Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Taiwan's Foxconn Discussing Electric Vehicle Plant In Wisconsin (autoblog.com) 52

Posted by BeauHD from the don't-get-your-hopes-up dept.
Taiwan's Foxconn said on Friday it was in talks with the U.S. state of Wisconsin about building electric vehicles there, part of the major Apple supplier's push to diversify income streams. Autoblog reports: Foxconn and electric car manufacturer Fisker Inc said in May that they had finalized a vehicle-assembly deal. They did not identify a location, but Fisker's CEO said Foxconn's Wisconsin site was a possibility. In a statement, Foxconn said it had begun discussions with Wisconsin. "Foxconn has engaged the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to discuss the company's plans for electric vehicle manufacturing. Foxconn is optimistic about our partnership with WEDC and looks forward to ongoing discussions," it added.

In April, Foxconn drastically scaled back a planned $10 billion factory in Wisconsin, confirming its retreat from a project that former U.S. President Donald Trump once called "the eighth wonder of the world" and was supposed to build cutting-edge flat-panel display screens. A month earlier, Foxconn's chairman said it may make EVs at the Wisconsin site, though could decide on Mexico, and would make a decision this year. Foxconn aims to provide components or services to 10% of the world's EVs by 2025 to 2027, posing a threat to established automakers by allowing technology companies a shortcut to competing in the vehicle market.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Taiwan's Foxconn Discussing Electric Vehicle Plant In Wisconsin More

Taiwan's Foxconn Discussing Electric Vehicle Plant In Wisconsin

Comments Filter:

  • Fool me once, shame on me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Friday July 09, 2021 @06:25PM (#61567863)
    Fool me twice .. the get the hell out of here Foxconn!

  • Again?

    Why not have Foxconn post a 10 billion dollar bond, which could be forgiven over say, 20-30 years.

    • Why not have Foxconn post a 10 billion dollar bond

      Why not just ban sweetheart subsidies at the national level?

      Then the original deal that Foxconn welched on would have never happened.

      Instead, companies could pick the best location based on business needs and efficiency rather than handouts and tax breaks.

      • AMEN that is *so* true. (copied and pasted for my "comeback files")

      • Instead, companies could pick the best location based on business needs and efficiency rather than handouts and tax breaks.

        I'm pretty sure that "handouts and tax breaks" would be included under "business needs".

        States offer these tax breaks to entice a company to choose building in their state because they expect to make up for that in the long term with tax revenue later. I can't blame a state for offering these tax breaks, it is in their interests to offer them.

        There is an alternative to this I guess, just having generally lower tax rates than other states. That means no special deals to any company, just a consistently bus

        • I can't blame a state for offering these tax breaks, it is in their interests to offer them.

          No, you can, and you should blame the state for making such offers. The tax breaks rarely actually payoff, and is part of a race to the bottom towards poverty. Everyone else is left picking up the slack, while a wealthy company is just made wealthier.

          They should be outlawed.

          • They should be outlawed.

            We make that decision every election. It seems that people are not terribly opposed to these corporate tax breaks.

            If corporate tax breaks are making wealthy people more wealthy then I propose dispensing with all corporate tax breaks. No tax breaks for Foxconn. None for "big oil". None for "big media". None for "big tech". None for coal. No tax breaks for natural gas drilling or pipelines. No tax breaks for electric vehicle makers. None for solar PV makers or windmill factories.

            Oh, right. If we giv

        • I can't blame a state for offering these tax breaks, it is in their interests to offer them.

          The tax breaks and subsidies are a Prisoner's Dilemma.

          Each state feels compelled to offer them because other states offer them. But they would be collectively better off if no one offered them.

          It is a self-destructive race-to-the-bottom that is exactly why the Commerce Clause was added to the Constitution.

          Congress should ban these sweetheart deals. Everyone will be better off.

          • Congress should ban these sweetheart deals.

            Congress answers to the people. People don't like high taxes. Maybe voters studied the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

      • I'm inclined to agree with the idea of banning race-to-the-bottom subsidies. In addition to their obvious problems I think they result in taxes being pushed down in states who don't win or even participate in sweetheart deal competitions, if only because existing businesses ramp up the lobbying that they need lower taxes, too, to be competitive. And probably with follow-on effects of personal income and property taxes inching up to make up for the lost revenue.

        But all that being said, what if instead of b

  • Looks like... (Score:3)

    by Pollux ( 102520 ) <speter@[ ]ata.net.eg ['ted' in gap]> on Friday July 09, 2021 @06:34PM (#61567885) Journal

    Looks like Wisconsin has a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.

  • Foxconn should try a new state (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BLToday ( 1777712 ) on Friday July 09, 2021 @07:52PM (#61568081)

    Foxconn needs to try a different state to pull off this con again.

    Let's see:
    Arizona: nope, they got conned by Nikola already
    Nevada: nope, Faraday Future conned them
    Ohio: nope, Lordstown conned them

    Hmm, need state that's desperate enough to sign a bad deal. West Virginia?

  • I found electric vehicles fascinating. So fascinating that I volunteered to work on solar car competition while attending university. That was quite an education on solar power and electric vehicles. I learned that both solar power and electric vehicles are very bad ideas and we have better options.

    What's the goal? It seems people forget the point behind a battery electric vehicle that they focus on better ways to make a BEV than on better ways to reach the end goal. Is the goal a quieter car? It seem

    • I do wish that there was a requirement, or at least an option, for any down mod to come with a comment. What part of the parent post brought the moderation? Too long? Some claims made that are contradicting facts? Was it that opposing electric vehicle subsidies hurt your feelings?

      There is a global fascination with electric vehicles. This is driving politicians to subsidize electric vehicles, and to the point that it is discouraging any other option on lowering CO2 emissions from being developed.

      What is

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Cyberax ( 705495 )

        Too long?

        Too stupid.

        • Still not helpful in improving my content. Where did I go wrong? How can I do better?

          Here's an idea, in order to moderate a post up or down a reply MUST first be made to that post. And there must be a minimum word count.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Cyberax ( 705495 )
            Because this is just nonsense:

            Electric motors are great for high torque at low speeds but they'd do even better at this with a kind of diesel-electric system like that found in trains, newer ships, and many large land vehicles. More powerful magnets, better high power electronics, and other technologies developed over the years gives us the means to scale down a diesel-electric system from trains and battle tanks to something the size of a Honda Civic.

            Plug-in hybrids are the worst, they combine disadvantages of both BEVs and ICEs.

            What is driving this market for BEVs is mostly government subsidies.

            Tesla buyers don't get any subsidies. LEAF buyers don't get any subsidies.

            It's going to take a very long time to build enough BEV factories to meet global demand for new vehicles.

            Around 5-10 years.

            • Plug-in hybrids are the worst, they combine disadvantages of both BEVs and ICEs.

              Or, PHEVs combine the advantages of BEVs and ICEVs. The truth will be in the middle somewhere. There's more than one way to make a PHEV, and this means car makers can maximize the advantages, minimize the disadvantages, depending on the use patterns of the market each PHEV style is built to match.

              Tesla buyers don't get any subsidies. LEAF buyers don't get any subsidies.

              If the best selling BEVs are not subsidized then why do we need BEV subsidies? If your argument is that unsubsidized BEVs are selling well then the BEV subsidies have lost their purpose. The BEV made up about 2

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Cyberax ( 705495 )

                If the best selling BEVs are not subsidized then why do we need BEV subsidies?

                To jump-start the electric vehicle market.

                If you want to see an environmental disaster in the making then look at the mining needed for solar power.

                Boo! Scary! In reality, solar panel production is pretty clean. I have seen all the stages of it.

                You can claim the factories to make enough BEVs to meet demands can be made in under 10 years but to make that believable will take some explanation. Why build battery factories when we could be building fuel synthesis facilities?

                Dude, just go to university and learn some physics and chemistry please. Your proposed system would have something like 20% overall efficiency.

                • To jump-start the electric vehicle market.

                  It's started. If you keep "jump starting" it you will end up just breaking something.

                  Boo! Scary! In reality, solar panel production is pretty clean. I have seen all the stages of it.

                  That's nice. Now compare that to the other options. There's no debate that solar power is cleaner than coal. The question is how solar power compares to onshore wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission.

                  Dude, just go to university and learn some physics and chemistry please. Your proposed system would have something like 20% overall efficiency.

                  I have two engineering degrees, I learned plenty. One thing I learned is that solar power is a very shitty way to make electricity. It seems you need to learn some economics.

                  You are not paying attention. There is s

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by Cyberax ( 705495 )

                    It's started. If you keep "jump starting" it you will end up just breaking something.

                    And the subsidies are being phased out. They'll mostly disappear within the next several years.

                    That's nice. Now compare that to the other options. There's no debate that solar power is cleaner than coal. The question is how solar power compares to onshore wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission.

                    What "other options"? Nuclear can't be scaled right now for a plethora of reasons. Wind is about the same order of magnitude in mining impact. Hydro is mostly tapped out.

                    I have two engineering degrees

                    Time to mail them back to your university and apologize to them.

                    I learned plenty.

                    Doubt it.

                    One thing I learned is that solar power is a very shitty way to make electricity. It seems you need to learn some economics.

                    Right now LCOE for solar is around $25 per MWh. This is THE lowest cost across all the mainstream energy sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                    There is so much uranium and thorium in the ground that we'd produce more uranium and thorium than we'd need just from the tails of the mining for rare earth metals for making our electronics.

                    I have worked on nuclear p

                    • What "other options"? Nuclear can't be scaled right now for a plethora of reasons.

                      All of them political. A big change on that was made in the last election, I expect more political obstacles to be voted out in the next election.

                      Wind is about the same order of magnitude in mining impact.

                      I don't believe you. See figure 2, from the US DoE: https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]

                      Hydro is mostly tapped out.

                      True, but we can stop the political demands to tear out the hydro capacity we have. We can also add pumped hydro energy storage to existing dams.

                      Time to mail them back to your university and apologize to them.

                      I tried that, they told me I still had to pay for it.

                      Right now LCOE for solar is around $25 per MWh.

                      Right now solar power makes up a small fraction of the global energy supply. W

            • All BEV manufacturers get carbon credits, I think it comes out to around 10K/vehicle. Tesla and GM and maybe Nissan have all hit the retail 7500 rebate threshold so that is gone now for them. So your comment is technically correct, the buyer does not get a subsidy, the seller does however. Tesla sells their CC's to other manufacturers, with the old Fiat buying the most if I remember right.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Cyberax ( 705495 )

                All BEV manufacturers get carbon credits, I think it comes out to around 10K/vehicle.

                Not carbon, but emission credits that they sell to other automakers. Tesla got $520 million in the first quarter of 2021 from other automakers and with 200000 vehicles produced this works out to $2600 per vehicle.

                It varies a bit from quarter to quarter, but in general Tesla can be profitable without emission credits.

                • No they cannot. Look at their financials carefully. Profit has always been the CC payments. And in the past it has worked out to 10K/vehicle. I do wonder what they will do as other makers start producing EV's and do not need the credits from musk. But that could be awhile as the bar will keep going up for cc's. Has to. When a chevy spark can be had for 15k and the cheapest ev is 30+.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Cyberax ( 705495 )

                    No they cannot. Look at their financials carefully.

                    Tesla is investing like crazy. Their CapEx in Q1 2021 was $1.4B. If they slow down investment and just reap profits, then they'll be profitable without any credits whatsoever.

                    When a chevy spark can be had for 15k and the cheapest ev is 30+.

                    Chevy Spark also needs gasoline and it's also a Chevy Spark.

  • I was hoping for some interesting details in the article and comments, but all I see are bashing of corporations, government policies, and electric cars. Bummer. This is why I don't check /. so often. Non-authorities pushing industry propaganda in what has become an echo chamber, instead of an interesting discussion of the possibilities, and history of the 2 companies.
  • It's just a fucking mess that I didn't vote for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close