Georgia Is Shoveling Cash Into a Failing Electric Vehicle Company
In 2021, the state of Georgia made an expensive bet on an unproven company that could be headed for financial catastrophe.

In December 2021, electric vehicle maker Rivian announced that it would build a new factory in Social Circle, Georgia, about an hour east of Atlanta. Gov. Brian Kemp heralded the $5 billion facility as "the single-largest economic development project in state history." When completed, the facility was expected to stretch over nearly 20 million square feet on 2,000 acres, an amount of real estate one Georgia-based journalist described as "three times larger than Disneyland" and "four times larger than Vatican City," capable of producing 400,000 vehicles per year. By May 2022, the state had approved an economic development agreement that likely constituted the largest incentive package in state history, at $1.5 billion in tax credits and local incentives.
Rivian was an object of market hype: The company didn't just make electric vehicles, it made electric pickup trucks, as well as an SUV and a delivery van, from a single factory in Illinois. What Tesla had done for sedans, Rivian promised to do for the truck market, making electric trucks cool while mitigating climate change—and raking in revenue.
Investors wanted in. Following its founding in 2009, the company raised billions over multiple funding rounds, receiving more than $1.3 billion from Amazon for a 20 percent stake and an order for all-electric delivery vans. It also got $1.2 billion from Ford for 12 percent of the company and a joint development agreement. In November 2021, a month before the Georgia deal was announced, Rivian raised $12 billion through an initial public offering (IPO) that valued the company at over $85 billion—more, even, than legacy carmaker Ford. By subsidizing Rivian's new factory, Georgia was using state funds to jump on the Rivian bandwagon.
But as is often the case with hype-heavy startups, it wasn't at all clear that Rivian could deliver on its promises. Just weeks before the 2021 IPO, Rivian revealed in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it had produced only 56 of its R1T pickup trucks, and shipped just 42, mostly to its own employees.
With its $1.5 billion in subsidies and investments, Georgia was essentially acting as an early-stage investor in an unproven company, using taxpayer money in an attempt to attract jobs and economic growth that were far from guaranteed. In the years since, Rivian has failed to hit vehicle production targets, scaled back expectations, and lost billions of dollars, with no clear end in sight to the losses.
Georgia, in other words, committed to shelling out vast amounts of taxpayer money with little chance of seeing a meaningful return on investment. And a company with billions in the bank is getting a sweetheart deal despite concerns not only over whether it can make good on its boldest promises, but whether it can even survive.
State Government Spending Spree
The past few years have seen significant growth in the electric vehicle market. To meet rising demand, automakers embarked on a factory-building spree not seen in decades, with $33 billion pledged just between January and November 2022.
Eager to get in on that investment, many state governments petitioned the companies with incentives to encourage development in their respective states. In exchange for building a $3.5 billion factory in Ohio, the state offered Honda $150 million in taxpayer-funded incentives. Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler) got $186 million from the state of Indiana to build its battery manufacturing facility there instead of in Michigan.
Alongside such established firms, Rivian's ascent seemed unprecedented. Within a few short years, the company raked in billions of dollars in investment capital. Its November 2021 IPO was one of the most lucrative in recent history. Within a week of going public, it was the third-most-valuable automaker in the world—behind only Tesla and Toyota—despite having reported no revenue.
On the basis of those figures, Georgia offered Rivian an unprecedentedly generous incentive package. The economic development agreement authorized up to $1.5 billion in incentives, including state tax credits, development grants, and acquiring and clearing land for the factory.
Andrew Capezzuto, general counsel and chief administrative officer for the Georgia Department of Economic Development, tells Reason that the $1.5 billion number is an estimate of the total amount in incentives that the company will receive over 25 years. In exchange, Rivian has to meet certain performance metrics, creating 7,500 jobs and spending at least $5 billion on the project.
Georgia Has Cause for Concern
But Georgia's expectations are on shaky ground. When the deal was first announced in late 2021, Rivian had only recently begun producing and delivering vehicles. At the time, the company had a waitlist of more than 50,000 trucks and SUVs, which has since doubled. But the company missed its modest goal of producing 1,200 vehicles by the end of that year, ultimately producing 1,015 and only delivering 920. In 2022, Rivian planned to produce 50,000 vehicles, but after only producing 1,400 by March, it halved the goal to 25,000—which it still narrowly undershot.
Rivian is also burning through cash at an unsustainable rate. In its most recent quarter prior to the 2021 announcement, the company lost $1.2 billion; its 2021 losses would total $4.7 billion and it lost another $6.8 billion in 2022. Amazon, one of Rivian's earliest investors, paid $1.3 billion for a 20 percent stake, plus an exclusive contract for 100,000 all-electric delivery vans by 2025. The deal was later quietly amended to 100,000 vans by 2030.
In a 2021 SEC filing, Rivian warned that if Amazon "purchases significantly fewer vehicles than we currently anticipate or none at all, our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected." Rivian is now apparently trying to end the contract's exclusivity clause because Amazon is not buying vans quickly enough.
Rivian is worth considerably less now than when it agreed to build the Georgia factory. In the year following the IPO, Rivian's stock lost 80 percent of its value, making it 2022's worst-performing stock on the NASDAQ 100. Ford began liquidating its Rivian holdings as soon as its lockup period expired, ultimately selling 91 million of its initial 101.9 million shares by the end of 2022.
In sworn testimony regarding the state incentives, Capezzuto acknowledged the company's significant burn rate but contended that "they did an IPO in the fall of '21 and raised a tremendous amount of capital," an amount that would reach $18.1 billion.
By December 2022, however, just a year after its lucrative IPO, Rivian's cash on hand had fallen 36 percent, to $11.6 billion. In 2022, the company reported revenues of $1.7 billion but costs of $4.8 billion, "as a result of the increased production and delivery" of vehicles.
The company plans to produce 50,000 vehicles in 2023, twice as many as last year, but it has a history of missing its own goals. And in February 2023, it announced a recall of more than 12,000 vehicles. Meanwhile, Georgia is still shelling out tax money to help develop the factory.
Chasing Scale
Many growth-stage companies consume large amounts of capital as they try to scale up production on the way to profitability, and they either rely on bank loans or investors. But in Georgia, the state government acted as Rivian's investor, including issuing bonds to exempt the company from paying any state taxes on the project. Capezzuto stresses to Reason that neither the state nor Rivian is "going into debt to finance the project…the bonds here are a mechanism to accomplish a reduction, or an abatement, of taxes."
At its current burn rate, however, the company's very existence is still precarious. Without a significant increase in revenue, it will be out of money within two years. And its production plans are dependent on the Georgia facility. CEO RJ Scaringe told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "The future of our company in terms of scaling and growing really relies on the future of this project. There's not another option. We're not planning an alternative. This must work."
Yet the company has already pushed back the Georgia factory's timeline by years. Production was originally planned to begin in 2024, but in November 2022, the company announced that it would not be able to begin building its new crossover vehicle at the Georgia facility until 2026.
On its most recent earnings call, CFO Claire McDonough said, "We remain confident that our cash and cash equivalents can fund our operations through 2025."
If Rivian cannot outrun its money woes within the next couple of years, it may have to shut its doors. State officials say the economic development agreement was "one of the strongest the State has secured in terms of clawbacks," potentially allowing the state to recoup its incentives if Rivian severed the deal through bankruptcy or otherwise.
But even in that event, Georgia would still be on the hook for a 2,000-acre state-owned property containing a partially-built electric vehicle factory. Under the terms of the economic development agreement, the state still owns the land and leases it to Rivian. So if Rivian did find itself out of cash, it wouldn't even be able to sell off any Georgia property because the state would still own it.
For his part, Capezzuto tells Reason that he doesn't see that outcome as likely, and he expected the company would solve its cash flow problems as it ramped up delivery. He also defended the premise of state incentives themselves, saying that "without these incentives, there's almost certainty that Rivian would've gone elsewhere."
How Much Do Incentives Actually Incentivize?
Unfortunately, there's little evidence to show that targeted economic development incentives are a good deal for taxpayers and plenty of evidence that they aren't.
According to a 2019 research paper from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, "The weight of economic theory suggests that these subsidies do not work and may even depress economic activity."
Targeted subsidies create an unequal playing field in which state governments give privileges to certain companies over others. Georgia is exempting Rivian from state taxes and doling out hundreds of millions of dollars in freebies. Ultimately, the cost will be borne by Georgia taxpayers.
Perhaps the most prominent example of a targeted subsidy deal is Wisconsin's 2017 agreement with Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn. The state agreed to $3 billion in incentives over 15 years, and in exchange Foxconn would build a state-of-the-art manufacturing plant. But a study found that the taxes needed to offset the expenditure would cost the state $20 billion in economic growth over that same period. The deal later fell apart as Foxconn admitted the plant would create barely one-tenth of the number of jobs initially promised.
Capezzuto argues that without state incentives, Rivian would have gone elsewhere. But the Mercatus researchers found that "when it comes to facility location decisions, other factors such as labor costs, business logistics, and access to region-specific resources are often far more important," citing Amazon's then-recent decision to build its HQ2 locations in New York and Virginia, forgoing more generous offers from Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, and Texas. The authors quoted a review of 34 academic papers finding that subsidies "probably tip somewhere between 2 percent and 25 percent of incented firms toward making a decision favoring the location providing the incentives," meaning that the clear majority of companies will make a decision regardless of the incentives offered.
The Unforgiving Automotive Market
Even for more established players, success in the electric vehicle market is far from assured. Ford expects to lose $3 billion this year alone on its electric vehicle division. In October 2021, Tesla became the sixth company in U.S. history to reach a trillion-dollar valuation, but its stock price fell nearly two-thirds over the following year, losing almost $700 billion in value over 13 months; some analysts feel it's still overvalued. In contrast to Rivian, Tesla has more than 3 million cars on the road, registering nearly 485,000 new vehicles in 2022 alone in the U.S.
Rivian's situation is much less forgiving: If it doesn't stanch its losses soon, it could face insolvency. If so, Georgia, which chose to risk taxpayer money on an uncertain prospect, would be stuck with a factory built to a defunct company's specifications.
Rivian's defenders say this is just how business is done. "I'm not going to get into whether incentives are right or wrong," Capezzuto says. But, he adds, "The reality is that incentives are largely used as tools by states and communities to recruit businesses. There's almost an expectation by companies that they get some level of incentives, especially for projects of this size and magnitude."
But Rivian's ongoing financial and production struggles make clear how that expectation works in practice: State officials made a risky $1.5 billion bet with taxpayer money, and even that may not be enough to keep the company afloat.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who isn't shoveling cash into failing electric car companies?
Shoveling cash into failing electric car companies is the freedom we all enjoy together.
Easily start receiving more than $600 every single day from home in your part time. i made $18781 from this job in my spare time afte my college. easy to do job and its regular income are awesome. no skills needed to do this job all you need to know is how to copy and paste stuff online. join this today by follow details on this page.
.
.
Apply Now here►——————————➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
When the government passes laws to make you buy something, like California eliminating all gas vehicles replacing them with electric, it is usually to save the rich. They have invested heavily in electric cars hoping to cash in. But no one is buying or can even afford to buy an electric car. The rich will stand to lose once the stock hits the dust. So in comes the politicians (paid for of course), enacting new laws to force people to buy electric cars "so as to save the environment" but really so the rich don't lose their millions in bad bets. My mother who came from eastern Europe, said it was illegal to grow tobacco, but it was legal to smoke cigarettes. Guess who that law benefited. The same with Alcohol. Moonshine is Easy to make, but got to make sure the liquor industry keeps making its millions. By the way, Seagram pays no taxes.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> GOOGLE WORK
Who isn’t shoveling cash into failing electric car companies?
Tesla stockholders
I get paid between $145 and $395 an hour online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining it I easily made $23,000 with no online skills. Just try it on the companion page.
.
.
Apply Now Here----------->>https://salarycash710.blogspot.com/
I was surprised to see a few of these on the road lately.
Disclosure: I work for a manufacturing company that supplies parts to Rivian (and many of the major automakers). My company has done business with a number of iffy electric car startups and while I thought Rivian was cool concept*, I didn't think I'd ever even see one on the road.
*I became especially nervous when I read that Rivian was trying to add self-driving technology to their trucks. Advice to automotive startups: Unless your business is explicitly to create a self-driving car (good luck with that *snickers*) don't waste R&D dollars on that. Get your cars on the road by giving people the technology that's worked for almost two centuries.
I've seen a few on the road here (3-4), but this is Chicagoland, only a mere 1-1/2 to 2 hours away from where they're built in Normal. Rivian took over the former Diamond Star Motors plant from Mitsubishi when Mitsubishi decided to end production there in 2015. The plant was formerly a joint Mitsubishi-Chrysler endeavor, building the Mitsubishi Eclipse/Plymouth Lazer/Eagle Talon model to start. Rivian took over the plant in 2017.
There are tons here in Irvine, but their headquarters is also here. It is funny because whenever I am out and about and pop open my phone's bluetooth for some reason, I see "Rivian Tailgate Speakers" pop up.
*Connect to device, play porn audio at full blast*
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.netpayfast.com
I was surprised to see a few of these on the road lately.
I've seen one in the parking lot where I work, so someone has one. Now I'm gonna have to suppress my laughter even more every time I see it.
I see one, but I live in the Detroit area and I'm assuming it's an employee, either of Rivian or a supplier.
my neighbor has a Rivian pickup it's offensive by its very existence but I like the look ... Red Barchetta!
There are like 2-3 of them cruising around the neighborhood. Which makes 1-2 more than the number of Fisker Karmas I see cruising around near sunset like a modern, electric version of The Flying Dutchman.
I'm all "does it die if you put the dog in the bed?" he didn't think I was as funny as I do
Social Circle, Georgia.
Just down the road from Dogdick.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
But burning money on the green energy alter ensures a happy existence in the progressive afterlife.
They all want scale, but never seem to make money. I'm assuming scale means burning other people's money even more briskly.
Why is the government in the auto industry?
The real question.
Government/business partnerships are the best partnerships. You know who else was in favor of government/business partnerships?
Ja.
Si.
88
Critical infrastructure
Why is it in the mortgage business? Or the student loan business? Or the insurance business? Or the education business?
The description given is that the taxpayer pays nothing. Wait until those bonds fail. Then they pay and pay big Time.
These are government guaranteed bonds. They spend the money. If the Lessee fails then the people pay it all. This is insanity.
BTW most bond are issued not pre-build but post-build on anything like this and are based on the leasing of the property with a possible buy out after X years.
I think that governments look at a number of industries that have shown an historical ability to employ a lot of unskilled/semi-skilled workers and create a middle class, and the auto industry jumps toward the top of the list every time.
Detroit really was an amazing place before the Great Society and the Race Riots in the 60's.
Please educate yourself and watch this video
https://youtu.be/GrYRPLy6g2g
Thanks.
I hope you will understand better the race riots after that.
In which Elon Musk filets a BBC reporter who tries to shame him on the altar of misinformation and hate speech.
https://youtu.be/XqJKAnN0-gM
The interesting bit for me is when he claims to have personal knowledge of Twitter being filled with hate speech. When. Must challenges him to name some examples,. He backtracks to say that actually he doesn’t even use Twitter.
I found it interesting because I have been noticing that aspect of human nature a lot recently.People who actually believe things that they know are not true. This guy actually believes that he has personally experienced a rise in hate speech on Twitter, even though he also knows that it isn’t the case. And until Elon Musk challenges him to produce an example, he has not confronted these 2 ideas which are in conflict in his mind. It causes him extreme discomfort.
This is the cognitive dissonance we talk about. A beautiful example.
And what does he do? He quickly retreats from the conflict between what he believes and reality. Since continuing to examine this conflict will destroy a belief that he holds, he must stop. So he does.
He protects his irrational belief.
This is how politics works. This is why the control over what people see and hear is so important.
Scientific studies have shown that irrational beliefs are the hardest to change. If you came to an opinion via emotion rather than rational analysis, rational analysis does not work to change the belief. People will fight back just like this reporter did.
This explains Antifa. BLM. #resist. Trans women are women! Mostly peaceful.
That is the entire point of these emotional appeals and group identities. If you create a core belief via emotional appeal and repetition, it will be very difficult to change.
Now do conspiracy theories.
Are you being glib? Or do you fail to understand. Those *are* examples of conspiracy theories.
You could equally do ones for people steeped in 4chan echo chambers, but they are not relevant to the point. The point is, by controlling *all* the voices most people hear, you can develop widespread beliefs that are exceptionally difficult to change.
And this should lead you to consider two very important points.
The government is working very hard from behind the scenes to control everything you might see or hear.
And everyone in the press and in government freaked out at the thought of Twitter being run by someone who advocates free speech.
Makes me think about when I would listen to a lot of talk radio while commuting, and of some of the stupid shit people actually believed. For me it was entertainment. I can also tell you the day I stopped listening, which was when Trump won the party nomination. Suddenly he went from a flawed human being to an angel that could do no wrong. It was an ‘Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia’ moment. It was very clear that every single show host was a mouthpiece for the Republican party. They didn't even try to pretend. Stopped being entertaining and became stupid. I imagine if I listened again I’d hear a lot of the same nonsense I see presented as fact in these comments.
What kind of stupid shit did they believe? Two weeks to flatten the curve? Masks will protect you?
The vaccine is safe and effective?
There is no inflation?
The border is secure. Hunter’s laptop was Russian misinformation.
Trump is racist.
Biden is alive.
Michelle Obama is a woman.
I see sarc never came back.
It's past noon - knee-walking drunk by now.
They’re pumping his stomach by now.
LOL!
Drinking another fifth of rot gut liquor will make things better…..
The interesting bit for me is when he claims to have personal knowledge of Twitter being filled with hate speech. When. Must challenges him to name some examples,. He backtracks to say that actually he doesn’t even use Twitter.
Given that twitter is primarily used by journalists, this is kind of a true statement.
Scientific studies have shown that irrational beliefs are the hardest to change.
Peter Hitchens once said that it's very difficult to reason someone out of a belief they came to unreasonably.
It's cultish behavior. People in cults such as the People's Temple (Jonestown) tend to have unwavering faith in their leaders and hold beliefs that in conflict with reality.
- There's a dichotomy between "good" and "evil".
- There's a paradise of sorts for believers with a hell for unbelievers and heretics.
- There's all sorts of nonsense rules from what one should eat to what car one should drive.
- There are ways to be contrite and to sin.
- There are even venal and mortal sins at that.
Essentially, it is a substitute for other religions that the progressives have abandoned, but it did grow out of them.
"People who actually believe things that they know are not true."
Tony: 'Trump is the guilty of all sorts of crimes!'
So now you know why both tribes focus so much on culture war bullshit. It is so they can keep the public distracted arguing over topics that will never be resolved, like abortion or gun rights, while they do this bullshit economic subsidies nonsense while no one is paying attention to them on it. And if someone does manage to pipe up and say "hey, maybe you shouldn't be shoveling tax money to car companies for electric battery nonsense", they will just point and shout "Abortion! Guns! Racism! Socialism! Squirrel!" and everyone will be distracted again.
No, decent Americans are focused on the culture war because monstrous groomers like you make war on decent Americans and want to either murder, rape, or mutilate our children.
Another example where the profits would be individual but the losses are shared. Glad to see the Wisconsin Foxcon scheme was mentioned in the article. State officials eat up these chances for plants and the jobs that come with them. I support capitalism but capitalism mixed with government is often a failure. The black eye that schemes like this give to capitalism undermine the economic system and leave people looking for alternatives.
Maybe less government overall be a huge plus.
It is my default assumption in all such cases that the relevant politicians and other interested parties have been bribed until it can be proved otherwise. The cost of bribes is orders of magnitude less than the money granted, so it makes good business sense, and it's increasingly difficult to prove bribery thanks to Roberts' quid pro quo requirement.
Election campaigns aren't cheap.
Your mom is.
Rivian's defenders say this is just how business is done. "I'm not going to get into whether incentives are right or wrong," Capezzuto says. But, he adds, "The reality is that incentives are largely used as tools by states and communities to recruit businesses. There's almost an expectation by companies that they get some level of incentives, especially for projects of this size and magnitude."
Translation: Taxation and regulation have made starting a business so difficult that special favors from politicians are now required.
Special favors can be revoked too, say if you piss off the governor for example.
I have said this before, but Rivian is the direct consequence of the Fed's easy money policy for the past decade-plus.
Look at how Tesla started up, and then look at Rivian. Tesla began by using the money of a major investor, and small seed capital plays to perfect proofs of concept. They didn't build their own cars- for years they were retrofiting Lotus Exige roadsters. The only place you would see them is in Silicon Valley.
But after the Fed's post 2008 QE craziness, tons of money was dumped into these speculative startups. Why? Because there was no where else for companies like ford and amazon to put their money and make a return. Bonds had no yield, which pushed a lot of bond investments into Blue Chip stocks, reducing their yield. And so to beat inflation, you ultimately had to put money into absurd companies like Rivian.
And Rivian is absurd. You don't drive 100 miles to an off-roading destination and then climb mountains in a heavy electric vehicle. It is just not optimal. Electric cars are great in cities where regenerative breaking extends their range. On the highways, electric cars actually have reduced range, because they lack the gearing that traditional cars use to get better mileage at high speeds.
But even if Rivian was a promising business idea, easy money is distorting everything. This is why we have semiconductor shortages. Companies like Rivian getting billions of cheap dollars, and using it to build unproven products. Unlike Tesla, who built thousands of test vehicles before going big, Rivian is jumping into the market whole hog with factories on each coast and over-built trucks with all the bells and whistles- all before they've even proven that a market for off-road electrics exists.
Add onto that the corrupting power of these companies- diverting states and cities on wild goose chases for their production- and you see how it all starts with the Fiat money system and the Central bank. All of it.
How many people with off-road vehicles actually take the off-road?
*them*
But many of those vehicles are capable of it, even if never used for the purpose.
Depends. If it's an expensive Land Rover, or in that case, a Rivian truck, then very few. If it's a Jeep Wrangler, especially a Rubicon, then you might be surprised that it's far more common to take it off-road.
If you aren't offroading on it, then the rivian makes even less sense. Its short bed is too small to be used for construction. Having a whole camp kitchen in the extra bay is a bunch of weight you won't use.
I'm not saying that people won't buy it to look cool, and all that. I see waaaaaay more 4Runners running around here with those outback-style topper tents than there are campsites in the state. But at least with the 4Runner, if you wanted to go camping, it would work. Selling people something that works that they will never use is much different than selling something that doesn't work and they will never use.
You don’t drive 100 miles to an off-roading destination and then climb mountains in a heavy electric vehicle.
Nope, which is why I was surprised to see these on the road. Again, a cool concept, but if you follow any of the electric car business, electric is simply not "there" for offroading.
It would probably take someone much more versed in thermodynamics to explain to me, but driving an electric car on flat ground seems to be reaching parity with gas vehicles-- probably because of energy waste while sitting idling, coasting etc. But you need to tow something heavy, or drive up a steep hill where 100% of the energy is going into moving a very large, heavy object, and the viability of electric shrinks to nearly zero.
If Tesla ever delivers their cybertruck, this might change. It looks like it could tow a barn up a mountain.
It also looks like it was made of sheets of plywood.
Read an analysis of the truck a month or so ago; once you remove the battery weight from the legal maximum, there isn't a whole lot of capacity left for revenue-generating cargo.
I don't see how the cybertruck gets around this same limitation. You are taking a vehicle that is good and efficient in stop and go traffic in cities with a centralized powergrid to a rural highway with no stopping and going, and no centralized powergrid.
I don't see it either. Unless there's something ELSE going on with the Cybertruck, it's still a vehicle with a couple of thousand laptop batteries on the skateboard. Why the efficiency quotient would change here for the Cybertruck only, I know not.
I can understand why SEMI TRUCKS (not consumer-grade pickups) might benefit from electrical trucks. Unlike consumer cars that don't need a lot of torque at high speeds, semis need more torque throughout the travel cycle. That is why the US standard for Semis is a gas mileage of 7.2MPG (!!!).
I have not seen the numbers, but it is conceivable that at that mileage you get enough savings from the efficiency of these motors and regenerative breaking that you justify the cost of adding enough batteries to overcome the gap in energy density.
All that said, everything I have seen so far about electric semis the real world application is in intra-city distribution, not long cross country trips (though marketers love to depict that reality). Again, what does that mean: the truck is getting all sorts of efficiencies from regenerative breaking.
A _hybrid_ semi tractor might make sense, if the weight of the extra gear doesn't cut into the cargo capacity much. After 50 to 100 miles, the battery is drained and it's running as a diesel-electric drive, which isn't bad. This is so efficient at large sizes that it's almost the only thing running on non-electrified railroads, and it's also common in ships.
But a semi that has to find a place to recharge every 300 miles. Nope. And that's not even considering that you'll hardly ever find a fast charger sized for a semi. That's a huge electrical load, which generally will require running much larger wires or very high voltage all the way from a high-voltage trunk line.
Nor is it considering that changing to electric vehicles will require something like a 30% increase in power generation, but the same watermelons pushing for electric vehicles will not only sue every time a new power plant is proposed, they are shutting down _reliable_ power generation and replacing it (or not) with power sources that only work sometimes. Either they really think you can come home from work and plug your car in to charge overnight _from solar panels_, or they want you to not have a car that actually works. And either way, they must believe that food comes from grocery stores - or that they are an elite that will get an exemption for their gasoline cars and diesel food delivery trucks, while the hoi polloi starve.
There are several big things that impact electric. First, in cities, regenerative driving it huge. Most of your energy in a city is spent accelerating. So if you can recapture even a portion of that energy, you extend your range. Viewed that way, r-braking isn't so much "extending range" as "decreasing the loss of range."
In an ICE car, the energy consumption across the RPM band is variable. If you think about it, these engines are constantly WASTING energy. You need to burn the gas, or the engine stops. But if you burn gas, the engine turns, and it wants to spin the wheels at a given speed...which is bad if you are stopped or moving slower than the engine wants to go. Thus, gearing is the process by which you determine how much energy will be discarded and how much will be applied to use.
But in electric cars, there is no gearing. This is because the motor has pretty much the same efficiency throughout the whole rpm band. If you don't want to go faster, just don't apply the electricity. If you want to spend less electricity, push less weight or go slower. The problem for electrics is they are already really good at getting the use of the energy, but there just isn't as much energy density in a battery as there is in a tank of gas.
Again, electrics are pretty good around the city. They are poorly suited for rural applications.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Gearing doe not determine how much lower is “wasted”, it determines the necessary torque for a given situation.
Ever rode a a geared bike?
Yes, and torque is what is needed to actually move something. A motor/engine can have all the horsepower in the world, but if the torque is lackluster, it's going nowhere and pulling nothing. These electric vehicles have great horsepower, but they quickly drain their batteries when asked to really move something.
Electric motors actually have fantastic torque. And it is remarkably consistent across the motor's power-band- from 0 to 20,000 RPMs. Contrast that to most ICE engines that at low idle speed don't produce enough power to push the car (without stalling) unless in very low gear. But it takes energy to produce that torque, and batteries can only store so much energy. Fossil fuels, in general, store more- even after much of that energy is wasted through heat and power conversion.
"Gearing doe not determine how much lower is “wasted”, it determines the necessary torque for a given situation."
Oh for fucks sake. If I'm going 60 miles an hour and I want to pass the guy in front of me, I would LOVE to have the torque I get in first gear, so by your logic I should just shift into 1st gear, because the sole purpose of gearing is to "determine the necessary torque for a given situation" right?
"Ever rode a a geared bike?"
Yeah when you don't need power you can, you know, stop pedaling. In general that is impractical with an ICE.
I'm not denying that a primary use of gearing is to convert RPMs for power. The flip side of that equation is keeping the engine running at the most efficient RPMs for an ICE (so that it doesn't stall or overheat or fly apart). And when you are talking about the range of a vehicle (the purpose of this thread, you illiterate ass) gearing plays the primary role in that- a role that you don't need on electric motors.
You have no fvckin clue what you are talking about
“gearing is the process by which you determine how much energy will be discarded and how much will be applied to use.”
You wrote that - dumbass
And what I said is absolutely true. Guess what? Both these sentences are true:
"Moving the fulcrum on a lever is the process by which you determine how much force you will need to move your weight"
and
"Moving the fulcrum on a lever is the process by which you determine the distance your workload will move"
Simple machines! I mean, they are simple to most of us...but maybe you should go take some high school physics, kiddo and you'll figure out how that translates to gearing.
I’m an engineer you moron, an actual one. You do not ‘waste’ energy by gearing up or down, you optimize it. You can turn your bike pedal twice per wheel revolution when climbing uphill, overcoming gravity and friction, when it is too hard to turn it once per 5 revolutions like you do when gaining speed on a flat straightaway . You aren’t ‘wasting’ energy, you are best utilizing it for the required output ratio of the moment
And before you go googling for some khan academy videos, stop and ponder this:
What the fuck happened, Tulpa? You used to be the troll that pissed everyone off around here. Now all you can manage is embarrassing yourself in a pointless semantic display of your own physics ignorance. You used to be better (i.e. worse) than this.
How pathetic.
Who do I sue to get my time back that was wasted reading this ignorant drivel? It's like the author has no knowledge of business or industry whatsoever. One thing he does have though - extremist lack of integrity. Go ask any early Tesla shareholders how they feel about this dumb take. Oh they're probably too busy on their yachts or something to bother.
So because Tesla- a company that slowly entered the market through testing of retrofitted cars, and years of R&D- did well, every electric car company should also do well? You are an imbecile.
The Segway will revolutionize how we build our cities!
Um
Oh, yeah, there are always technology naysayers like you.
And FUSION!
And SELF-DRIVING CARS!
("Waymo says dense S.F. fog brought 5 vehicles to a halt on Balboa Terrace street" - https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/san-francisco-waymo-stopped-in-street-17890821.php#:~:text=Five%20self-driving%20vehicles%20blocked%20traffic%20early%20Tuesday%20morning,that%20draped%20the%20southwestern%20corner%20of%20the%20city.)
Foggy conditions prompted the software of multiple autonomous vehicles to stop on San Aleso Avenue in San Francisco early Tuesday morning, blocking traffic for several minutes.
This is the part of "autonomous" cars I don't get. They should be BETTER in fog than human drivers, because they should all be equipped with that Predator(tm) multi-spectrum vision thingy.
Unless they were programmed by Hellen Keller.
“Where’s my goddamn electric car Bruce?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raaTXyXXsDM
Can I sue you for your drivel?
And a company with billions in the bank is getting a sweetheart deal despite concerns not only over whether it can make good on its boldest promises, but whether it can even survive.
It depends on whether or not they've allocated 10% of those billions in the bank for the Big Guy. If they can prove their loyalty to the Party, they're good to go.
Check out the Russian asset over here.
ELECTRIC VEHICLES DO NOTHING TO HELP “CLIMATE CHANGE”.
They make more pollution during manufacturing than ICE vehicles do over their useful lifetime. And then there is the problem of generating the electricity
And the cobalt is mined by very poor people and kids under terrible conditions. Criminal.
You omit one very important point.
They weren't investing in an electric vehicle company. They were investing in a status symbol company. The return they expected on their investment had nothing to do with ANY kind production or financial success of electric vehicles.
But..... but.....it's other people's money!
This would be a much more compelling article if more details on the subsidies were provided. If the subsidies are mostly tax credits, then the state doesn’t start “shoveling money” until the business turns a profit and begins owing taxes, at which point it will be paying local employees and suppliers. As it is, the argument sounds no different to AOC’s whining about Amazon costing New Yorkers money as she repelled lots of high-paying jobs from her district. Targeted tax incentives are unfair, but any opportunity to demonstrate the benefit of lower taxes is welcome.
I don't know in this case, but property tax credits are a common thing
I too oppose subsidies for corporations[and not just corporations I disagree with, sports teams I root for]
However, calling Rivian 'failing' is a big stretch
Underperforming, probably
That level if biased rhetoric is simply not necessary to make your point
I’ve seen several Rivians around here-they are cool looking BUT will always be a toy for the rich, as will almost all EVs. Prices will never go down because there is a finite amount of rare earth and other metals for the batteries. The EV makers know this, but investors are easily duped by the feel-good factor of EVs.
The rest of us will just have to hang onto our ICE cars and trucks as more gas stations close and states eventually stop renewing non-EV registrations. Then, you can either move to a big city where you won’t be allowed, er, won’t need a car, or try to save up enough for a used EV and new battery.
The author makes several statements that are technically true but imply bias in intent.
For example, it’s certainly true that “Ultimately, the cost [of targeted subsidies] will be borne by Georgia taxpayers”. But the entire point of targeted subsidies is to enjoy the benefits of a successful business launch. Emphasizing the downsides while ignoring the upsides implies an agenda.
More telling, perhaps, is “[Tesla’s] stock price fell nearly two-thirds over the following year, losing almost $700 billion in value over 13 months; some analysts feel it’s still overvalued”. The problem with this statement is three-fold. First, it cherry-picks the range of Tesla’s highest and lowest values of the past few years. Then, it implies that the low value is the current value. Finally, it piles on with the infamous “some analysts say” canard that “it’s still overvslued”. Nice, except that Tesla stock is up over 80% in 2023 thus far! Shall I mention that “some analysts say” it could double again by year end? It all depends on the agenda, I suppose.
None of this is to insist that Georgia taxpayers will win this bet, but only to point out that they haven’t lost yet by any reasonable measure. Rivian owners love their new trucks from the reviews I’ve seen, a positive sign for a company in it for the long haul. Whether Rivian survives is still very debatable, of course. I just would prefer the author cover both sides of the debate.
What are the "upsides" of pouring money into a company that fails anyhow?
Now, if that money was removed from other harmful government programs, it would be an upside. But they won't do that. They'll complain about the tight money until either the legislature raises taxes, or Georgia somehow borrows money until bankrupt.
"Georgia was essentially acting as an early-stage investor in an unproven company, using taxpayer money in an attempt to attract jobs and economic growth that were far from guaranteed. "
Well, I can think of quite a few worse ways the state could have spent tax money...
I use Tire Agent for my tire needs and I must say, I was thoroughly impressed with the experience. From start to finish, the process was seamless and efficient. The website was easy to navigate and provided all the necessary information I needed to make an informed decision about which tires to purchase. Don't just take my word for it, check out their reviews on https://www.pissedconsumer.com/tire-agent/RT-F.html and see for yourself why they are the go-to source for all your tire needs. The quality of the tires themselves were top-notch and have greatly improved the performance of my vehicle. I couldn't be happier with my purchase and the overall experience with Tire Agent. I highly recommend Tire Agent to anyone in need of new tires. Their commitment to customer satisfaction is evident in every aspect of their business.