A real breakthrough would be if Apple could incorporate solar cells into the exterior body and the car is self charging.
A car like that will go in production soon: the German Sono Sion. Alas it is quite ugly and the range from the solar cells is only 21 miles, in ideal circumstances, they hope.
Yes, and that's why I speculate (wildly?) that Apple is going to replace the standard Lithium Batteries with Hydrogen Fuel Cells. In ten years it's expected by most pundits that 10% of the battery market will be hydrogen fuel cells. Who will be the first to do go there? Maybe Apple. This is truly "skating to where the puck will be."
....
Then, from out of the blue comes that old, broken down horse: natural gascharging the front runners as Amazon and UPS begin powering their trucks with it.
Amazon orders more than 1,000 natgas-powered engines for U.S. fleet
"heavy-duty trucks, ... account for more than 20% of the industry’s
greenhouse gas emissions even though they make up less than 5% of the
road fleet....
The engines, supplied by a joint venture between Cummins Inc and
Vancouver-based Westport Fuel Systems Inc, are to be used for Amazon’s
heavy duty trucks that run from warehouses to distribution centers. They
can operate on both renewable and non-renewable natural gas ....
Natural gas emits approximately 27% less carbon dioxide when burned compared with diesel fuel ....
In 2019, Amazon ordered 100,000 electric vans ....
In 2019, United Parcel Service Inc announced plans to buy more than
6,000 natural gas-powered trucks over three years and step up purchases
of renewable natural gas (RNG) as part of a $450 million investment to
reduce the environmental impact of its 123,000-vehicle fleet. ...."
Perhaps this is the same phenomena that has been decimating the coal fired power plants: Natural Gas is not only cleaner but cheaper and more available. The government never did and never needed to shut down those dirty old plants (as many claimed). All they had to do was step back and watch the massive amounts of cheap Natural Gas from fracking do it for them. It is making a great transition fuel.
Imagine trying to build a car but have to rely on somebody else to do it. The challenges with knowing what is going on and controlling things. All the levels of managers and their own ideas of what should be done. There was a recent article, I think about Hyundai, that said their execs are not sure about such a thing. After all, who could blame them, they have their own company with their own plans. Would it just be easier for Apple to build manufacturing plants from the ground up? I mean after all, it seems every quarterly and yearly financial report is another “record breaking” event and Apple seems to have boatloads of money. One of the real questions of course is who would buy an Apple car? just because Apple is great at selling hundreds of millions of iPhones , that does not mean those customers want or need an Apple car.
I would say a new phone with billion small components and new functions once a year is much harder to build than a car .And this car would be essentially controlled by an iPad. Sure initial logistics could be an issue and who says they won’t build a huge factory themselves a couple years down the road? Steve Job never made an Apple CPU like they are doing now right?
who will buy an Apple car? I would.Same people that would buy a Tesla or interested in an EV.
Why? I would buy it based on Apple Track record, everything they have made, from Phone to HomePod has been a great product , I expect the Apple car to be the same
No way I would buy a car from the "Siri" Company. I can't imagine having Siri running a Self Driving system.
Nobody truly has any idea what they have planned excepting those directly involved, but going into cars looks like a bag of hurt.
1- There is a vast amount of overcapacity in the car/truck business and many/most existing makers are the recipients of considerable subsidy or tax advantage in their home countries. Anything that impacts that is a political third rail. There will be a shakeout in the business, but governments will fight tooth and nail to keep incumbents in the game. Government Motors and Chrysler are US examples of that.
2- These days many carmakers outsource considerable portions of the design to component suppliers, giving guidance but letting them handle the guts of a door assembly or such things. I am not sure the anal retentive control freaks of Apple are willing to do that with the supplier firms and going it alone greatly complicates the process.
3- The manufacturing process and supply chain involved in making cars and trucks is not something an outsider just jumps into and does well. Tesla started with a legacy GM/Toyota plan in California, hired experienced Auto industry people and and still struggled mightily with production bottlenecks and quality.
The weak point among legacy manufacturers is software and user interface. That is where Apple has a natural competency and partnering with an existing player like Volkswagen would make sense. The new VW ID 3 and 4 are very well done but they are still working the kinks out of the software and responsiveness of the interface.
1. Last I heard there's demand for cars since people are vacating congested cities and realize that taking public transportation can be a death sentence.
2. Outsourcing of components (design and supply) is one area where Tesla is bucking the Trend. Some of this is because when they were young they couldn't get the Supplier agreements that they wanted. Keeping products in-house has allowed them to iterate their designs faster. Apple going with an established manufacturer would be a HUGE mistake. Just another sign that Bean-Counter Cook isn't serious about this. These deals seem to be driven more by Cook trying to make up for not buying Tesla when he could. (Thank God for that otherwise Tesla would probably be shrinking not growing now).
Apple needs to bring innovation to any car they manufacture. The most important elements of an EV car of the future will be the Battery system, the motors, and they autonomous driving hardware/software. Apple has to have a break through in at least one of these areas to make a splash with its car. A break through in Solid State Battery Manufacturing would allow Apple to compete with Tesla. Miniaturization of LIDAR and making it cheaper would also give Apple and advantage.
3. If Apple was serious about entering the Auto business they would set up their own Factory. Tesla has show it can be done in just a year or two. Contract manufacturing with an existing OEM will just limit their ability to grow. They will probably be dependent up the dealer networks and that is a big mistake. Maybe they should just buy an automobile manufacturer and drop existing products and dealers to start it over. VW has actually made progress towards the EV future. It would be stupid for them to get in bed with Apple.
The Japanese believe in H2, I don’t see a bright future fit them
That's Toyota. Not the "the Japanese" But, none of the Japanese auto companies are leading in EVs.
Hyundai, a Korean company, is also into H2 fuel cells. there is too much religious fever in future car power options these days. Most car companies not run by Californian hippies will happily sell you whatever car you want, with any engine enough of us want, within the confines of government regulation and subsidy.
Fuel cells are a valid option that solve the range anxiety and recharge time issues for EVs in a way that the incremental advances in battery tech within the limitations of metallurgy probably never will. Unless someone discovers vibranium I suppose. EVs for urban runabouts; fuel cells for long distance; ICE for heavy transport. And the boundaries between them quite blurred to reflect the myriad mix of use cases people have and the reality a family does not have a fleet of cars and must choose the one that fits most of their needs as flexibly as possible.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells vehicles won't be going anywhere except for a few commercial and industrial applications. There are very few Hydrogen fueling stations outside of California and the west coast. Real EVs can be recharged for much less at home. Toyota was (weakly) pushing this for almost a decade now they are trying to stay relevant by announcing a solid state battery breakthrough is coming. In two or three years Telsa will be producing 2 million EV cars annually, HFC will be no where.
Yes, and that's why I speculate (wildly?) that Apple is going to replace the standard Lithium Batteries with Hydrogen Fuel Cells. In ten years it's expected by most pundits that 10% of the battery market will be hydrogen fuel cells. Who will be the first to do go there? Maybe Apple. This is truly "skating to where the puck will be."
it takes the same amount of time to fuel up a hydrogen fuel cell car as it takes to fuel a gas powered car.
"hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it's an energy storage mechanism" which is exactly true for Lithium Batteries used by Tesla.
His main criticism was that using them was only 50% as efficient as Lithium batteries. Fair enough.
I agree that the time it takes to refuel a HFC is an advantage over batteries. Will be interesting to see if that's something consu,mers prefer over being able to recharge at home/work or while shopping.
If Apple is going to run their vehicles as a fleet of robo taxis then hydrogen could be a big advantage as their vehicles wouldn't need to be offline for as long to recharge.
As far as hydrogen being the cleaner fuel source the only difference is in the manufacturing of the batteries. Hydrogen can be (and usually is at the moment) generated from dirty electricity. Both Hydrogen and the electric grid have the potential to be run entirely on renewables in the future but neither of them are there yet. Stating that hydrogen can be generated more cleanly than the electric grid is not true. It's only environmental advantage is it doesn't require mining for materials like batteries.
Both batteries and HFC are great options provided the energy can be generated from renwables. It will be interesting to see which one is more popular with consumers.
Yes, and that's why I speculate (wildly?) that Apple is going to replace the standard Lithium Batteries with Hydrogen Fuel Cells. In ten years it's expected by most pundits that 10% of the battery market will be hydrogen fuel cells. Who will be the first to do go there? Maybe Apple. This is truly "skating to where the puck will be."
it takes the same amount of time to fuel up a hydrogen fuel cell car as it takes to fuel a gas powered car.
"hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it's an energy storage mechanism" which is exactly true for Lithium Batteries used by Tesla.
His main criticism was that using them was only 50% as efficient as Lithium batteries. Fair enough.
I agree that the time it takes to refuel a HFC is an advantage over batteries. Will be interesting to see if that's something consu,mers prefer over being able to recharge at home/work or while shopping.
If Apple is going to run their vehicles as a fleet of robo taxis then hydrogen could be a big advantage as their vehicles wouldn't need to be offline for as long to recharge.
As far as hydrogen being the cleaner fuel source the only difference is in the manufacturing of the batteries. Hydrogen can be (and usually is at the moment) generated from dirty electricity. Both Hydrogen and the electric grid have the potential to be run entirely on renewables in the future but neither of them are there yet. Stating that hydrogen can be generated more cleanly than the electric grid is not true. It's only environmental advantage is it doesn't require mining for materials like batteries.
Both batteries and HFC are great options provided the energy can be generated from renwables. It will be interesting to see which one is more popular with consumers.
But the U.S. already has 75 million charging stations where the car can be refueled overnight and be ready to go in the morning using the cheapest of (off peak) electricity.
Comments
Amazon orders more than 1,000 natgas-powered engines for U.S. fleet
2. Outsourcing of components (design and supply) is one area where Tesla is bucking the Trend. Some of this is because when they were young they couldn't get the Supplier agreements that they wanted. Keeping products in-house has allowed them to iterate their designs faster. Apple going with an established manufacturer would be a HUGE mistake. Just another sign that Bean-Counter Cook isn't serious about this. These deals seem to be driven more by Cook trying to make up for not buying Tesla when he could. (Thank God for that otherwise Tesla would probably be shrinking not growing now).
Apple needs to bring innovation to any car they manufacture. The most important elements of an EV car of the future will be the Battery system, the motors, and they autonomous driving hardware/software. Apple has to have a break through in at least one of these areas to make a splash with its car. A break through in Solid State Battery Manufacturing would allow Apple to compete with Tesla. Miniaturization of LIDAR and making it cheaper would also give Apple and advantage.
3. If Apple was serious about entering the Auto business they would set up their own Factory. Tesla has show it can be done in just a year or two. Contract manufacturing with an existing OEM will just limit their ability to grow. They will probably be dependent up the dealer networks and that is a big mistake. Maybe they should just buy an automobile manufacturer and drop existing products and dealers to start it over. VW has actually made progress towards the EV future. It would be stupid for them to get in bed with Apple.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells vehicles won't be going anywhere except for a few commercial and industrial applications. There are very few Hydrogen fueling stations outside of California and the west coast. Real EVs can be recharged for much less at home. Toyota was (weakly) pushing this for almost a decade now they are trying to stay relevant by announcing a solid state battery breakthrough is coming. In two or three years Telsa will be producing 2 million EV cars annually, HFC will be no where.
If Apple is going to run their vehicles as a fleet of robo taxis then hydrogen could be a big advantage as their vehicles wouldn't need to be offline for as long to recharge.
As far as hydrogen being the cleaner fuel source the only difference is in the manufacturing of the batteries. Hydrogen can be (and usually is at the moment) generated from dirty electricity. Both Hydrogen and the electric grid have the potential to be run entirely on renewables in the future but neither of them are there yet. Stating that hydrogen can be generated more cleanly than the electric grid is not true. It's only environmental advantage is it doesn't require mining for materials like batteries.
Both batteries and HFC are great options provided the energy can be generated from renwables. It will be interesting to see which one is more popular with consumers.
But the U.S. already has 75 million charging stations where the car can be refueled overnight and be ready to go in the morning using the cheapest of (off peak) electricity.