eligible under the iZEV Program, a vehicle must:
meet all of Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
be meant for use on public streets, roads, and highways; and
have at least four functioning wheels and be able to drive on a highway (in other words, not a low-speed vehicle)
MemberAugust 28, 2022 at 3:16 pm
Sorry but as written the new “inflation reduction bill” disqualifies 100% of all EVs from the rebates.
MemberAugust 28, 2022 at 4:10 pm
I wish you hated being wrong as much as being right. In case it I’m not clear enough for you, you’re wrong.