Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Company Could Get Into Energy Storage Business

[rmc523]

Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Company Could Get Into Energy Storage

 

While worldwide EV adoption hasn’t quite gone the way most expected it to, there are many other uses for batteries, as many are well aware. Many automakers have already gotten into the energy storage business, in fact, using giant piles of (in some cases, recycled automotive) batteries to power all sorts of things. The Blue Oval has already done this to provide power for at least one of its assembly plants, in fact, but Ford CEO Jim Farley recently revealed that the company may be exploring the idea of expanding its interests in that particular area moving forward.

“We could repurpose our facilities, take LFP technology, and make energy storage batteries – not just EV batteries,” the Ford CEO said during his appearance at the 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival recently. Ford doesn’t currently produce lithium-iron phosphate batteries, but will soon do so at the under-construction BlueOval Battery Park Michigan plant, which will begin building them using technology licensed from China-based CATL in 2026 – but not Chinese raw materials, at least.

With consumers and businesses looking more and more at energy storage solutions, such a move makes sense on Ford’s part. Many of these battery-based backups are used in the event that the power grid goes out – whether that be caused by weather, natural disasters, or just too much demand. Alternatively, many are using these types of systems, coupled with solar panels, as a way to reduce their power bills and reliance on the grid.

[fordmantpw]

To make solar and wind power truly viable solutions, you need a way to store that energy for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.  This is an excellent solution to that problem.  Whether it's cost effective, I don't know, but if there is low BEV demand, seems like it may be a reasonable option.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

To make solar and wind power truly viable solutions, you need a way to store that energy for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.  This is an excellent solution to that problem.  Whether it's cost effective, I don't know, but if there is low BEV demand, seems like it may be a reasonable option.

Seems to me that kinetic batteries would be better than chemical batteries (water or weights e.g.).

[fordmantpw]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Seems to me that kinetic batteries would be better than chemical batteries (water or weights e.g.).

 

Yes and no.  Each has it's pros and cons, but storing the energy in batteries is more efficient than converting it to mechanical energy and back to electricity.  Plus, there's maintenance on pumps, equipment for moving weights, etc.  I could be wrong too.  🤷‍♂️ I'm sure someone has crunched the numbers on this repeatedly. 

Edited July 10 by fordmantpw

[rmc523]

Sounds like a CYA plan for the plant if EV sales don't take off like they plan.

[Joe771476]

They should be getting into the transit bus, school bus (joint venture with Bluebird, since the first Bluebird bus was on a Ford chassis while International and Freightliner already have their own school bus  divisions), locomotive/railcar, farm tractor, Class 8 truck, construction equipment biz!  How do you like dem apples??!!

[bzcat]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

Seems to me that kinetic batteries would be better than chemical batteries (water or weights e.g.).

 

It depends...

 

If you do not factor in the environmental costs (building dams is not exactly easy on the environment), kinetic (gravity) storage can have lower costs and last longer and have better roundtrip efficiency than chemical (battery) storage. However, landforms that are ideal for gravity storage also tends to be environmentally sensitive. There is also a physical limitation... gravity storage releases its energy by applying mass x acceleration. And the acceleration is being motivated by gravity. You can create bigger mass but you are still limited to 1g of acceleration, at least on this earth. And of course there is a practical limit to the size of the mass: you can only build a dam so big or weights so heavy beyond a point it is not economical anymore. 

 

Battery capacity have become very cheap very fast (way faster than even the most rosy projections from 4 or 5 years ago) which is why gravity storage solutions have not taken more market shares. Much cheaper to just add more batteries to whatever storage needs you are trying to solve. 

 

Bottom line... battery = easier to scale

Edited July 10 by bzcat

[blazerdude20]

6 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Sounds like a CYA plan for the plant if EV sales don't take off like they plan.

Yes and no. Tesla has a fairly large commercial battery storage business going. It’s a steady industry in the sense that deals are longer term to completion versus auto peaks and valleys. 
 

For what it’s worth, Tesla has a 30 month backlog on their big battery division for customer orders. There is room for competition to speed that backlog up. 
 

There is also a growing market for giant battery buildings on campus for data centers. The operators are filling the batteries at night and depleting during the day to save electrical costs. 

Edited July 10 by blazerdude20

[akirby]

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

 

It depends...

 

If you do not factor in the environmental costs (building dams is not exactly easy on the environment), kinetic (gravity) storage can have lower costs and last longer and have better roundtrip efficiency than chemical (battery) storage. However, landforms that are ideal for gravity storage also tends to be environmentally sensitive. There is also a physical limitation... gravity storage releases its energy by applying mass x acceleration. And the acceleration is being motivated by gravity. You can create bigger mass but you are still limited to 1g of acceleration, at least on this earth. And of course there is a practical limit to the size of the mass: you can only build a dam so big or weights so heavy beyond a point it is not economical anymore. 

 

Battery capacity have become very cheap very fast (way faster than even the most rosy projections from 4 or 5 years ago) which is why gravity storage solutions have not taken more market shares. Much cheaper to just add more batteries to whatever storage needs you are trying to solve. 

 

Bottom line... battery = easier to scale

I was thinking more about environmental impacts and ease of manufacturing.  I realize there are other limitations.  The answer is likely a combination of kinetic and chemical batteries and renewable and nuclear energy.

[rmc523]

14 hours ago, blazerdude20 said:

Yes and no. Tesla has a fairly large commercial battery storage business going. It’s a steady industry in the sense that deals are longer term to completion versus auto peaks and valleys. 
 

For what it’s worth, Tesla has a 30 month backlog on their big battery division for customer orders. There is room for competition to speed that backlog up. 
 

There is also a growing market for giant battery buildings on campus for data centers. The operators are filling the batteries at night and depleting during the day to save electrical costs. 

 

I'm not saying there isn't a market.  My point is more that Ford is having to look at alternatives for the plant's battery capacity because EV demand isn't what they were projecting for construction.

[Flying68]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

I was thinking more about environmental impacts and ease of manufacturing.  I realize there are other limitations.  The answer is likely a combination of kinetic and chemical batteries and renewable and nuclear energy.

Too much efficiency loss in a mechanical storage solution.  Friction is a killer in mechanical systems.  Flywheels are great for high burst energy where the frictional losses are minimal compared to the output, but you could do the same with a large capacitor.  Water gravity storage has the problem of multiplied efficiency, you have losses in the pumping to elevation, and you have the losses in the return turbine generator.

[fordmantpw]

23 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I'm not saying there isn't a market.  My point is more that Ford is having to look at alternatives for the plant's battery capacity because EV demand isn't what they were projecting for construction.

 

 I wouldn't mind having a Ford branded battery in my RV to store the solar energy when we add solar to our fifth wheel in a few years.  Then I can put a "Powered by Ford" sticker on the side.  😄 

[rmc523]

30 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

 

 I wouldn't mind having a Ford branded battery in my RV to store the solar energy when we add solar to our fifth wheel in a few years.  Then I can put a "Powered by Ford" sticker on the side.  😄 

 

I noticed the other day that my dryer is powered by Ford 😛 

 

[bzcat]

16 hours ago, akirby said:

I was thinking more about environmental impacts and ease of manufacturing.  I realize there are other limitations.  The answer is likely a combination of kinetic and chemical batteries and renewable and nuclear energy.

 

All of the above approach is of course the right answer.

 

There is a lot of startups focused on compact nuclear reactors that is the size of a 40ft container. The idea is to provide grid resiliency and meet localized demand peaks instead of providing massive grid-level base load of traditional nuclear power plant. e.g. think about all those AI data centers in rural areas drawing 20 or 30x more power than the town it is in.

[bzcat]

2 hours ago, Flying68 said:

Too much efficiency loss in a mechanical storage solution.  Friction is a killer in mechanical systems.  Flywheels are great for high burst energy where the frictional losses are minimal compared to the output, but you could do the same with a large capacitor.  Water gravity storage has the problem of multiplied efficiency, you have losses in the pumping to elevation, and you have the losses in the return turbine generator.

 

Gravity and batteries are both around 80% roundtrip efficiency. The problem is batteries will degrade overtime while gravity like pump hydro will remain constant for the most part. So depending on your time horizon, gravity has many advantages. But the upfront investment is much higher than batteries. 

 

Basically, you can assume 50 year life on a dam and 10 or 15 year life on battery farm. But batteries are so cheap and building a dam or a gravity tower so expensive, that you can assume batteries will be completely replaced 3 or 4  times during that 50 years and it still comes out more cost efficient. On per kwh basis, batteries are hard to beat right now.